Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1037

User:Horse Eye Jack (misuse of Uw-nor4)

I am not sure why stating (an incontrovertible fact, which is) that the Holy See does not (strictly speaking) recognise Taiwan as an independent state is somehow OR on my part, and surely this is a gross misuse of the whole user warning system by placing a subst:Uw-nor4 straight onto my (IP's) User Talk page. [1] 194.207.146.167 (talk) 21:43, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Why didn't you just supplant Holy See with Vatican City throughout, though? Would that not have resolved matter. Yes, the uw-nor4 warning may not have been optimal (as in bitey), but it isn't really actionable. Only an admin can enforce warnings, anyway. El_C 22:00, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the first bit, just what were you on about?! 194.207.146.167 (talk) 22:15, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

This is a routine content dispute and not a matter for this noticeboard. Discuss the content issue at the article talk page, and if you think the other editor misused a template, discuss that calmly on their user talk page. Using terms like "incontrovertible" and "gross misuse" is a bit much under these circumstances. Getting emotional about such a minor matter is not productive. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:03, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, there was no discussion on his part! And, it still wouldn't justify an Uw-nor4! 194.207.146.167 (talk) 22:09, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

As Cullen said, you should have tried addressing that with Horse Eye Jack first, before submitting a report here. This is meant to be your last resort, not your first. Anyway, I suggest you just move on to the content dispute by engaging in discussion on the article talk page. El_C 22:21, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Regarding your now-deleted comment, were you also trying to suggest I was somehow vandalising articles? 194.207.146.167 (talk) 22:24, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I was not. El_C 22:27, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Just having a rant of your own then? 194.207.146.167 (talk) 22:30, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

You are outliving your welcome on this noticeboard, IP. El_C 22:33, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

The severity of the warning was due to similar behavior at Foreign relations of Taiwan and because they appear to have been warned many times about disruptive editing. Making grand statements about international law [2] without even a whiff of a source is definitely OR. Also the whole “incontrovertible fact” which the editor is basing their argument on does appear to be a matter of opinion and they do appear to be fundamentally mistaken about what happened in 2018 (File talk:Holy See relations.svg). Horse Eye Jack (talk) 23:24, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Edit-warring POV on EverQuote by IP pushing same POV since 2018

((moving report here from WP:AN, where I mistakenly posted it yesterday))

This person edits from a shifting IP address, but these recent edits[3][4] are likely from the same shifting-IP person [5] reported by @Ponyo: in the past.

If you semi-protect the article for a few weeks, the edit-warring on the article can be replaced by discussion on the talk page. I will notify the talk pages of those two IPs though I doubt the person in question will see my messages. HouseOfChange (talk) 04:10, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

The IP is back today inserting the same material with edit summary "WP:BRD is a guideline while WP:OWN is policy. Then on talk page argues that it doesn't matter what RS say because Online marketplace says something different. I don't want to revert his change a third time, but can somebody here take a look please? HouseOfChange (talk) 16:20, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Not an admin, but I reverted and chimed in on the talkpage; the edits are obviously in violation of what the sources clearly and explicitly state. Grandpallama (talk) 16:47, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

For any admins that want to look at this, disruptive editing by various Virginia-based IPs, likely the same person, focused on the removal of the term "marketplace" goes back to November 2018. Grandpallama (talk) 17:32, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks to Grandpallama for taking a look at this IP, who is probably also this IP and this IP. HouseOfChange (talk) 18:38, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

((restart indent)) the comedy continues at the article as IP makes same edit for 4th time. I just copy-pasted this entire discussion here from WP:AN, where I mistakenly had put it. Apologies!! @Grandpallama: thanks for trying to help. HouseOfChange (talk) 21:53, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

@Kuru:, Ponyo says you are the admin who dealt with this IP in 2018 incident re the same article. HouseOfChange (talk) 02:14, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

The page has been protected, but only for a week. Given the persistence of this IP, and the continued nonsense on the talkpage, I'd think another block of the range might be in order. Grandpallama (talk) 17:23, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

The article is protected but the trolling continues on Talk page, 9 from him since 10 p.m. last night, latest claim is "Hate to break it to you, but no one from WP:ANI is even paying attention," so we should change article to what he wants so that he will stop trolling. Please some admin...help if possible, or even just advice. HouseOfChange (talk) 17:41, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

You could probably put an end to the talk page trolling by opting not to respond further. It isn't as though the user keeps introducing substantially new insights that merit a response. Largoplazo (talk) 17:54, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Or I don't know, maybe you could give some consideration to improving the neutrality of the article by removing a claim that is only sourced from media outlets repeating the same promotional wording provided by the subject of the article? 2600:1003:B84D:C995:ADC2:271F:4A32:B3AB (talk) 18:44, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

If multiple bylined articles in RS use the word "marketplace" to describe a company's business model, that means multiple RS have vetted that metaphor used in company PR as an accurate shorthand to describe the company. Also, the article clearly describes (based on RS) how EverQuote connects insurance shoppers to multiple insurance vendors. (No insurance policies are displayed on wooden tables in a town square.) Also, the word "marketplace" is not a promotional term. HouseOfChange (talk) 19:30, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

You are putting way too much faith in the sources provided. None of them would have even mentioned the subject without a press release and they are just copying the company description from the press release without giving it a second thought. 2600:1003:B84D:C995:ADC2:271F:4A32:B3AB (talk) 21:36, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

This makes no sense. WP:RS is not over-ruled by vague guesses and claims that some reporters are lazy. HouseOfChange (talk) 21:11, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Why is it important to you that Everquote be described as a "marketplace" when "lead generator" [6] is a much more precise and accurate term for the service Everquote provides and that also appears in less potentially biased sources? 2600:1003:B84D:C995:F9C0:5EF4:6552:69A1 (talk) 04:56, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Even the one negative 2018 stock analysis you cite specifically describes EverQuote as "an insurance comparison website." From 2017 WSJ to 2020 Motley Fool 99.7% of news articles call it an "insurance marketplace." The Motley Fool piece, which ends by teasing 10 other stocks they like better than EverQuote, is hardly a reprint of anybody's press release. You are asking for Wikipedia's voice to contradict RS. IMO it shouldn't. HouseOfChange (talk) 12:02, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't see the S&P Global Market Intelligence article as "negative" analysis. It is objective and neutral. Also, if you read the article, the only time the author uses the word "marketplace", he clearly indicates that is how Everquote describes themselves and then goes on to provide his own professional analysis describing them as a "lead generator". You have repeatedly avoided answering why it is important to you that the word "marketplace" appear in the description. Could you answer that question please? 2600:1003:B84D:C995:391B:B754:5544:481B (talk) 15:11, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Sounds more like it's very important to you that the term not be included. Demanding others adhere to standards you do not isn't going to win any favors. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:05, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Quite the contrary. I am attempting dispute resolution and have called what I consider to be a misrepresentation of Everquote into question as well as the quality of the sources presented because I do not think that "marketplace" accurately describes their business model which consists of the collection and sale of personal information to third parties. I have clearly disclosed this. I have asked those who disagree with me to plainly explain why. Wikipedia policy does not require all information from reliable sources be repeated verbatim and encourages the removal of potentially inaccurate information if it cannot be sufficiently verified. So, just saying it is in RS, does not demand that it appear in the article, especially when the quality of the source is in question. 2600:1003:B84D:C995:391B:B754:5544:481B (talk) 17:21, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

(restart indent) Back in January 2019, you were trying to remove a different description (also from RS) "insurance matchmaker."[7] I am not in love with the word "marketplace" or the word "matchmaker," but I object to SPAs trying to use Wikipedia to "correct" what RS say -- in your case, to hide the fact that EverQuote is a (some metaphor here) where insurance seekers can get competitive quotes from multiple insurance providers who have in the past sold insurance to people like them. Also, I don't see how EverQuote could be a "lead generator" if insurance shoppers who went to EverQuote did not, in fact, get insurance quotes they liked enough to buy from one. HouseOfChange (talk) 17:32, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Why must any metaphor be used at all when there is a plain language alternative available to clearly describe what Everquote does? 2600:1003:B84D:C995:391B:B754:5544:481B (talk) 22:10, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

It is vague and inaccurate to hide from our readers the fact (however you express it, and RS say "marketplace") that insurance shoppers go to EverQuote to get connected to sellers of insurance. Most RS call it a "marketplace" first and many never bother to mention lead generation at all, because just about every website that asks you for information is ALSO making money from "lead generation." It is hard for me to understand that in a universe with Google, Facebook, and Amazon, you are so shocked and irate about a tiny Internet company few people have heard of that you need to spend two years trying to get Wikipedia to contradict the way RS describe it. HouseOfChange (talk) 00:59, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

That's just it. Calling Everquote a "lead generator" isn't hiding anything, but rather telling readers exactly how Everquote connects perspective buyers to prospective sellers. Amazon is accurately described as a marketplace. Facebook runs a marketplace amongst providing other services. Google is not a marketplace although they do provide Google shopping search services. The difference is that none of them sell personally identifying information under the guise of claiming to provide a different experience. I am not shocked or irate about this but according to the Better Business Bureau and other ratings/review websites which are not suitable sources for Wikipedia, many people (both perspective buyers and sellers) are irate with Everquote once they find out what really happens when someone requests a quote. Rather than focusing on those poorly sourced negative reports, I am only suggesting taking a more neutral approach of describing exactly what Everquote does, as reported in reliable sources, without using any colorful metaphors that may carry additional connotations and disguise what service Everquote offers. That is exactly what Wikipedia NPOV policies say must be done. 2600:1003:B84D:C995:391B:B754:5544:481B (talk) 01:46, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

It is already in the lead paragraph of the article that Everquote is "an online insurance marketplace and lead generation service." (By the way, "lead generation service" was your own choice of wording in early 2019.) The article already explains clearly "what really happens when someone requests a quote." People who are unhappy with "what really happens" complain to rating/review sites. People who are happy to get a bunch of quotes from different insurance companies buy insurance from one of them. According to one recent article, those insurance buyers saved money as well as time. Wikipedia need not reflect the POV of either the happy customers or the angry ones (presumably a smaller group, given the success of Everquote) but it should reflect its predominant description by reliable sources. If we want to describe "exactly what EverQuote does, as reported in reliable sources," removing accurate and well-attested material does not make things clearer for our readers. HouseOfChange (talk) 02:52, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

None of the sources provided define what a "marketplace" is or is not. The fact that you and I have different ideas about the possible definition or it's usage as a metaphor should be an indication that one is required and that the sources are lacking in that regard.2600:1003:B84D:C995:391B:B754:5544:481B (talk) 03:15, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Having read the talk page and looked at the edit history, I'll extend DeltaQuad's protection for a bit; there is no indication that this will go away. Drmies (talk) 03:21, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

With enormous thanks to Drmies, I think this problem has been solved now -- at least until May 2021. If somebody wants to close this discussion, I'm good with that. HouseOfChange (talk) 18:22, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

HouseOfChange, thanks but I'm only following DeltaQuad's lead. The question I have is at which point we block 2600:1003:b84d:c995:adc2:271f:4a32:b3ab/64, or 2601:5c2:200:46:c0b1:65b8:4759:7330/64. Drmies (talk) 00:12, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

@Drmies: You are welcome to block both plus the larger subnets they are part of if you think doing that will 'prevent' anything. 174.226.131.46 (talk) 00:08, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Eshaan11

• Eshaan11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Eshaan11 has a history of bad page moves (full log), some of which include:

• Deafblindness → Being Deaf And Blind
• Color photography → Colour Photography (they were warned about US/UK spelling stuff after this one)
• Color → Colour (Color)
• Kim Jong-un bibliography → Kim Jong-un biography (the article really was a bibliography, not a biography)
• Jay Sadguru Swami → Page deleted (and a couple others along with this, a misguided attempt to delete a page out of process (and permissions), causing a bit of a mess to clean up after)
• ABACABA pattern → Abacabadabacaba pattern (I gave them yet another warning after this one and asked that they use WP:RM for any further moves they wanted to perform due to the ongoing disruption)
• Fan labor → Fan labour (but just yesterday, this was done, another US to UK spelling one, no indication of the request to use WP:RM instead)

At the very least, I think a WP:TBAN from page moves is warranted at this point. There's been no indication from the user that they understand the issues involved. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:58, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

The deleted edits are not very promising. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:11, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I think we should create a new version of Wikipedia in British English at https://gb.wikipedia.org (mobile at https://gb.m.wikipedia.org) where people will read and write Wikipedia Articles in British English.Eshaan11 (talk) 14:33, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Eshaan11 Regardless of the merits of that idea (which I think is a poor idea, but that's for another place) you must follow guidelines on this version. 331dot (talk) 14:38, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

• There are serious WP:CIR issues here. "Available" is spelled "available" in every national variety of English of which I'm aware, and WP:SENTENCECASE is similarly not WP:ENGVAR-specific. I dislike being snarky but if a user is going to take a position of orthodoxy regarding particular spelling/grammar conventions, moving pages to "Page Not Availible" or "Being Deaf And Blind" (or referring to "Wikipedia Articles") doesn't bolster the cause. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 21:03, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

  Even before I got as far as the above post I was thinking CIR as well. Could be a young person. EEng 02:41, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Legal threat regarding libel at the BLP noticeboard

An ip address apparently representing Piers Robinson, a UK academic posted a complaint at the BLP noticeboard that the Wikipedia article about him was libellous, and stated that "Unless action is taken to resolve these defamatory claims, I will be forced to consult legal advice." Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:23, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

lblocked. El_C 16:36, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

WP:DOLT. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:47, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

WP:NLT: Users who make legal threats are typically blocked from editing while the threats are outstanding. I was recently criticized by several admins because of my tendency to apply uw-nlt to some legal threats, even blatant ones, rather than immediately block. And this is a blatant legal threat. The user can still address and query their talk page, if they so wish. El_C 20:08, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

To be clear, I have no criticism of El_C's block. But on the wider subject, and not in reply to El_C, instead of reaching for the block and telling people to send an email to a volunteer mailing list, it can sometimes be fruitful to look at the article. They have made their complaint, quite clearly and specifically. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:15, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, zzuuzz, I see now that I have misread the indent. El_C 20:17, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

El C, good block. Guy (help!) 23:11, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

• Per DOLT, has the issue actually been reviewed (obviously the block itself is fine)? Nosebagbear (talk) 08:13, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Block evasion

Piers has decided to re-activate his old account Piersgregoryrobinson to involve himself in the discussion on his talk page without retracting his legal threat he made as an IP user, can someone remind him that in order to participate he must first retract the legal threat? Hemiauchenia (talk) 10:03, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Legal threat has been retracted. Hemiauchenia (talk) 11:45, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Use of Biography of Living Persons Noticeboard for personal attacks.

Over at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Piers_Robinson, an article subject has posted concerns regarding the page about him. Hemiauchenia (talk · contribs) has used this as an excuse to criticize the BLP subject for having advocated (off-wiki, and not for wikipedia purposes) for a reference source that Wikipedia has decided is not fully up to its standards. This criticism is not relevant to the issue at hand. When he has had this pointed out to him by myself and by Zaereth that this is inappropriate and a BLP problem in itself, he has repeatedly restated the same attack. Not only would this ridiculous attempt to paint the subject badly be inappropriate anywhere here (Wikipedia standards apply to Wikipedia, and are not intended to be used to judge the world), but it is particularly heinous to stage a pointless attack on someone who was seeking our help and was already feeling damaged by Wikipedia.

I ask that the editor's comments be stricken (and am fine with the striking of my responses with them), and that at the very least they be warned about future such action. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:28, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

The user was not "seeking our help" they threatened legal action, which is a clear violation of the WP:No legal threats policy for which they were promptly blocked, so NatGertler's characterisation is disingenuous. I asked Nat Gertler to WP:drop the stick, and said in retrospect that I would not write the sentence again. I agreed with both Piers Robinsons issues with his article over at Talk:Piers Robinson, which I will quote: (For his occupation in the infobox being described as a consipracy theorist) "Even Alex Jones occupation is not described as a conspiracy theorist [in the article infobox], so it's probably not appropriate." "I don't think it's wise to make that leap [that he was fired for promoting conspiracy theories] . While he left the university after that controversy, theres no explicit evidence that this is the direct cause, which is crucial for BLP, even if inference suggests this is likely the case." In retrospect I might change "is likely" to "might be" if I had written the sentence again. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:41, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, asking for inappropriate material to be removed from one's page is seeking help, even if one includes threats of legal action if it is not done. You told me that I should WP:drop the stick because I was the only one who chimed in.... but when someone else chimed in to support my concerns, you didn't drop any stick yourself, but repeated your attack (at the same time that you were saying that you would not do it again.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:55, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I am well aware of your point of view that it was inappropriate. The reason I asked you to drop the stick is that I didn't think there was anything more productive to be said between us, you had made your opinion clear and I had mine, and it was necessary for other contributors to share their opinions. I responded to the other user because I felt that the person deserved an answer, which I had already given you. Piers Robinson isn't exactly some falsely accused angel either, he has suggested that COVID-19 is a biological weapon, which is described by The Times as a conspiracy theory so this claim is backed up by reliable sources. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:15, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Okay, so now you're using ANI to irrelevantly attack him as well. Got it. (Could we have some admin input please?) --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:52, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

The fact that no administrator has chimed in is because this isn't a serious incident, no defamatory statement was made. The administrators noticeboard is for "discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems.", which this is not. Ultimately I stated that I wouldn't have made the comment again and that should've been the end of it. I had cordial interactions with you editing the Alan J. Cooper page with BLP concerns, and it disappoints me that you are behaving like this. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:32, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

here's some of adminstrator JzG (Guy)'s input.

to be fair, he has been pushing conspiracy theories

the range of sources calling him a conspiracy theorist is pretty remarkable: it includes HuffPo, the Daily Mail, The Times, the Jewish Chronicle and more - a remarkably broad spectrum. Dissent from this can be found at the Daily Stormer and Sputnik. He wrote the cover blurb for David Ray Griffin's 9/11 Truther book, and defends it: "My position, as has been the case for some time, is that [conclusions detailed in 9/11 Unmasked] demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that significant parts of the official narrative are very likely to be incorrect."

the most likely explanation is that he's looking for a job or backers, and blames Wikipedia for the fact that the internet is... unflattering to his cherished beliefs. He's a regular on Sputnik and an outspoken pro-Russia / Assad pundit, so maybe he's in the same position as George Galloway, who is not seen as an honest broker when discussing these subjects. A good number of sources describe him as pro-Assad and pro-Russia. These are not fashionable positions right now.

Would you like to comment on this? Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:31, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

That has naught to do with your bizarre and inappropriate BPN discussion which was the issue that was brought here. --Nat Gertler (talk)

Of course it does, those comments are also arguably BLP violating, but go way further than mine did. But you'll hold your tongue because Guy's an admin. I think I am owed an apology. Hemiauchenia (talk) 10:10, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

So you think that because someone else did something you think is worse than what you did, that makes what you did okay? Wow. If you wish to make a case against Guy, feel free, I shall not stop you. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:19, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

References

I have added the BLP discretionary sanction to the article, which allows any admins to impose sanctions at their discretion. El_C 10:36, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

time for a break?

Some editors are struggling to edit properly on this article. In the section above, Nat Gertler highlights some actions by Hemiauchenia (talk · contribs) that need attention. I'd like to add the following edit for consideration: [8], wherein I am considered a "dumbass". I've been called worse, no big deal, except that I think it might be time for Hemiauchenia to take an enforced break. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:19, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

The fact that this has been on the noticeboard for nearly a week with no significant response shows that this isn't a serious issue. If you read my comments on the talk page you'll find my views on the topic to be more nuanced than simply removing the source. My response was for you telling me to "oh do knock it off -- you're not making any contribution to the talk page about this, and there's obviously no problem with WP:RS or WP:V" [9], which made no sense as I had not removed the passage previously and had extensively discussed the issue on the talk page, in fact I had earlier reinserted the statement after it was removed (In retrospect I think re-instating the passage was uncivil and a violation of BRD and ONUS). The edit summary arguing for me to knock it off was apparently confusing me with Kashmiri. I was annoyed with being confused with somebody else and said something which I am not proud of, and retract the "dumbass" remark, no hard feelings. Issues with the article are better discussed on the talk page, Kind regards. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:39, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia: If you were given complete and full editorial control of the article with no one else to respond to, what would you add or remove? It's not clear from your actions right now and I think it would help everyone if you made your opinions clear. jps (talk) 00:46, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Ufology sprawling edit war

I am bringing this edit war here because it has erupted across multiple articles and multiple editors are involved; it overwhelms the WP:AN/EW mechanism (as well as me).

The articles (that I know of) are:

• Ufology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• USS Nimitz UFO incident (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• USS Theodore Roosevelt UFO incidents (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Efforts on my part and others to defuse the Ufology situation failed, some warnings were issued on user and article talk pages (though not systematic, I am afraid), and the article was recently locked for a few days. But within hours of the lock expiring the warring restarted.

Involved editors, on one or more articles, and broadly in order of aggression and deafness, are:

• ජපස (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who also signs themself jps and claims to be a professional WP:EXPERT.
• Gtoffoletto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• LuckyLouie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Driverofknowledge (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) turns out to be a sock — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:56, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
• Roxy the dog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The issues are not as one might suppose straight believer vs skeptic but more nuanced PoV stances over things like the precise scope of the article and which aspects of scepticism to emphasise (The situation is not helped by RS which have internal inconsistencies). There is relatively little maliciousness here, just durn stubborn-ness on this particular topic. I'd like to suggest a lengthy topic ban on all ufology-related pages, failing that account blocks. Also a reversion to the last stable version of each article. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:11, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I object to any lengthy topic bans imposed on me. I have also been of the opinion that there might be a couple of socks in amongst us miscreants listed here. -Roxy the effin dog . wooF 12:25, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I have to say I feel all parties bare some blame here. So I would agree any sanction must be applied to all of them with out prejudice.Slatersteven (talk) 12:36, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I think we should add Steven to the group of miscreants, and apply some sanctions without prejudice to him. -Roxy the effin dog . wooF 12:39, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

What? When was the last time I edited that article? Talk about tit for tat.Slatersteven (talk) 12:41, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

In fact my biggest crime (and I am gonna do it again) is to ask for full page protection and a reset to before this kicked off.Slatersteven (talk) 12:43, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, you haven't been edit warring. Neither have I. -Roxy the effin dog . wooF 12:44, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

No in the sense of breaching 3RR no, but you have reverted back to a version that is contentious, that does not have consensus despite the fact the page had been locked over it. What did I do?Slatersteven (talk) 12:50, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Nonsense. -Roxy the effin dog . wooF 12:58, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

My apologies I was looking at this [[10]] which was of course before the page was reset, and looks like the current version that has been edit warred back in [[11]].Slatersteven (talk) 13:04, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Now what have I done?Slatersteven (talk) 13:05, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I mean...this reaction by Roxy is a disgrace. Steelpillow has attempted to mediate all the time and (although we have often disagreed) he is the only participant in this mess (besides me, but WP:MRDA) that has consistently attempted to de-escalate, compromise and contribute positively to discussion. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 13:07, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Involved comment: Thank you for opening this report Steelpillow. Your attempts at mediation have been very much appreciated. I am afraid this is beyond mediation though so I agree it was time to open a report (just look at the shameful attack by Roxy the dog above...what a disgrace).

I think the situation is untenable and denotes a systemic issue. I have been dedicating substantial time to editing those pages and the process has been extenuating. Never had anything similar in over 10 years of editing various wiki projects. I'm afraid dealing with the incessant warring requires an unjustifiable amount of time and patience. If I wasn't in quarantine those users would just degrade those articles unabated and no other users have the maniacal patience required to deal with them. At this point I'm only occasionally editing and most of the time pushing back against constantly unsourced WP:POVPUSHing with no respect for the WP:5P.

Those users are ජපස (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (mostly), Roxy the dog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (never edits and just reverts and attacks) and LuckyLouie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (much less aggressive and reasonable than the other two users). With constant threats of topic bans and admin reporting. Almost 90% of my edits is reverted by those users. That's when I start a discussion on the talk page and mayhem ensues. Sometimes a third party arrives and is able to bring the discussion back to reason. But usually the discussion is so sprawling and filled with WP:PA that no-one bothers with it. In the mean time the page remains defaced as I consciously try to avert more warring by waiting for more editors to step in.

Some of those user's ban logs prove they are serially unable to contribute to Wikipedia in a WP:CIVIL way. [Link to off-Wikipedia harassment of opponent removed. Gtoffoletto, have some sense, don't post links like that again. Bishonen | tålk 15:44, 10 May 2020 (UTC).]. This must stop.

There have been several recent ANI reports against those users: [12] [13]

I have raised those issues myself once already and asked for admin advice/help on how to handle this. I was blocked for WP:FORUMSHOPping and asked to never ask for help regarding those users again [14]. I've tried collaborating with those users but I believe it is impossible.

Honestly I could go on for hours as this is spectacularly widespread and documented but I think I've made my case. If more is needed just ask and I will provide it.

A couple more pages that show this unstoppable tendency to turn wikipedia into a WP:BATTLE (this list could be much longer):

• Luis Elizondo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• To the Stars (company) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Template:Ufo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This is a colossal waste of time and effort by multiple editors and is degrading the encyclopedia. The discussions are never regarding sources. This is always just a revert competition with no respect for others and guidelines at all. Some Admin must unfortunately take the time to review in depth this situation. It is the only way to fix this once and for all. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 13:07, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I see one editor was a sockpuppet. I would recommend using whatever tools admins have to verify all users in this discussion. Some of them have been accused of "sockpuppeteering" in the past and their alignment in space-time across wiki is highly suspect to me (just a hunch). -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 13:15, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Oppose SPI is not a fishing expedition, and while there may be an element of tag teaming it is only to the degree of users who agree on certain topics will tend to edit the same way (as Ironically me and guy are at the moment on certain topics).Slatersteven (talk) 13:19, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

@Gtoffoletto: Thank you for the additional page links. Unfortunately, being for the most part reasonable is no excuse for warring behaviour on the articles themselves. My suggestion of a temporary topic ban is so that you can cool down and reflect on that lesson, I have no wish to see you disappear. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:25, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

• The Nimitz and TR articles are very close to hoaxes. There were no "incidents", just three videos (called "Gimbal", "Go fast", and "FLIR") from airplane radars. The History channel got a hold of them in 2017 and made one of those stupid TV specials with retired pilots saying silly things like "There is no known aircraft that can stay aloft without generating a heat signature" (uhh it's called a helium balloon duh). The videos that purport to show "unexplained" phenomenon have all been very well explained years ago. Now that the Navy has "officially" released the videos in 2020, interest is renewed. This is a topic where we need to be careful to stick to real science sources and avoid pop science and primary sources. As it is now, these articles come dangerously close to perpetuating a hoax. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 15:08, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

• I agree with Levivich and am very tempted to topic ban Gtoffoletto from all UFO-related articles for persistent tendentious editing. AFAICS, jps is defending real science, while Roxy only seems marginally involved in these wars — not sure why he's listed above, unless I've missed something. Also, Gtoffoletto, linking to ANI reports on your opponents, and even to off-Wikipedia attacks on them (!), as you do above, does not show you in a shining light. Are you aware that anybody can open an ANI report? Everybody who edits controversial articles, and everybody who has been here a long time, is likely to have some ANI reports against them. Both the discussions of Roxy that you link to [15][16] were quickly closed without action, one of them with the comment that the report "was an astoundingly bad idea". Please don't poison the well with such stuff. It won't work. Bishonen | tålk 16:26, 10 May 2020 (UTC).

• Bishonen, regarding applying a topic ban to Gtoffoletto — I was thinking the same thing. Too much pro-WP:FRINGE promotion, to say the least. El_C 16:34, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
• I unfortunately must agree with El_C and Bishonen that a topic ban for Gtoffoletto from UFO topics, broadly construed, is likely in order. Such a topic ban would prevent both continued disruption on the listed pages and, if this "style" of editing was to continue, harsher sanctions. This editor has consistently displayed a clear pro-fringe WP:CPP, as mentioned elsewhere in this report a lack of WP:AGF, and it has all come with a strong dose of WP:BLUDGEON (for example, here). JoJo Anthrax (talk) 19:35, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
• A couple of hours ago I thought I'd edited here to agree that a topic ban for Gtoffoletto from UFO related topics is a good idea. Unfortunately something happened and all that I left was an edit summary (and I presume a space or it wouldn't have saved at all). Sorry about that. Doug Weller talk 19:50, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Are you suggesting possible paranormal or extraterrestrial activity may be at work? Maybe a government coverup? EEng 15:08, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

It's actually governmental activity and an extraterrestrial coverup. Or is that a distinction without a difference?) JoJo Anthrax (talk) 22:51, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

It's just as likely Government censorship abetted by extraterrestrial overlords. Has been occurring since Roswell. :>) Steve Quinn (talk) 21:23, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

• Levivich and others you are all invited to edit those pages. I understand some of you don't like those topics. But those pages are not my opinions. My opinions are irrelevant as well as yours. We only report sources. And I am very careful in my sourcing given the delicate topic. If you don't like what the sources say that's not my problem. I am not perfect and sometimes the sources I present are disputed. That's how wikipedia works. If the sources I use are not appropriate you are invited to dispute them in a civil way. Saying those pages are "hoaxes" is your opinion and that is also irrelevant to wikipedia. I have personally started and written most of the Theodore Roosevelt page. It has 29 reputable sources. Please tell me which of them are not appropriate for Wikipedia and I will be the one to remove it immediately. I also would like to ask what other editors that have participated in editing those pages think regarding the fact that the "blame" for this should be placed exclusively on me Steelpillow Slatersteven and others? -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 18:00, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

  Well, I never looked before, but now that I look and I see that both these articles have one editor as a primary author, it all makes more sense how we got here. I don't want to argue the content dispute at ANI, but, just as one example, the "GOFAST" video mentioned in USS Theodore Roosevelt UFO incidents shows a helium weather balloon. One can use the information on the video (altitude, airspeed, etc.), and do some basic trigonometry, and determine that the object on the video, despite the name "GOFAST", is actually moving at wind speed (20-40 knots), and the only reason it appears to go fast is because of parallax effect. Yet, in our article, none of this is mentioned. The words "balloon" and "parallax" aren't even in the article. The articles present the controversy without at all presenting the explanation, making it seem like these are UFOs, when they're not.

  Here are some sources explaining these three videos: [17] [18] [19] [20]

  These two articles should be merged into one, because they are not reported in RSes as two separate incidents; rather, RSes cover the three videos as one topic. I have no idea what we should name that one article ("Pentagon UFO videos"?). Then they need to be rewritten to remove all of the primary sources and all of the "so-and-so speculated that..." speculation reported in the popular press. And the debunking content needs to be added in. All of that is content dispute stuff to be discussed elsewhere. I will go tag the articles and start a talk page discussion. I'll leave the conduct issues to others to discuss. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:32, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

  Update: I've tagged both articles {{fringe}} and {{merge}} and started a discussion at Talk:USS Theodore Roosevelt UFO incidents#Combine and rewrite to avoid fringe. Also, I find comments like "I understand some of you don't like those topics." and "You are making uninformed comments on this whole fiasco" un-collegial; we shouldn't speculate on other editor's motivations or knowledge. Focus on edits not editors and all that. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 19:00, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Neither "side" had (to my mind) adhered to policy and both sides have edit warred. I was not aware wP:fringe was a justification for edit warring, but nor is wp:npov (which also does not trump fringe, but then fringe does not trump it). This is a case of too may people thinking their view is the only right view. As to mergers and content discussion, this is not the place for that.Slatersteven (talk) 18:37, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Slatersteven that we should not be taking sides in a content dispute. Being right does not justify edit warring. Check out the many edits and associated discussions and you will see that ජපස has been blatantly pushing their own particular skeptical PoV on the grounds that they are an WP:EXPERT, for example writing"Speaking as someone who professionally studies UFOs and is not a ufologist", while simultaneously trying to impose overly-pedantic and faintly tortured content such as qualifying "Ufology (/juːˈfɒlədʒi/) is the investigation of unidentified flying objects (UFOs)" with "...by people who believe they are worthy of study" and then trying to stick with it in the face of a clear consensus against, as in this example restoration. So please let's not go demonising or exonerating editors based on their content PoV but judge them all equally on their editorial behaviour. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:43, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Edit conflict: @Levivich: You are making uninformed comments on this whole fiasco. It's a complicated situation that requires careful review of what happened and no gut reactions. I'm sorry but hasty comments like yours without reviewing the material fully are not helpful and may be used to distort this process.

In any case, this is not the place to discuss the article content. I welcome your sources (CNET is not much of a source but it's fine) and would gladly add them to the article. However please do not include your original research but only statements supported by sources. I also think GOFAST could be the first of the three videos to be explained. But that's irrelevant. That's how wikipedia works. Sources. Not original research. I'm glad you want to participate in editing this. I've been trying to "recruit" more editors for months. See you on the article page! -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 18:50, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Gtoffoletto, you won't if you're topic banned, which is what I am weighing right now. Some of your responses above do not inspire confidence that you understand what the problem is — that you even understand that there is a problem. Which is not a good sign. El_C 19:51, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

This comment, I am very aware of Mick West's analysis and am talking with him on Metabunk on the flaws with his explanations. Please join us there if you are interested in the subject!, is concerning. Metabunk is a website where these videos have been analyzed/debunked, and Mick West is one of the leading debunkers, and is interviewed in each of the four sources I posted above. I'm not sure exactly why arguing with our sources' sources concerns me, but it just seems inappropriate for an editor to edit an article while simultaneously trying to influence the RSes that the article is based on. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 20:33, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

• Done. I have topic banned Gtoffoletto indefinitely from all pages and discussions related to UFOs and ufology, broadly construed, with an invitation to appeal the ban in three months' time. Bishonen | tålk 20:40, 10 May 2020 (UTC).

This is so profoundly wrong that I won't even appeal it. I'm abandoning Wikipedia indefinitely. I have lost faith in the project. No wonder the number of users is constantly declining. What an utter disappointment. This Kangaroo court is a disgrace. I will wear this ban as a badge of honour. Goodbye. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 20:47, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I have edited my page with a full statement and placed this ban as the first item. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 21:07, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Best of luck in your future endeavors. Dumuzid (talk) 21:09, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

@Dumuzid: Thanks! -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 08:20, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks Bishonen. I'm glad to have missed this but FWIW I endorse that action. Johnuniq (talk) 00:01, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

So, the consensus here seems to be that we have eliminated the fringe pushing lunatic (me) with an indefinite topic ban, while the other poor victims were "just defending science", are totally absolved and deserve another barnstar. Quite a stark difference from what the users actually participating on those pages (Steelpillow,Slatersteven) have proposed and the original report. I'd like some direct comments confirming this by the admins involved (or others?) if possible: Bishonen, El C, Johnuniq, Doug Weller to have this very clearly on the record. The other users reported are among the most active on Wikipedia in the world (source) while I am just an occasional editor. This makes me irrelevant while their actions have long-term and significant impacts on the entire project. Thanks. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 08:20, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

@Gtoffoletto: this ban is not about consensus. The sanction I placed was my own decision per the discretionary sanctions for pseudoscience that you were alerted to in February.[21] You may want to reread the alert, where it is explained that "Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic." They're called discretionary because any administrator may impose them at their sole discretion. That's what I did, impose your topic ban at my discretion, not per consensus here on ANI. (If consensus had been in question, it would have been a "community sanction" instead of an ArbCom discretionary sanction, and I would have waited for a stronger and clearer consensus — for instance, waited for El C to speak more strongly.) I was indeed encouraged to see El C, Doug Weller, JoJo Anthrax, and Johnuniq agreeing with me and adding their own points (that's three admins and an experienced editor). I'm a little surprised to see you imply that I should have paid more heed to editors involved on the UFO pages (Steelpillow and Slatersteven) than to uninvolved admins/editors. Usually, at ANI, uninvolved experienced users who cast a critical eye on the situation are of more help than are the involved editors who continue their original dispute. The purpose of bringing a dispute to ANI would normally be precisely to get the benefit of those uninvolved critical eyes — not so much to see a continuation of article talkpage disagreements.

I'm very sorry the ban has upset and hurt you, Gtoffoletto. Of course I'm not surprised — it's very natural. :-( But I felt I should do it nevertheless, to protect article quality and to protect the time and patience of some of our most experienced editors. That time and patience is IMO Wikipedia's most precious resource, and I've seen too many editors burn out and leave when it runs out. Bishonen | tålk 09:18, 11 May 2020 (UTC).

@Bishonen: thank you for clearing up the type of ban and for expressing your sympathy. It gives me hope for your future work on Wikipedia.

In this case my opinion is your suggestion and application of asymmetrical punishment construes a grave injustice and reflects poorly on your judgement as an admin.

While my opinion is easily discredited by the fact that I am the interested party I would point out that the complete lack of discussion regarding the other users' behaviour (despite the report being primarily about them - as evident by the fact that I am but one in a list of users and not the first in order) while not unexpected (quite the opposite given past events) is reason for concern.

Although consensus was not needed you have clearly received it by several other admins and I respect that (consensus is a terrible way of handling justice. Bias is inevitable, this is why effective judicial systems have removed or abolished Jury trial, but I digress). So I would like those Admins that have expressed their opinions to state clearly and for the record that they believe the other users should not be treated equally as me and that their behaviour is above reproach.

Also: your reconstruction of Slatersteven and Steelpillow's involvement in the discussions is incorrect and shows your continued misunderstanding of the facts at hand. Of course they shouldn't be the judges here. But they are primary witnesses in a complicated matter and for the most part have just observed the mayhem unleashed by the users, so they are as neutral an observer as we can expect here. They are also very experienced editors (they also appear on the list of most edits in the history of Wiki).

I believe you didn't take the time to review this case appropriately, as I was afraid would have happened when I asked an admin to take the time to review in depth this situation. This story with me has been going on for months (as you and others know) but those behaviours have been documented for years. Those users are not rookies that make naive and obvious mistakes. They are very prominent and experienced users that know very well how to disguise their edit warring and POV pushing behaviour. I know you are well aware of their ban logs as some of those blocks were made/removed by you. This required a thorough review and a cool headed decision. Not a hasty and partisan judgement by admins that clearly like and support their friends.

Your statement protect the time and patience of some of our most experienced editors is exactly the issue here and the reason I have now lost faith in the long term prospects of Wikipedia. It goes against Wikipedia's foundational philosophy in such an astonishing way I wonder how an admin could ever say something of the sort. It should exactly be the other way around. WP:NEWBIES should be awarded much more leeway than highly experienced editors and admins who have a responsibility to steer the project responsibly. This bias towards sanctions every time someone dares to raise an issue with an experienced users and their friends is worrisome. As I have reported, several AN/I reports have been made about those users in the last period alone. They have all been quickly dismissed. I am sure dozens would emerge if not hundreds if we reviewed the archives. Those users are damaging the project and their unconditional defence without reviewing the facts by Wikipedia's admins is a disgrace and is causing long term harm. I've never been involved in Wikipedia's conflict resolution before (in over 10 years). I hope this is an isolated case or no wonder the number of editors is declining and the project is dying.

As always: I don't care about myself. My ego is sufficiently huge already so I don't need to be right here. I have been trying to handle the abusive behaviours of those users as best I could. I have certainly made mistakes and accept it (I totally agree with the assessment by a user above that I tend to WP:BLUDGEON the process sometimes and this doesn't help). I make mistakes. Like everyone. I've wasted my time to argue with those users in an attempt to improve the encyclopedia. I tried everything. I asked for help and was reprimanded and blocked for it. Apparently I still failed. No big deal. But my involvement in Wikipedia is not about me. It is driven by my belief that this project can contribute positively to the world.

Allowing once again such active editors to continue their work unabated and emboldened by their clear support by so many admins will damage this project in the long term. Maybe it is already too late (I believe so unfortunately and hence my stament on my Wiki page). But we will see by the replies by the admins to this thread and their statements for the record regarding the other users. I hope I am wrong. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 10:40, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

P.s. on a final note: All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy, citing reliable, authoritative sources, especially when the topic is controversial or is about a living person. Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong on Wikipedia.. I remember a time when this pillar of Wikipedia was important. Apparently not so much anymore. Apparently it is fine for those users to just edit articles as they see fit with their insane opinions with no sourcing since they are "defending science". Whatever that means... science is not an opinion. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 10:48, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Gtoffoletto, if I thought it fitting, I would have topic banned you myself for the reasons I outlined above. But at the event, Bishonen used her discretion to do so immediately. I can't say I disagree with that decision, but myself, I would have waited for your reply to my comment — even if the likelihood for the needed introspection on your part seemed low, as it has been absent throughout this discussion. Which again, was not a good sign, I'm sorry to say. El_C 10:17, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

OK, Gtoffoletto. I've received e-mails pointing out that you are violating your topic ban by continuing to attack opponents here at ANI. They're not wrong, but I have felt, so far, that you're entitled to some venting after what must have been a shock (the topic ban). After your long post above, with further attacks, I think it needs to be enough, though. You are allowed to appeal your ban, and to ask questions about how to do that. Not to vent and go on the attack any more. I strongly advise you to post any requests or questions related to an appeal on your own page, as they don't really belong on ANI. Bishonen | tålk 11:53, 11 May 2020 (UTC).

I am not appealing the ban. I don't care that I am banned. My quarantine ends tomorrow and I don't have this much time to loose. I am proud of my work and think it is an incorrect assessment. I created one page on en.wiki USS Theodore Roosevelt UFO incidents. 70% was written by me [22] and it has resisted rigorous reviews by other users I assure you. I will watch the page and be curious of what changes will be made there in my absence. I will use that to learn how to improve my work but so far users have not edited it and the page has a B assessment. Apparently those contributions are to be avoided and are disruptive: so be it.

But this discussion is now not about any of my work. I am not editing any page regarding the topic ban you have just imposed. I have no idea of who you are personally in contact with via email but that is worrisome (why the secrecy?). Do not attempt to frame my comments as what they are not. I am requesting that this discussion is carried out as an equal investigation of the conduct of ALL USERS involved. Not just a witch hunt against me. The report states clearly that (emphasis mine):

Involved editors, on one or more articles, and broadly in order of aggression and deafness, are:

• ජපස (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who also signs themself jps and claims to be a professional WP:EXPERT.
• Gtoffoletto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• LuckyLouie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Roxy the dog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)}}

Since I am now topic banned and the other users have received no attention in this discussion (on the contrary: they were praised as defenders of science) I wish to have a clear statement by the admins involved that the behaviour of the other users is justified and encouraged. This report was not about me. So until that is done this judgement is incomplete and I will follow it closely. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 12:13, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

On the contrary, I suggest you step away from ANI and ignore it entirely. If you have no interest in appealing your topic ban, continued interaction here will likely be looked on as tendentious, and could result in a block. Also ANI looks into all participants, not just the ones being accused, so saying the report "wasn't about [you]" is irrelevant. Just walk away and leave it be. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:56, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

These must be some frustrating articles to work on, due in no small part to shoddy and sensationalist reporting, Times and Post in particular. Nimitz was listed on the fringe noticeboard four or five times, but it's really just a topic that WP is not going to be able to cover well. Something to keep in mind if handing out sanctions. fiveby(zero) 14:07, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Ufology proposal

As this is 6 of one half a dozen of the other I suggest setting the page back to this [[23]] (and resetting back to pre-edit war days on the other affected articles), No edits without consensus (on all the affected pages), and a firm warning to all users to play nice in the topic area. I am not sure I would want to see anything more right now.Slatersteven (talk) 13:24, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

This was tried and Ufology locked for a period. It failed. Why would it work better this time? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:26, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I did not say locked I said No edits without consensus. It of course would also have to be enforced. No lock just a strict DS which means if you do not get consensus you get a sanction.Slatersteven (talk) 13:29, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

It was reverted by the locking admin. See also clear warnings such as this. Nothing like that works on these guys, they just sneak back to whatever they convince themselves they can get away with. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:52, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

• Gtoffoletto, do not try to cast aspersions by linking to off-Wikipedia harassment of editors, such as you did here. I have removed it. If you do something like that again, you will be blocked. Bishonen | tålk 15:44, 10 May 2020 (UTC).

Bishonen I apologise I wasn't aware it was not appropriate to link to outside resources. Is there a relevant guideline regarding this? It didn't seem "harassment" to me and I found it curious that such a source existed regarding a user. In any case I am not casting any aspersions. I am directly stating that those editors are not constructive editors as I have stated above. I think their block logs and frequent AN/I reports are sufficient proof of long term disruption. But I am not the one that should judge this in a fair way. This is just my personal opinion from personally interacting with them for months. If this is what wikipedia is and the level of civility you accept then so be it. I disagree, but I will continue my work patiently and interface with them in accordance with my more stringent interpretation of the five pillars of wikipedia. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 18:00, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Frankly, Gtoffoletto, you've been here twelve years, IMO you should know better all by yourself. But if you need a special guideline for not bringing outside harassment into Wikipedia, you can read Wikipedia:Linking to external harassment. I'm going to charitably assume that when you call a blog devoted to attacking jps a "resource" [sic], it's because you were writing in a hurry and not weighing your words. Bishonen | tålk 19:15, 10 May 2020 (UTC).

@Bishonen:: the blog isn't "devoted to attacking jps". It's devoted to cold fusion http://coldfusioncommunity.net/about/ That's one article about him and I think it makes valid points and proves this user has been disruptive for a while. I didn't see any egregious attack or harassment but if you think otherwise the case is closed for me and I apologise. It was not my intention to publish harassment in any way. I will also read the guidelines you linked to educate myself better. Thanks -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 19:38, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

@Gtoffoletto: If you think that blog by Abd ulRahman Lomax is in any way trustworthy for documenting anything that might or might not have happened on or relating to Wikipedia, then your judgment is very very faulty. It's not really devoted to cold fusion at all, it's devoted to Lomax, and Lomax's claims should never be taken as trustworthy reliable, about anything. Oh, and the "Infusion Institute, Inc" is essentially just Lomax. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:36, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

@Gtoffoletto: I'm sorry, I misspoke. It's only the page you linked to that's devoted to attacking jps. Do you have any comment on having referred to it as a "resource" (and a "source", to boot)? Bishonen | tålk 21:00, 10 May 2020 (UTC).

The actual reason for the blog post was failure to promote fringe theories on Wikipedia, jps having been one of the editors in the way. This is unfortunately similar to the complaint posted on Gtoffoletto's user page about Wikipedia and its reputation. The policies are more to blame than the editors and that's not a bad thing: it's what permits Wikipedia to remain a credible source of information (which has often been praised, so not a threat to its reputation)... It is true that Wikipedia had a previous explosion, in users and articles and that more attention eventually shifted to quality when coverage existed in many areas. The bar is higher than in 2005 in relation to reliable sources and verifiability and coverage of biographies, politics and pseudoscience. In this case, from a WP:WIKIPROPHET POV, an eventual topic ban unfortunately seemed unevitable to me (a WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS attitude was obvious since the first WP:FTN noticeboard discussion and this persisted). Leaving Wikipedia for good in the face of the ban is your choice, but only asserts a disinterest in the encyclopedia in general (fine, but a topic ban at least preserves editing privileges to allow other opportunities; I've seen some edits in relation to the Covid crisis for instance). —PaleoNeonate – 12:50, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

@PaleoNeonate: thank you for your interest. I am extremely interested in seeing Wikipedia succeed. Or I wouldn't be participating in it and dedicating time and effort to it. However I don't think what I have witnessed here and in the last few months will lead to the long term success of this project. It will die off and only obsessive users like the ones reported above will contribute to the project with their unsourced opinions. It won't be an encyclopaedia for many by the many. And I am not interested in that. I won't be associated with whitewashed garbage and with a community that treats people without respect. I have observed admins do this and joke about it with their friends. And once that happens: the project is lost. You realise how many people have access to wikipedia and the internet nowadays compared to 2005? Global Internet usage. The fact user counts are stagnating is an obvious sign of failure and decline. I'm a management engineer and entrepreneur. I work with online services and startups. I read this data all day. This project is dying. I always wondered, but now I know why. I had never seen such a dark side of Wikipedia in over 10 years.

My edits are always thoroughly researched and sourced. I have NEVER in my Wikipedia history posted a single sentence that was unsupported by sources. I challenge anyone to dispute that. That is because I believe strongly in WP:RS and WP:NPOV. Sometimes those sources are disputed which is fine and the content is removed. Sometimes my summary of what the source says is disputed which is also fine and it is corrected. This is what wikipedia should be about. Not personal opinions or bullshit crusades by some users to promote their personal ideals whatever they may be and however widespread they may be. The introduction of special rules regarding WP:FRINGE is totally understandable. There is no official Wikipedia policy I am in disaccord with and that I don't strive to comply with. Or I would have proposed to change it. But the SAME STANDARDS must be applied to all. Sources are still needed and not opinions. Calling out FRINGE has become a trump card in all discussions to silence the other side and to justify any behaviour. This is madness and what the admins above are allowing with their actions.

Some users and admins are falsely depicting my editing style and beliefs in an attempt to protect their friends. This is also unacceptable to me. There is a lot of talk and little WP:DIFFing in this witch-hunt against me. I have consciously done all in my powers to prevent edit warring in the face of chronically disruptive and bullying editors. I started almost all the discussions on those pages as anyone can see. I don't believe sufficient proof has been presented that I should be topic banned apart from this confirmation bias by several users. But I don't care. I won't appeal. If my contributions are not valued and discounted so easily. If nobody defends my contributions. Then they have no value. I don't expect anyone to rush in my defence. But I would have preferred a fair trial. I don't think I got that. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 13:54, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

You have been topic banned from all pages and discussions related to UFOs. This discussion is related to UFOs. Please do not post here again. You will need to find another website to express your thoughts. Johnuniq (talk) 04:06, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

User Manifestation

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

---

Ok, for weeks now Manifestation has been arguing that several websites of Verywell should be removed from the spam blacklist because they were added for the wrong reason. They brought it first to the blacklist, were sent to RSN. I argued, with others, that we were not too sure it was spammed, maybe yes/maybe no, but do argue that it was likely not passing MEDRS. Manifestation agreed there that it was marginally reliable. Nonetheless, they returned to the blacklist here arguing that it should be delisted because it was wrongly blacklisted.

I argued again, that maybe it was not spammed, maybe it was, and since it is marginally reliable that I’d prefer that it goes through whitelisting to see it’s general use before we delist it completely (if it turns out of general use, noting that of the 2 previous requests 1 was (self-)granted and 1 declined as unreliable; and I am not sure if the granted one is exactly how we want to use the site).

Manifestation found it there necessary to throw ‘he is obviously lying’ in my direction, noting that he had enough and did not get their way. Time for some independent review. —Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:17, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi everyone. Verywell is a family of four websites, three of which are unjustly banned. I tried to get them removed from the blacklist, but no one listens to me. Short summary:

• 5 April: I create a thread about it here: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 292#Verywell. One user replies that Verywell has been blacklisted "[d]ue to persistent violations of WP:MEDRS", citing WP:RSPSOURCES. However, no proof is given for this statement (that bit has since been changed). I forgot about it afterwards.
• 28 April: Deciding to give it another shot, I made a thread at WP:RSN: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 292#Verywell. The thread is no success.
• 4 May: I was sent back to the spam-blacklist, so I made a third thread, here: MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#Verywell, 2. Again, the sites were not removed.

• I should note that I have never been involved with Wikipedia's spamlist, and only in this thread, I realised how LinkReports work. Turned out there are four of them:

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/verywell.com (domain now redirects to verywellhealth.com)
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/verywellhealth.com
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/verywellmind.com
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/verywellfamily.com

• The above LinkReports provide no evidence of spamming.

For the past few weeks, it feels like I've been talking to a brick wall, especially when it comes to User:Beetstra. Beetstra cherry picks the facts that support his opinion, stonewalls the debates, and twists around evidence to have it say something it doesn't say. He insists that Verywell has been spammed, but provides no evidence of it, planting huge walls of texts to drone the discussion out. It has been exhausting to deal with him, and I suspect this is exactly what he wants: wearing me out and even reporting me to ANI, hoping that I would drop the case. I think he *knows* that the sites were never spammed, but he says they were as an excuse to keep them banned, simply because he doesn't like these particular kind of popular press sources (e.g. Psychology Today, ScienceDaily, Men's Health, Woman's Day, etc).
The Verywell sites offer articles on a wide variety of topics, written in simple, plain English, aimed at a wide audience. It is obvious that Verywell will never be the best source ever, but the sites have many visitors, and the LinkReports show that many users (me included) have tried to use them as a source, but couldn't. The Verywell sites have review teams featuring board-certified physicians, and have been certified by the Health On the Net Foundation (see here: Verywell Health, Verywell Mind, Verywell Fit, Verywell Family). As a source, Verywell should never be used primarily, but it could be used as an ancillary reference. I have yet to be presented with a Verywell article that demonstrably contains lies. Cheers, Manifestation (talk) 08:33, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Manifestation, please stop misinterpreting my comments, and we are here for your blatant personal attack, not to rehash your hammering of the same comments over and over. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:51, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Beetstra, it is *you* who have been hammering your point, and I have certainly not misinterpreted anything. - Manifestation (talk) 08:57, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Manifestation, can you give me a diff where I insist that the site was spammed, and can you show that I am the only one with that opinion? Can you show me a diff where I express that I do not like these sites? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:01, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Beetstra, when I first brought this to the RS Noticeboard, you literally told me "this was blacklisted because it was spammed". You also cited copyvios (copy-paste jobs), incorrectly stating this a reason to blacklist a site. As the situation unfolded, you gradually loosened up your position, and you later stated: "maybe there wasn’t any spamming, maybe there was". Admittedly, you never directly said that you do not like Verywell, but it is obvious from your completely unhelpful attitude that you don't. Sure, Verywell will never be on the same level as The New York Times or something, but it may still harbor useful information for Wikipedia. Who are you to decide that such websites should be banished from all use? - Manifestation (talk) 09:28, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I indeed changed the comment regarding direct spamming from my first one, but I am still not sure whether the edits by Sri Lankan users and/or Ethiopian IPs are NOT spamming per sé (it is not a glomarization, it is just that we can not always convey the intention of other editors through the edits they perform, it is more a assessment based on years long experience in seeing spammers on Wikipedia). That is in line with comments by User:JzG and User:Praxidicae. However, persistent abuse like in cases of sock puppetry with copyvio concerns (and again, which may be spamming) is a reason to blacklist to stop said abuse (those are techniques also used by spammers on a regular basis). It is not necessarily a first choice, but we have done this regularly. The possibility of spamming does not make me comfortable to remove it, especially since this is, also in your own words, a marginally reliable site. You also here say 'it may harbor useful information. My suggestion, hence, has been consistently been to go through some whitelisting of this site to see if it is of general use. Score is now 1 decline and 1 (self-)grant for whitelisting. But now we re-hash the same discussion as on WT:SBL, and that was not why we came here.

So, where did I tell a blatant lie? Or is that a similar slip of the tongue as the (now withdrawn) remark regarding the Ethiopian editor? And how am I stonewalling if you just blatantly dismissed the remark from Praxidicae when he was supporting my evaluation and suggestion. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:55, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

You know Beetstra, if you wouldn't have idiotically brought this to ANI, you would have 'won', because I actually would have dropped this, as it is emotionally exhausting to deal with your bullshit. Then again, I hope other people will take a good look at this, and that they see through the games you are playing. This may be important, because you and JzG play big roles in the RS Noticeboard and at the Spam-blacklist, so users who go there have no other choice than to deal with you. I cannot imagine this is the first time your behavior has antagonized people. I wish I could scrutinize your past, but I won't, since I can imagine we both have better things to do than butting heads.
As for the Verywell sites... I could file an RfC, but right now, I am too tired of this drama to do so. - Manifestation (talk) 10:27, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Manifestation, and so you reply with yet another insult. And you keep personalizing this, as if I am the only person who has concerns, just completely dismissing User:JzG and User:Praxidicae. And no, this is not about winning. Thanks. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:52, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Manifestation, and you did not tell me where I told a blatant lie, nor did you withdraw it. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:53, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Beetstra, calm down, my friend. Manifestation is frustrated, and he's taking it out on you a bit. That's not a good look. Let's think about the underlying problem and how we might resolve it for this and similar cases? Guy (help!) 12:16, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

JzG, well, that is how we generally do this. If we have a case of possible abuse on the blacklist, and we have concerns regarding reliability/appropriateness, we send it to the whitelist for some time. That has, for long, been an accepted solution to that. Or we have a discussion on another board where there is overwhelming support for general use, and we delist it. The latter we don't have (that is not how I read the thread at RSN at least), so we go with what has been suggested over and over: lets see some whitelisting and discussion on individual appropriateness. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:21, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Beetstra, you know that, I know that. Manifestation seems in danger of climbing the Reichstag. Which would be a shame. Guy (help!) 12:38, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

JzG, I do feel that I tried to explain early on that that was our common practice of things. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:03, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Manifestation, I have an idea: try assuming good faith. You need to bear in mind that we see a lot of link abuse, and a lot of people demanding that such-and-such a site is WP:USEFUL so should be removed from the blacklist.

For me, I'd like some concrete examples of where you think these sites would be usable as sources, and the content they'd support. Show me what the change you advocate would actually look like in practice. Is that such a big ask?

I'm familiar with your arguments, but they are generic and not specific. I have seen a batshit insane homeopath get a HON code, so that's not compelling to me. Input from MEDRS regulars might be, but better still, some examples of Wikipedia articles and additional content you think would be valid uses of these sites. Maybe you already did that and I missed it. Guy (help!) 12:21, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

• Manifestation wants to enable links to a pop-medical site,. Beetstra wants to see what that might look like because of past issues, but Manifestation doesn't seem to want to do that. I would like to see specifics of where the site would be used (I am skeptical that we should use it as it doesn't seem to be a MEDRS, but whatever). I don't see the rush. I do see the frustration, in that there's no obvious single venue where we can address the trifecta of abuse, reliability, and appropriateness for given content. Guy (help!) 10:33, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

People who tried to use Verywell, but couldn't, because it is banlisted

"For me, I'd like some concrete examples of where you think these sites would be usable as sources, and the content they'd support. Show me what the change you advocate would actually look like in practice. Is that such a big ask?" - (diff)

JzG, you are an extremely experienced Wikipedian. You are very active in combating spam and evaluating sources on reliability. I cannot imagine you don't understand how LinkReports work.

For those who don't know: LinkReports are created by COIBot, which not only logs every addition of a specific url, but also every attempt to add a blacklisted url. There are four Verywell link reports: (1) verywell.com (obsolete, domain now redirects to verywellhealth.com), (2) verywellhealth.com, (3) verywellmind.com, and (4) verywellfamily.com. They have been last updated on 5 May, so they're pretty recent. The one on verywellhealth.com shows many attempted additions to a variety of articles, on multiple wikis. Below are the last 20 attempts on this wiki (en.wp), duplicates removed, newest to oldest:

Last 20 attempts, duplicates removed.

1. 2020-05-04 19:10:52 (UTC): User:PurplePanda2021 (t - c; 279) to Jersey Finger (logitem top) - Link: www.verywellhealth.com/jersey-finger-2549403 (R/X/L)
2. 2020-04-28 22:39:02 (UTC): User:Wbm1058 (t - c; 19382) to Health care provider (logitem top) - Link: www.verywellhealth.com/what-is-a-provider-1738759 (R/X/L)
3. 2020-04-21 15:57:41 (UTC): User:Ameer hakim (t - c; 85) to User:Ameer hakim/sandbox (logitem top) - Link: www.verywellhealth.com/bacterial-skin-infections-1069439 (R/X/L) (NB: this user has been indefblocked.)
4. 2020-04-08 13:19:30 (UTC): User:Johnsad (t - c; 8) to User:Johnsad/Insulin-resistance type B (logitem top) - Link: www.verywellhealth.com/hyperinsulinemia-is-associated-with-type-2-diabetes-1087717 (R/X/L)
5. 2020-04-05 16:26:33 (UTC): User:Azurhellen (t - c; 18) to User:Azurhellen/The Iliac Crest (logitem top) - Link: www.verywellhealth.com/iliac-crest-definition-3120351 (R/X/L)
6. 2020-03-31 15:23:31 (UTC): User:Webmz (t - c; 2174) to Maia Majumder (logitem top) - Link: verywellhealth.com/women-shaking-up-health-care-4588098 (R/X/L)
7. 2020-03-28 02:02:43 (UTC): User:Omurphy5 (t - c; 23) to User:Omurphy5/Gunshot wound (logitem top) - Link: www.verywellhealth.com/how-to-treat-a-gunshot-wound-1298915 (R/X/L)
8. 2020-03-27 05:39:22 (UTC): User:SignTribe (t - c; 33) to User:SignTribe/sandbox/World History of Deaf Institutions (logitem top) - Link: www.verywellhealth.com/samuel-heinicke-oral-education-1046549 (R/X/L)
9. 2020-03-23 11:01:01 (UTC): User:Magicmike5 (t - c; 5) to User:Magicmike5/sandbox (logitem top) - Link: www.verywellhealth.com/how-to-prevent-cavities-1059134 (R/X/L)
10. 2020-03-22 18:27:47 (UTC): User:Mguirguiss (t - c; 9) to User:Mguirguiss (logitem top) - Link: www.verywellhealth.com/allergy-translation-cards-1324304 (R/X/L)
11. 2020-03-21 17:03:19 (UTC): User:Jade Phoenix Pence (t - c; 14) to Spanish flu (logitem top) - Link: www.verywellhealth.com/outdated-disease-names-2615295 (R/X/L)
12. 2020-03-19 21:41:56 (UTC): User:Feinoa (t - c; 289) to 2009 flu pandemic (logitem top) - Link: www.verywellhealth.com/what-is-h1n1-swine-flu-770496 (R/X/L)
13. 2020-03-15 00:07:48 (UTC): User:SignTribe (t - c; 33) to User:SignTribe/sandbox/World History of Deaf Institutions (logitem top) - Link: www.verywellhealth.com/samuel-heinicke-oral-education-1046549 (R/X/L)
14. 2020-03-14 16:45:02 (UTC): User:Angham Ragab (t - c; 38) to User:Angham Ragab/sandbox (logitem top) - Link: www.verywellhealth.com/tips-to-prevent-infections-1958877&ved=2ahUKEwjyncHIrZroAhXEzIUKHd3aAaEQFjAIegQIAhAB&usg=AOvVaw3HRxZcYvIP09A4G-KXDqQ8 (R/X/L)
15. 2020-03-12 01:00:07 (UTC): User:WuTang94 (t - c; 2115) to User talk:Eagles247 (logitem top) - Link: www.verywellhealth.com/traumatic-brain-injury-prevention-and-rehabilitation-1739215 (R/X/L)
16. 2020-03-05 19:50:09 (UTC): User:Nmalq001 (t - c; 51) to User:Nmalq001/sandbox (logitem top) - Link: www.verywellhealth.com/what-you-need-to-know-about-the-dtap-vaccine-4156747 (R/X/L)
17. 2020-02-27 03:07:28 (UTC): User:24.223.73.225 (t - c; 1) to Llama (logitem top) - Link: www.verywellhealth.com/what-are-cancer-cells-2248795 (R/X/L)
18. 2020-02-25 23:12:30 (UTC): User:SandyGeorgia (t - c; 5963) to Tourette syndrome (logitem top) - Link: www.verywellhealth.com/types-of-doctors-residents-interns-and-fellows-3157293 (R/X/L)
19. 2020-02-25 11:14:19 (UTC): User:ShirLey GOo (t - c; 326) to HealthPlanOne (logitem top) - Link: www.verywellhealth.com/what-is-a-health-insurance-exchange-1738734 (R/X/L)
20. 2020-02-19 02:52:30 (UTC): User:Angela432 (t - c; 95) to User:Angela432/Choose an Article (logitem top) - Link: www.verywellhealth.com/sex-reassignment-surgery-srs-3157235 (R/X/L)

As you can see on the LinkReport page, many different users tried to cite Verywell Health, including some very experienced editors, such as User:Diannaa, User:SandyGeorgia, User:ERcheck, and User:MER-C.

Again, I know Verywell is not your best option when looking for a ref, but as a tertiary source, it can be cited as a summary of info. It can also be used to 'patch gaps': to confirm specific facts on a small subject which Verywell happens to have an article about. View count is everything for these sites, so they try to offer many articles on a wide variety of subjects. I do not believe Verywell should be blacklisted. - Manifestation (talk) 17:55, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

You are grossly misrepresenting what I, as well as Diannaa did. Both were copyvio removals where we pasted the link into the edit summary. MER-C 18:05, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

@MER-C: Ok, thanks for clarifying, but how am I supposed to know that? The diffs are revdeleted, and I am not an administrator, meaning that I would have had to manually look up in the history if a link is in an edit summary (here and here). - Manifestation (talk) 09:03, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but that would have taken you less than thirty seconds - click on "500 edits", then use your browser's find functionality to look for my username. The edit summaries used made it clear that both edits were copyvio removals. MER-C 10:11, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I am not clear on what mess I've walked in to here, but I remember clearly what I was trying to do with that link last February; it was the best information I could find explaining the difference between a resident and an intern, which I was looking for in terms of Georges Gilles de la Tourette as Charcot's <something> for Tourette syndrome. When I couldn't use that link, I had to go to a French-language source, and solved the problem that way. I have not read this whole discussion so do not know if this helps or not. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:35, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, just out of curiosity: did you consider to get it whitelisted? Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:54, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

@Beetstra:, on technical stuff, I'm dumber than I look :) I actually went on to find information that was more relevant to the precise situation of Charcot and Tourette in France vis-a-vis resident or intern (Tourette was both Charcot's resident and intern, it turns out), so I didn't give that site a second thought. If I did need to try to get something whitelisted, I am not sure I would know how or where. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:02, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, thanks. Just for next time: it is linked from the message you get when you hit the blacklist. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:05, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

• I would be grateful if someone would whitelist the usage at Health care provider and remove that page from Category:Pages with URL errors, or cite a respected academic journal article written by a PhD that answers that complex technical question, LOL. I sympathize with Manifestation's point as I from personal experience, found the blacklisting/whitelisting process one of the most unpleasant areas of Wikipedia to work in. I feel that the handful of editors who own that part of the project just generally form a local consensus. I don't know much about the Verywell site, but it seems pretty harmless to me. – wbm1058 (talk) 18:29, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
  • @Wbm1058: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/29/825.125 ... —Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:51, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
    • @Wbm1058: While requesting a whitelisting doesn't have to be unpleasant, I wouldn't prefer it, because if the MediaWiki:Spamprotectiontext pops up on someone's screen, users may believe that something is wrong with the Verywell websites as a whole. I agree with the rest of your comment. - Manifestation (talk) 09:04, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
  • So Dirk replaced my "pop culture site" reference with a link to a legal definition of the term in United States law. That is a primary source, which isn't ideal either.

  • Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so.
  • Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them.

Perhaps keeping both the "pop culture site" reference and the primary source is the best solution for now, until a better secondary source interpreting the law is found? wbm1058 (talk) 17:53, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Wbm1058, there is nothing wrong with using primary sources, it totally depends on their use. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:46, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

• I see from MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/December 2018#verywellmind.com that this site was reported by Jytdog, an indefinitely banned editor per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog, and less than 24 hours later JzG added the site to the MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. That strikes me as a too-speedy addition based on a two-editor local consensus. Given that one of those two has since been banned, it seems reasonable to just remove it from the blacklist and see whether the spamming issue comes back again or not. We don't indefinitely protect articles after short-term vandalism, why should we indefinitely blacklist sites after short-term spamming? – wbm1058 (talk) 17:53, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

  Wbm1058, the case was copyvio, we indeed blacklist fast then. Administrators don’t need first to get a broad consensus to block or protect, those are often a report->action, like here, report->blacklist And yes, we do indef block editors. The comparison with page protection is not a fair one, page protection avoids all editing, a block disables all editing by a person.

  Then there is e.g. the case of the Ethiopian IP hammering, doing that later through a French proxy. Then the case of what user:MER-C reverted, yet another case of copyvio from verywell. Coincidence? Or continuous attempts to spam? Your guess is as good as mine. My experience makes me bit worried. I’d play it safe, also because this is not a site that is an important reliable source, rather it is a site of ‘marginal reliability’ (quoting editors in the last RSN thread). And to me, the link I presented to you sounds much more authoritative than Verywell.

  So no, this blacklisting does not have to be forever, but my suggestion first is to see whether we need to take the risk. I just blacklisted a link that was the subject of 5 years of spam. If it is spammed, it will not stop, popularity pays bills. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:45, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

  Wbm1058, come and join the blacklist posse. We need more admins. Speed is not unusual (spam usually needs to be controlled quickly). Guy (help!) 20:35, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

The above statement by Beetstra is exactly the kind of behavior I was talking about. Misleading statements, twisting around the evidence, and making up excuses. The nasty thing about this is that Beetstra's statement *appears* to be very reasonable at face value. It is only when you investigate his claims further that his statement falls apart. But not everyone feels like spending time doing that, and they know Beetstra is a highly experienced guy, so they'll simply assume he must be right. I can only hope enough people lay bare his behavior, and that they see Beetstra for who he really is. - Manifestation (talk) 21:04, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Manifestation, what is misleading? Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 03:33, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Manifestation, May I lend you some binoculars, so you can see the ground fromrup there on your high horse?

Those logs do not show the content. What I asked was: what content would be sourced to these sites. Guy (help!) 20:33, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

@JzG: What do you want from me?! To get a migraine attack?! I did exactly what you asked. You want to know on what occasions people try to use Verywell, well, there you go. I felt extremely annoyed even posting those 20 attempts, because if I can look at COIBot's LinkReports, so can you. In these situations, the logs by the COIBot provide the core evidence. You commented a number of times on my second thread about Verywell, but you never even seemed interested in the LinkReports. Now you're blaming the drama on me, because you're covering up for Beetstra. And you know what the craziest thing about this whole ordeal is? Beetstra created the COIBot! He runs it! Dare I say it, few Wikipedians know more of spam than he does. But now he suddenly pretends not to know how to read the LinkReports which his own bot produces. And he pretends to think blacklisting a website will stop copyvios. How stupid does he think I am? - Manifestation (talk) 21:08, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Manifestation, I read those reports. Failed attempts are often there. You can see people trying to use it but you don’t know why. I don't know why. Sometimes you can dig through other edits at that time to see what happened. You will need to get individual discussions. That is why I ask for more. JzG asked the same, individual use. Examples of people trying it is not enough, you get the whole spectrum: people pointing to copyvio to genuine use to cases which may not be the best in the first place to spam.

Manifestation, I wrote COIBot, I have it making these reports for years. I know what the data in them means. And I very much agree that this may be a case to remove, but I see, with others, the risks and I am, with others, concerned over its real use. Get a clear endorsement through RSN/MEDRS/RfC, or we discuss some cases at the whitelist.

I don’t think you are stupid, your edits speak for you. Blacklisting may not always prevent copyvio, the reporting editor, the executioner, and now me clearly think that it helps (or at least deters). But I am not sure whether we only talk about copyvio. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 04:18, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

@Beetstra: You can see when and where people used it or attempted to use it when you open the LinkReports and scroll down (verywell.com, verywellhealth.com, verywellmind.com, verywellfamily.com). After 2 December 2018, the uses become attempted uses, because JzG added the sites to the banlist. You of course know this, yet you confusingly ask for more examples and for "individual discussions". This is why I suspect that you intentionally are making no sense, to stonewall the discussion. Especially the last two sentences of your comment are difficult to make sense of.
Yes, I could try to file an RfC, or ask at WT:MED, but right now, I am too tired to do so. I really want to drop this. - Manifestation (talk) 09:41, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

@Beetstra: Oh, and by the way: your bot has a bug. Sometimes it forgets to print "User:". For example, "w:en:Johnsad/Insulin-resistance type B" should be w:en:User:Johnsad/Insulin-resistance type B. Cheers, Manifestation (talk) 09:42, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Manifestation, nobody's stopping you from dropping it any time you like. Just saying. Guy (help!) 10:03, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I was going to drop it, but then Beetstra reported me to this board, so I decided to hang around a little longer, hoping that someone in this forum would step in to help me. But I'm afraid that is not the case. - Manifestation (talk) 10:25, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Manifestation, thanks, yes, that is indeed something that needs fixing. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:55, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Manifestation, no, I have, consistently asked for discussions, not for random attempts where we do not know the intention of the edit. Yes, they want to use the link, but for what / what reason? That needs individual discussion to assert that. E.g. at the whitelist to discuss individual cases, or in general at RSN, MEDRS or an RfC. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:02, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Manifestation, no, what I want is really extremely simple. Some examples of articles and content you think might be appropriately sourced to these websites. You assert, at enormous length, that they are valuable sources of information, but you have yet to provide any concrete examples of what that might look like in practice. Guy (help!) 10:02, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Enormous length? This entire thread would not have happened in the first place if you and Beetstra would have listened to me on WP:RSN and WT:SBL. Don't forget that you originally banned Verywell, meaning that the burden of evidence lies upon you, not me. If you want to see concrete examples of Verywell's use or attempted use, you can look at the LinkReports. They show many edits, both good and poor, to multiple wikis, on a variety of subjects. Verywell is a pop med source and certainly not the best reference ever, but that doesn't mean it should be banned. - Manifestation (talk) 10:25, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Manifestation, yes, enormous length. "We would not be here if you just gave me what I want" has never been any kind of justification for walls of text (see m:MPOV).

Now, back to the topic: what articles and content do you think might be reasonably based on these sites, please? What would the change you advocate, look like in practice? Guy (help!) 10:28, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Please stop striking the deceased equine

At this point, it seems rather clear we are at an impasse. Manifestation is unwilling to provide specific articles as examples, and believes the attempted access logs are sufficient. Others do not agree. This is just going in circles so per WP:DEADHORSE I suggest the matter be closed as maintaining the status quo. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:54, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Aargh, not you too! Do you actually understand what this is about? "Manifestation is unwilling to provide specific articles as examples". What do you want me to do? Post the entire LinkReport? It shows various articles on which Verywell was (attempted to be) cited. I have myself tried to cite Verywell, and I previously wrote about this. But regardless of its quality and usefullness, Verywell is currently listed on the *Spam*-blacklist. As the name suggests, this is to prevent *spamming*. Let me be as clear as I can be: Verywell has not been spammed. It wasn't spammed, it isn't spammed, and it most likely will not be spammed when unbanned. Why would Dotdash, the owner of the Verywell brand, be so stupid to start a spam campaign on Wikipedia and risk PR damage?
This is THE LAST COMMENT I will make on this. Feel free to close this discussion. You are right, HandThatFeeds, this is a dead pony. But it is not me who killed it. - Manifestation (talk) 16:54, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I understand perfectly well what this is about. The problem is that you seem to have fixated on a single method for supporting your argument and, when other people have stated they do not find it convincing, you... repeat the same method of argument. That is not going to get you anywhere. Focusing on "this many people have tried to add links to the site" is not an effective argument. That just tells us multiple people are trying to use the source, but not that it's an appropriate source. Your argument is an appeal to popularity, not quality, and that's why you're getting pushback for relying on it.

Why would Dotdash, the owner of the Verywell brand, be so stupid to start a spam campaign on Wikipedia and risk PR damage?

This clarifies one of your issues that I think was unclear before. "Spam" does not have to originate from the source. In Wikipedia's view, if any number of people are inappropriately linking to a site whose value is questionable, it is treated as spamming. It doesn't have to be self-promotion to qualify as spam. If many people are linking to a questionable source, especially if the target articles don't support the claimed statements, sites go on the spam blacklist because it appears people are trying to promote the site regardless of its merit.

So, that's where we're at. The site might have some value, but users are reluctant to take it off the blacklist without some specific examples of appropriate citations, due to the large number of apparently inappropriate ones being added before. Some editors asked you for better examples. Since they didn't get any, right now, that leaves us at the status quo. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:10, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

HandThatFeeds, just one comment: every self respecting organisation uses SEO to optimize incoming traffic. That is a very respectable business and I have no doubt that Wikipedia itself does that. Sometimes, the companies hired to do so, eager employees of the company itself, or ’fans’ do so, and sometimes Wikipedia gets ‘used’ for that. So no, Dotdash is not stupid if they perform SEO. You would be surprised how many companies are ‘so stupid’ to use Wikipedia to spam. Wikipedia is high on the search engine rankings, you will be visible if you are mentioned or used on Wikipedia (even with nofollow). Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:00, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Beetstra I agree, that can happen. I was just pointing out it's not necessary to fit Wikipedia's definition of spam links. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:04, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

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

Moderator Tarl N. abusing powers and reverting legitimate changes due to political bias

Moderator "Tarl N." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tarl_N. has been deleting an extremely simple addition to the page of Bill Ayers, a founder of Weather Underground, a domestic terrorist organization that he started at my alma mater, the University of Michigan. Bill Ayers' page was lacking in information about how awful this organization was. Numerous bombings and arsons throughout the 70's. Given that the wikipedia page for Weather Underground contains the fact that is was classfied as a domestic terrorist organization, I added this fact to Bill's page along with the exact reference that the Weather Underground wikipedia page uses. An extremely simple edit that added "domestic terrorist organization" before the name "Weather Underground." No editorializing whatsoever. After he inexplicably reverted the edit without explanation, I added it again, noting that I used a source from FBI.gov that called it a domestic terrorism group. I received an extremely threatening message from Tarl N. threatening to ban me for using a "unreferenced or poorly referenced edit" despite the fact that I literally used the same refernce, from *FBI.gov* no less, that the Weather Underground page uses. This is a blatant atempt to revise history and make this organization look better than it actually was and as an Ann Arbor resident for over 50 years who was actually here while they were active it is beyond disgusting to me that a moderator is trying to downplay what they did. Not only this, but he didn't even remove the source that I used and was allegedly "too poor to reference." He just left it there despite it not even referncing anything anymore. Absolutely inexcusable behavior from a moderator. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bswastek (talk • contribs) 04:46, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Weather_Underground_Organization/Terrorism_RfC#Discussion_of_Noroton's_proposal_#2 MiasmaEternal^TALK 05:04, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

(1) It's "User:Tarl N." with a period at the end;

(2) Tarl N. is not an admin;

(3) The big orange box at the top of the page says you're supposed to notify an editor when you start a thread about them on AN/I;

(4) I haven't read your comments on Tarl N.'s talk page in full, but I did note "Who do you think you are" and "You are a lunatic".

Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:07, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I've notified Tarl N. I've struck the "Who do you think you are" remark from my comment above, because it was posted by an IP and not you -- unless, perhaps, that IP is you?. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:14, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Personally, I don't understand why Tarl N. removed "domestic terrorist organization" when the source (the FBI) says exactly that, and it's hard for anyone -- even those who might agree with their ultimate goals -- who lived through that era to argue with the fact that bombing things is an act of domestic terrorism, whether it's done by a far-left group or a far-right group. I'd like to see Tarl N.'s justification for the removal, but you (Bswastek) failed to take the issue to the talk page, as you should have, so we don't know what the reasoning is. While you were there, you could have read the previous discussion on whether the WU should be called a terrorist group or not. That discussion took place iin 2016, and since WP:Consensus can change, I see no reason why a new discussion -- perhaps in the form of an RfC -- couldn't be held to see if people's ideas have changed since then. Those are better ideas than opening this report, which is just going to be closed as a content dispute, which it is, and which are not dealt with on AN/I. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:26, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The personal attacks in this and this edit summary are out of line. The OP might want to read WP:BOOMERANG. There is no discussion on the talk page for the article. FWIW the attempt to WP:FORUMSHOP this has been removed. MarnetteD|Talk 05:30, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Hmm, I think this calls for a potential WP:BOOMERANG block. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:32, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

The "You are a lunatic" comment is pretty close to being a PA as well "You are incompetent at this and have zero business having any say in anything. I am looking into a way to report this disgusting, manipulative BS." Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:38, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

No, I think the IP and Bswastek are different people. At least, different pages being edited, albeit somewhat similar talk page styles. I think our talk pages can do most of our talking. I removed the "domestic terrorist organization" edit because it was an obvious end-run around not being able to label Ayers "terrorist". Tarl N. (discuss) 05:35, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I can see that argument, but I'm not sure I agree - it would depend on Ayer's relationship with the WU. In any case, that discussion is for the talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:39, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Responding to the original filer's report: This issue of labeling Ayers a terrorist has been dealt with many times in the past, I pointed Bswastek at the RFC I knew of. As to my extremely threatening message, I'll note it was 1st and 2nd level BLP templates that he regarded as so threatening. Tarl N. (discuss) 05:40, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Just reiterate, the "lunatic" edit summary is incredibly inappropriate. @Bswastek: I think it best if your read WP:NPA and tell us that you will not repeat such in the future. Please also read WP:BRD and explain how one is expected to deal with the inevitable content dispute. On the bright side, they have posted to WP:BLPN Oh. Oh, dear.--Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 17:41, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I notice that the lead current mentions the FBI describing the organization as domestic terrorists. Should that remain or should it be removed until there is a consensus to incluse.--69.157.254.64 (talk) 21:38, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

As Beyond My Ken commented, that's a content dispute, which doesn't belong on ANI. Go over the RFCs pointed to here, and take it to the talk page. (sorry for the late response. We had a bit of wind, resulting in absence of power and internet since Friday). Tarl N. (discuss) 06:54, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Users User:Hamish Gary and User:Bargyman

I first noticed these users on the article Sir Creek, where they removed multiple reliable sources with the reason "Grammar review". Looking at Bargyman's and Hamish Gary's contribution list, they have made multiple other "grammar reviews" in which they, in addition to fixing grammar, also removed multiple sources. I am suspicious that these two people might be the same, or at least partners in this source-removing endeavor. Can someone please take a look at this? Thank you. sam1370 (talk / contribs) 07:22, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Nevermind, this is the wrong section sam1370 (talk / contribs) 18:05, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

As a WP:GOCE member, I've been concerned about Hamish Gary's edits; "grammar fixes" have removed chunks of content. I've notified them. Miniapolis 22:16, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

@Miniapolis: Thanks. I went through all their edits recently and I think I’ve reverted the problematic ones. Some went unnoticed for a month or two. sam1370 (talk / contribs) 22:23, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

This edit at Joe Orton described as "Mandatory grammar changes", seems to be nothing of the sort, and replaced Brits Eng spelling with Amer Eng. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:52, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

InedibleHulk - "Any of you proud saboteurs see a problem..."?

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

---

User:InedibleHulk came to User_talk:BetsyRMadison and responded to a discussion that involved BetsyRMadison, My very best wishes, and me with:

Any of you proud saboteurs see a problem with openly discussing your political agenda here while simultaneously making up stories of bias and personal attack about more legitimately neutral editors there? It's not a conspiracy, because you're highly visible. But it's still a flagrantly organized crime against the spirit of one of this site's core content policies.[24]

I see a problem with this comment, which I interpret as a fairly blatant personal attack. As a result, I am asking for them to be stopped from interacting with any of us. FollowTheSources (talk) 04:03, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm not "them" and I'd gladly replace the trigger phrase with a descriptor of you three's choosing. I'm not apologizing for attempting to dissuade you from slinging your opinions as facts, though. I appreciate how you'd want me to go away, of course. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:10, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Correct: I do not want you coming to my talk page, or hers, with your insults. This is part of a larger pattern and I'm out of patience. FollowTheSources (talk) 04:23, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Does this larger pattern involve you and I? Because I honestly thought we just met on this topic (I've seen MVBW around). Sorry if I forgot about last time. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:32, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I think the better question is: What is your previous account? Cause the content of your edits indicates prior knowledge of Wikipedia's processes not acquired by a brand new editor. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:38, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Unless you can provide evidence of this "larger pattern" FTS you need to strike that part of your statement. MarnetteD|Talk 04:39, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Please take a look at Talk:Joe Biden sexual assault allegation for what I perceive as a pattern of tendentious haranguing by InedibleHulk. FollowTheSources (talk) 04:43, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Specifically, the "Good Source" section. [25]. As far as I remember, this is my first encounter with InedibleHulk and it did not leave a good impression upon me. FollowTheSources (talk) 04:47, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I perceive the opposite, maybe a mirror. Anyway, you're almost five days old. Have more patience, please! InedibleHulk (talk) 04:45, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

My willingness to be patient is tied directly to your willingness to stop insulting me. FollowTheSources (talk) 04:47, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Just tell me a prouder term for your work than sabotage, I'm flexible and fair. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:50, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry, did you just call my work "sabotage" again? Right in the middle of a discussion about how inappropriate it was for you to do so in the first place? FollowTheSources (talk) 04:52, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Briefly, honest typo. Now I'm asking what you prefer. Proud "worker"? InedibleHulk (talk) 04:56, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

My preference is that you avoid insulting me, or any other editors. If that's too difficult, then I have another preference involving you. FollowTheSources (talk) 05:07, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

It's difficult if you don't suggest a less-insulting term, I'm not a mind reader. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:22, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

You're not Bugs Bunny. I'm not Elmer Fudd. This is not a joke.

If you simply retract the insults and agree not to continue them, we can drop this and get on with our lives. If you won't, then I have to ask for sanctions. Decide. FollowTheSources (talk) 05:34, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I take it "Prince Charming" is another one, do you see more? InedibleHulk (talk) 05:39, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Decide. FollowTheSources (talk) 05:41, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I chose those two. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:43, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Ok, then let's put this on the back burner.

Shut it down for now, but if I see any more insults coming out of you, either at me or others, I'll be back here and I will request a block, not an interaction ban. FollowTheSources (talk) 05:48, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

@FollowTheSources and InedibleHulk: this is the silliest of arguments. Hulk, as I have learned, has a tendency to express his opinion in an... artful (?) manner. I have been active on the talk page in question as well and can assure you both that this bickering will have no effect on the content of the article unless you both take a breather. I honestly believe that you are both acting in good faith, and implore you to assume as much in one another and move on. --WMSR (talk) 05:50, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

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

Trolling?

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

---

Make me Feel Alright (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems to have created a hoax at Draft:Make Me Feel Alright and copied my user page – not necessarily concerning by itself, but a possible additional sign of a trolling-only account or sockpuppet (LTA 963?). As far as I know, I have not interacted with the user in any way. Perhaps someone could keep an eye on this. Interestingly, the hoax was accepted via AfC for a moment. Ping Sulfurboy, who has notified me about the situation. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:38, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, a clever troll. They tricked me for the briefest of moments, blame lack of coffee this morning. The draft was moved back though and nominated for CSD. The userpage has been edited to no longer be a rip of ToBeFree, but as they pointed out, this user is clearly WP:NOTHERE to contribute. Sulfurboy (talk) 14:45, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

• Wrt G3. Looks to be a blatant hoax. Google turns up nothing about a movie with this name: if you have to google it, it's not blatant. serial ^# 14:50, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

  My stupidity shouldn't be confused with ambiguity, but I get what you mean. Sulfurboy (talk) 15:03, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

• I spot checked some of their content contributions, and none of them look particularly problematic, and appear to be in good faith. Other than the draft and the copied user page, both of which could be explained as test edits or playing around with the interface, what problems are there? --Jayron32 18:18, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
•  Confirmed to several other blocked accounts, including Pauline Malette, who was blocked by ToBeFree. I imagine this is the connection. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:47, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

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

Drmies User Issue

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

---

Hi there, I've been working on pages for a band and artist that I listen to. There's not a conflict of interest; they're artists I like but don't personally know (King Youngblood and Cameron Lavi Jones).

A user Drmies has been editing the page but also leaving me rather rude comments. I'm including them before. These are my first articles and I've been doing my best to abide by all guidelines and citations, and they have been very unkind. I spent hours finding secondary sources and adding a source list that they then deleted. These are my first two articles (King Youngblood and the singer Cameron Lavi-Jones) and this communication has really been upsetting.

• Hi thank you! There's not a conflict of interest here :) I'll make some edits to make it sound less personal. I'm still relatively new here! Thanks! 23:56, 17 May 2020 (UTC)KaylynBuckley (talk) 23:56, 17 May 2020 (UTC) Kaylyn

• It sure reads like you have one. Listen, you can edit all you want, but if you keep inserting primary sources (links to the band's website, his own website, whatever) and spammy links to Spotify, and unacceptable links to Soundcloud, you will be reverted every time. And calling him a "philanthropist" in the lead for that one thing he did, which isn't even verified by proper secondary sources, is not acceptable either. Someone isn't a philanthropist on Wikipedia unless reliable sources make it so. You're new? That's fine--but see WP:RS for sources. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 17:26, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

• Sorry, I don't mean to be a bother but can you help me understand what still isn't a good source? I added 10 new sources to verify info that you deleted and so I'm just a little confused. I got rid of the Spotify and Soundcloud links (I was using another artist's page that I like, the band Like Monroe, as a reference and they have a couple of external links to Youtube.) But what's wrong with the news articles I've cited? And, isn't there a friendlier way to discuss this? KaylynBuckley (talk) 17:33, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

• Sorry, but from my perspective you walk into an encyclopedia and write promotional language full of spam links on a subject that you seem to care so much about that you can't write neutrally, so I don't know how friendly you want me to be. I indicated that Spotify was not an acceptable source, that links to the subject's website were not a good source, and you put them right back in, and that doesn't seem too friendly to me. And then you reverted me again, and after removing a few of those links you still left a couple. I linked to WP:RS, and you leave this in the article? A link to the agent's website? No, that's enough. Drmies (talk) 23:59, 18 May 2020

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

Well, instead of bringing this to ANI, I highly suggest that you read WP:RS, WP:NOTPROMOTION, and other WP policies. And just for next time, put {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ on Drmies' talk page. MiasmaEternal^TALK 00:29, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

KaylynBuckley, it looks like you are accusing Drmies of trying to protect the high standards of this encyclopedia. That is what he is supposed to do. My recommendation is to stop adding promotional content, to stop adding spam links, to stop adding external links in the body of encyclopedia articles, and add only neutrally written content. If you follow my advice, that should bring any disagreement with Drmies to an end. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:32, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

KaylynBuckley, a couple of points:

{1) There was nothing objectionable about what Drmies wrote to you. They merely tried to make you see that your editing looked promotional.

(2) Drmies has been an editor here for a very long time, and they are very well versed in the rules and policies of the encyclopedia. You'd be advised to pay attention to wht they;re telling you, instead of jumping to tattle on them.

(3) Drmies is also an administrator here, which means they're an editor trusted by the community.

(4) Please take the advice of Drmies, MiasmaEternal and Cullen (another admin) to heart and learn some of the policies here before you start making accusations against another editor.

Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:39, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Can some editor who's cleverer than me maybe reformat KaylynBuckley's comment so that it's clear that most of these things (after "upsetting") were said on their talk page? Thanks. Also, I find all this quite upsetting, being attacked and dragged to ANI, when I was trying to give the editor some good advice--it's downright rude. For more of their obvious COI work, see that other article, King Youngblood. Drmies (talk) 00:44, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

• The creation of King Youngblood and Cameron Lavi-Jones fully formed with wiki-markup and references from a brand new editor is a hallmark of paid editing. I would investigate further, but the oven just chimed to inform me that dinner is ready.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 00:57, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

  I think I may just PROD them both. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:02, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

• Regardless of whether the band is notable or not, Lavi-Jones definitely isn't (there's not a single source in his article that's about him rather than the band), and so I've redirected that article to the band one. Black Kite (talk) 01:09, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Muboshgu (talk Hi! I'd really appreciate as I've mentioned in this thread that we could have a conversation so I can learn what's wrong with the article at this point - after the edits have been made by other editors and new sources have been added. Could you help me at this point get a handle on why this would warrant deletion? I'm a recent college grad and have been in lockdown in NYC for a couple of months now. I was bored and wanted to learn how to write articles, and chose an indie band I like that wasn't on wikipedia to try my hand at writing. I'm not sure if I'll attempt another article (I've been quite surprised by how people really are resistant to assuming good faith) but I would like to grasp what, after a lot of rounds of edits, is still problematic. Thanks for your help :)

@Drmies I apologize if this was out of line. I googled "how to address an unkind editor on Wikipedia" and was led here. I appreciate and respect your work and advice. I've been really surprised by how unfriendly editors have been on here, and how much it's bled into cyberbullying. I'm very open to learning but don't quite understand how anyone is supposed to get a handle on Wikipedia editing when no one assumes good faith and when the comments and words left on talk pages are just downright mean and not constructive. I'm really disappointed that when I asked if we could have a friendly dialogue on my talk page you refuted that. KaylynBuckley (talk) 01:14, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Drmies (talk) I think that this - that I've found in researching the Wikipedia policies today - might be relevant here, from the Assume Good Faith wikipedia page. I apologize again if I violated some typical Wikipedian culture!

"A newcomer's behavior probably seems appropriate to them, and a problem in that regard usually indicates unawareness or misunderstanding of Wikipedian culture. It is not uncommon for a newcomer to believe that an unfamiliar policy should be changed to match their notion of how things should function, especially if they notice that there is already some level of disagreement over the policy in question. Similarly, many newcomers want to have their contributions to articles accepted without question, especially those which pertain to subjects on which they have extensive knowledge. Behaviors arising from these perspectives, while possibly misguided, are usually not malicious and should not be treated as such. Many new users who lack an intuitive grasp of Wikipedia customs are gradually brought around, once the logic behind these customs becomes clearer to them."

KaylynBuckley (talk) 02:32, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Again though, I apologize if I offended. Not my intention. I just am trying to make a page for a band I like. Thank you for redirecting Cameron Lavi-Jones's article to King Youngblood. I didn't know you could do that instead. KaylynBuckley (talk) 01:25, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I do not know if this is an undisclosed paid editor or not, but I do notice that the new account made 10 edits in four days and thereby became autoconfirmed, and then posted a fully formed promotional article as edit #11. That looks a lot like gaming the system to me. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:32, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Cullen³²⁸ Not trying to game the system. I edited articles to try and get the hang of Wikipedia and how editing and formatting pages/inserting sources work. It's just something I wanted to learn while I've been bored in quarantine. Like I mentioned, I'm a fan of the band King Youngblood and wanted to try my hand at making a page myself, not trying to game the system. It'll probably be the last page I do because of the backlash for just giving it a try. I spent most of today getting secondary sources to try and follow the source guidelines other users sent me but I'm hoping people will dialogue about that in good faith versus continuing to just leave accusatory comments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KaylynBuckley (talk • contribs) 01:43, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

• This explanation strains credibility. Ten edits to "get the hang of it" followed by an eleventh edit creating a fully formed and formatted article in mainspace, without seeking help or input from anyplace within the project? Also, having enough knowledge to make such an article and yet not enough to know which sources are permissible? I think the WP:BOOMERANG has come full circle, and a WP:DUCK block is justified. BD2412 T 01:54, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Cullen I'm still just asking that we can discuss in a more friendly way? I'm not sure what you mean by some of this. I've been quarantined for two months and wanted to try learning something new. I just wanted to be able to add Wikipedia article writing to my toolbox and give it a try. I edited articles to learn and then made a page - isn't that Wikipedia protocol? And what do you mean about seeking help from within the project - do you mean someone from Wikipedia? Are you supposed to request help from someone within Wikipedia before publishing. I am relatively computer savvy so formatting the page wasn't an issue for me, if that's what you mean by it being suspicious that it's fully formed and formatted? I'd really like to have a conversation, again versus hurling accusations and being unkind. That's why I started this thread in the first place: I was overwhelmed by the negativity. I really respect your experience in Wikipedia articles and again, would like to talk more, with a good faith assumption and knowing that I'm a recent college grad who is really bored while in lockdown in NYC. KaylynBuckley (talk) 02:02, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi BD2412 T and Cullen³²⁸ I am certain you don't need this cited as well but I've spent a lot of today trying to better understand the different policies and procedures and also just wanted to throw this one in here too - I'm new on Wikipedia and trying to learn, and have been met with a lot of negativity . I'm sorry for starting this thread; I was trying to figure out a way to get constructive criticism versus personal attacks and was led to this page. Citing this paragraph from the Wikipedia "Assume Good Faith" page:

It is important to be patient with newcomers, who will be unfamiliar with Wikipedia's culture and rules, but may nonetheless turn out to be valuable contributors.

A newcomer's behavior probably seems appropriate to them, and a problem in that regard usually indicates unawareness or misunderstanding of Wikipedian culture. It is not uncommon for a newcomer to believe that an unfamiliar policy should be changed to match their notion of how things should function, especially if they notice that there is already some level of disagreement over the policy in question. Similarly, many newcomers want to have their contributions to articles accepted without question, especially those which pertain to subjects on which they have extensive knowledge. Behaviors arising from these perspectives, while possibly misguided, are usually not malicious and should not be treated as such. Many new users who lack an intuitive grasp of Wikipedia customs are gradually brought around, once the logic behind these customs becomes clearer to them.

I'm sorry that I've been misunderstanding and would really appreciate some kindness here as I'm trying to understand the Wikipedian culture and how to write an article. KaylynBuckley (talk) 02:28, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

• Looking at the evidence overall, I'm not buying what's being sold here. Such innocence, such convenient discovery of WP:AGF at just the moment it's needed, such shaming of "unfriendly" editors. I agree that its very likely that KB has been gaming the system, and is probably an undeclared paid editor. WP:DUCK sounds good. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:32, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Beyond My Ken why do you say that? It's not feigning innocence. And people have been sending me WP pages all day about different policies. It's not a convenient discovery; I've been referred to different links literally all day.

How did you get started on Wikipedia and can you help answer a couple of my other questions that I've mentioned in here? I tried my hand at writing an article because I've been bored in lockdown and because I wrote one I've been attacked for most of the day. I'm 22 and brand new here and just want to have a kinder dialogue about how to improve my editing and writing in the future - though given the content and communication of the other editors I've come across today, think this might be my last Wikipedia attempt. It really just feels like cyberbullying.KaylynBuckley (talk) 02:41, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

So again with the shaming. We're all cyberbullies and we're driving you away from Wikipedia. It's not going over, you've lost your audience. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:44, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Why don't we do this, then. We'll go ahead and delete King Youngblood, and you can work on other areas of the project for a couple months and develop a few thousand edits worth of experience, and then we can revisit having an article on the band. BD2412 T 02:46, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

That's precisely what I came here to say! I've AfD'd the article as non-notable, but don't let that stop anyone from speedying it if they think it qualifies. Then 2 or 3 months of productive editing -- without creating any articles -- should go to show whether KB is what we think she is or not. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:52, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I am reminded here of the colloquial definition of chutzpah: killing your parents and then pleading for mercy because you are an orphan. This editor does not strike me as forthcoming. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 02:48, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I think it would be best if all further new page creations go through WP:AFC, to iron out aany problems with sourcing and tone. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 02:54, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

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

vandalism and someone who is not neutral

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

---

((the problem is not the source - why did you just focus on the person's answer))

Semsûrî should not be Wikipedia. I see this user taking sides and doing Kurdish nationalism. The Kurdish nationalist is trying to emphasize his views on Zazas, Zaza-Gorani languages, Zaza language,Gorani language pages. I see that you are deleting other comments for invalid reasons. Goodnight

Can you see if someone will say stop? [[26]] Pages should be reinstated. Does Semsûrî know everything and why are you protecting it? Do you think it is natural that it creates the perception of kurdish. Why are the people who take sides still stand on wikipedia? You don't see vandalism either. see discussion pages. he complains that he has the opposite view, cannot explain on the discussion page.

you lock the pages as he wants instead of undo. I wonder why ????

Pages should be in the style of creating Kurdish perception created by her.

Please take a look. He creates a reason and erases most of the data on the pages.

Examine this person extensively. Apart from the ski, which he could not find reliable, he also wipes. It's not objective. Kurdish is trying to convey nationalist views to pages. I hope someone will examine it 5.24.147.56 (talk) 09:34, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

As I stated, 'Minahan' is not a reliable source so I removed it. See[27]. What I've seen from you and your friends is the belief that any source can be used on Wikipedia which is not the case. --Semsûrî (talk) 09:15, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Encyclopedia of the Stateless Nations: S-Z (James Minahan, Peter T. Wendel) why not reliable ? Let's say the source is not reliable. Why did you delete this resource? (Indigenous Peoples: An Encyclopedia of Culture, History, and Threats to . Victoria R. Williams) 188.57.172.184 (talk) 10:30, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

[[28]] is this friend also a puppet of Semsûrî — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.57.172.184 (talk) 10:25, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

you report such a reason and delete too much data. You only delete the data on the pages. You are doing Kurdish nationalism. You add Kurdish nationalist views and you can also have puppets and assistants.188.57.172.184 (talk) 10:34, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Paradise Chronicle and Semsûrî they can be puppets 188.57.172.184 (talk) 10:41, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

We waited a long time for Benahol to become a valid editor in the Zaza area, but Benahol just didn't want to follow even very basic rules. We have been making a clean up now, and really many edits were simply copy pasted. For the moment, recalling the discussions I had with the now blocked Benahol, I don't feel comfortable with IP edits interfering in the clean up of the Zaza articles.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 11:08, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

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

IP-hopping WP:SPA at Nathan Coulter-Nile

Multiple IPs (one and the same person, seeing the edits) which geolocate to Australia have been repeatedly adding incorrect information on the infobox of Nathan Coulter-Nile (the given source, generally a solid reference for cricket statistics and such information, says "bowler"...). This has lead to the page being put on pending changes, and then despite this they continued so the page was temporarily semi-protected (on top of the pending changes), but this protection expired 3 days ago and this is continuing. The original protecting admin is currently offline; and a request I posted there was also removed by the IP in violation of WP:TPG. Some additional semi-protection seems in order; but given the backlog at RFPP and the potential for a rangeblock I'm posting here. RandomCanadian (talk | contribs) 01:36, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

This is what happens when the media starts throwing the word "all-rounder" left and right... M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 01:49, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Cricket Australia describes him as an all-rounder. Would it solve the issue if I just added that as a source for the IP's claim? M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 01:51, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, a batting average of under 20 in all formats of the game isn't exactly stellar (that's my opinion, disregard if you so like); and cricinfo still has him as a bowler, but that could work (it's such a minor detail I certainly wouldn't fuss too much about it). In any case, I still stand by my assessment that the IP is not particularly constructive in their editing... RandomCanadian (talk | contribs) 01:57, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps, but I can understand the IP's frustration and even Adil Rashid is considered an all-rounder by some. I've tried to make a compromise with my latest edit, but it's subject to WP:BRD, obviously. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) —Preceding undated comment added 03:54, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, at least his first-class average appears respectable for an England player (considering their sometimes less than stellar performances in the recent past)... Anyway, had a decent laugh. Case solved for now. RandomCanadian (talk | contribs) 04:14, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

The issue began when he made a single score of 92 in an ODI at the World Cup in June 2019. That score, apparently, instantly made him an all-rounder in people's eyes. And a slew of edits began - often focussed around times Australia were playing Test matches it seems. These involved blanking the article talk page on a number of occasions, on this article as well as two or three others (Ryan Harris (cricketer) certainly and another the name of which escapes me) - Lugnuts has pointed out that a similar pattern has occurred at Mark Steketee (here over a nickname, but also featuring adding an OLINK to Australia multiple times and talk page blanking). I've tried engaging on talk pages and it hasn't worked and clearly dynamic IP addresses are being used. Pending changes has had a somewhat positive effect, although if those accepting changes had read the talk page it might have helped matters.

The initial edits to Coulter-Nile were certainly original research. If Cricket Australia consider him an international all-rounder then, well, I suppose we have a source for that at least. Personally I think they're having a laugh based on that 92 - his only international half-century - but there you go: we have one source at least. Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:39, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't know if a range-block can be done without any collateral damage, but in the short term the related articles have protection. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:08, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

The range appears to be 1.128.0.0/11, but apparently that's too large of a range for us to be able to inspect the contributions for potential collateral damage. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 18:15, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for checking. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:54, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Just to note, should anyone have missed it, that this section was blanked by what appears to be the same user operating, this time, from 1.144.107.119. Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:45, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Picklespitlizyr

User:Picklespitlizyr. Disruptive behaviour and incivility. [29][30][31] Warned in his/her talk page [32]. Another user points out at similar issues--Asqueladd (talk) 21:06, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

For next time, WP:3RRN is a better place to report edit warring. Picklespitlizyr, please do not file obviously retaliatory reports, and please follow WP:BRD next time you find yourself in an edit war. Note that if you continue to edit-war in the future you may be blocked. Asqueladd, it probably would've been better to find some way to integrate the image into the article instead of removing it; see WP:PRESERVE. Enterprisey (talk!) 22:00, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

@Enterprisey: Sure. --Picklespitlizyr (talk) 22:33, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Long term behaviour

Hi! This user Sangitha rani111 have been warned for violating Wikipedia's terms in the past for numerous times including level 3 warning and recently by this [[33]] but the user deleted the discussion and not responded to the problem properly. There have been multiple issues addressed in the warning message and the user never responded to the issues. This user occasionally uses Wikipedia and there seems to be less motive of building Wikipedia. There is some strong case to show that this user has some conflict of interest in South Asian social groups. The last warning message was sent by me so I request the general community to take decision in this matter whether to block or ban the user. Thank you.--Universalrahu (talk) 07:46, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

User [User:Universalrahu|Universalrahu]] (talk) has been engaging in POV and he has been blocked sometime as well. Please go through all my edits. I make edits based on valid university resources , academic books. I have made lengthy discussion in talk pages. Please do review everything. User Universalrahu does not want to engage in discussion and is false accusing of me, and has involved in vandalism some time ago. Sangitha rani111 (talk) 02:28, 14 May 2020 (UTC)Sangitha rani111 Sangitha rani111 (talk) 02:29, 14 May 2020 (UTC)Sangitha rani111

Sangitha rani111 The current discussion is about your long term behavior. You have been warned for violating the following policies and guidelines of Wikipedia 1.Vandalism, 2.Disruptive editing, 3.Verifiability, 4.Copyrights, 5.No original research, 6.Neutral point of view, 7.Conflict of interest. Your not responding properly how you have not violated these policies with clear explanation, instead accusing others. Bear in mind that every user have past history even Administrator's here have past history of block and other issues. Everyone is accountable in Wikipedia if the problem is about your behavior you must explain about your edits and not others.

For the note of Administrator's. This user is so immature to edit on Wikipedia. This user have no clear idea of what Wikipedia is for and how to edit. The user is not engaged in building Wikipedia, occasionally this user edits Wikipedia to illustrate some point on some specific topics which the user have strong conflict of interest. Whenever this uses resumes editing after long gap the user edits on same specific topics and get warned or blocked for editing on such topics. This is evident from this user's past history. It's high time to take some action on this user.--Universalrahu (talk) 06:04, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

User [User:Universalrahu|Universalrahu]] (talk) please be respectful and do not call names like immature. Also your edits show that you have been engaged in vandalizing, edit wareing, POV, original research, false caste glorification , etc,, I do my best and when I have doubts I get the help of senior editors who guide me. Also as you can see my edits are based on books from well known academic, university , etc,,. I kindly request you to be respectfull and verify the books I have provided for all discussions. Also I get concensus from senior editors in case there are too many points then only add them in article. I once again request you to go through the lengthy discussion I have made in talk pages. To me it appears you are violating every wiki policy. Please correct yourself. Sangitha rani111 (talk) 17:21, 15 May 2020 (UTC)Sangitha rani111

I agree withUniversalrahu. Some people should not edit Wikipedia. @Sangitha rani111 is so immature. Calling names is good in situation. The Admistratiors must ban. Ahuja Wiki Kashmir (talk) 16:17, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I have filed an SPI here. Ahuja Wiki Kashmir (talk) 17:27, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Struck irrelevant sock interlude. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:04, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

I kindly request to be respectfull and also please verify the books I have provided for all discussions. I have also made lengthy discussion in talk pages based on academic resources. I also take guidenances from senior editors Sangitha rani111 (talk) 00:09, 17 May 2020 (UTC)Sangitha rani111

The discussion is about your edits on Wikipedia not about yourself. Your edits are so immature that everyone can easily infer from your edit history. Since the inception of this report you are not coming out with clear explanation rather that your only one answer "referring books" and nothing else. You have been warned for violating many Wikipedia policy and guidelines and at high your conflict of interest issue in South Asian Social Groups.. Please refer all allegations and reply properly. Thank you.--Universalrahu (talk) 13:24, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

[User:Universalrahu|Universalrahu]] (talk) you have been blocked in the past, has been involved in vandalism , your edits are based on POV, original research and in-correct info. I kindly request you to go through the talk pages , books I have provided. I edit based on university academic resources, Please check the books. I post discussion as well. Sangitha rani111 (talk) 02:01, 18 May 2020 (UTC)Sangitha rani111

Personal attacks by User:Jemorie

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

---

Besides the poor attempt at damage control by Jemorie, the main issue I'd like to raise is the editing of other editors userpages, as well as the near constant personal attacks. Jemorie has claimed to be leaving the site, but almost immediately resumed their editing. Jemorie was blocked in April for edit warring over another user's talk page, so I am requesting that they receive an extended block for their inability to improve as an editor. Cards84664 01:21, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Blocked indef with no talk page access. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:34, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

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

Weird promotional COI?

This isn't about any editors in particular. But, I noticed how spammy / promotional the descriptions for the two photographs on Confluence Park are, and wanted to bring it to administrators' attention.

Read the information at File:World Water Monitoring Day (4049999633).jpg, and at File:Keynote Speaker at World Water Monitoring Day (4050743364).jpg. Also note the latter's caption on the Confluence Park article itself.

Someone with close ties is trying to push the EPA World Water Monitoring Day and it's very strange. What do admins think should be done about this? Merely delete the spammy wording on both its metadata as well as the article, or delete the photos entirely? 71.56.244.35 (talk) 04:41, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) The images are hosted on Commons, not here on English Wikipedia. Moreover, a quick glance at the files' histories indicate that they were transferred from Flickr, so there's nothing weird about the descriptions being on the promo-y side. The caption of the image at the Confluence Park article is perfectly neutral, so nothing seems out of the ordinary here. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 04:55, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Mr. Samerkov

User:Mr. Samerkov is currently engaged in edit warring. He keeps reverting every one of my edits on Dewan Rakyat, the article about the Malaysian parliament. Even after I have provided a source to back up my edits, he just reverts it without providing any source. In fact, all of the edits he made are unsourced. He also calls me a supporter of a particular political party, despite the fact that Wikipedia is not a place for users to talk about their political beliefs. He evens accuses me of "always trying to provoke" when I never made any provocative statements. His behaviour is clearly unacceptable on Wikipedia. ChioBu (talk) 05:26, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

The Dewan Rakyat, or Malaysian Parliament, is currently in a period of flux, and this seems to be drawing some controversy to the article. Both ChioBu and Mr. Samerkov have been edit warring on Dewan Rakyat for a few days. I warned both a couple of days ago when 3RR was violated. Both editors seem relatively new, and other editors and IPs have also been involved. However, the edit warring has restarted since my warning, and there has been no attempt by any party to use the article talkpage. CMD (talk) 07:57, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I have notified Mr. Samerkov of this discussion, as this had not yet been done. CMD (talk) 08:01, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Don't blame me for this. I just help the other editors what's the right. Sir Don't get tricked by User Chio Bu. I wanted to do right thing and revent the User Chio Bu did. He's a RBA who keep making Faking Propaganda against current goverment. Some MPs has Lost Trust on Previous PM and Mazlee Malik dosen't support mahathir side. Since you have revent. I would rather not to bother dewan rakyat's Article.Mr. Samerkov (talk) 09:40, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Almost Forgot, Im not good in english but User Chio Bu is Unaccaptable to agree with my previous Edits. He also Trying to Revent The Kedah State Assamblely since The PH Goverment Has Collepes. Please stop Accucing me.Mr. Samerkov (talk) 09:44, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

As it's obvious from above, Mr Samerkov continues to make baseless accusations towards me, yet he claims that I am accusing him. He has failed to provide any source to backup any of the statements he made. He is clearly WP:NOTHERE. ChioBu (talk) 08:25, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Dude, I would better know about this if i would. User Sisusiva and User Quidtul itself remove what you did. All i know is you have a simillar account like 2001:D08:1284:81E3:F42C:DF48:40AF:A6C7 if i was right. You also clearly WP:NOTTHERE Too. You keep accusing me from the start. I had enough revent on dewan rakyat and you still repeating the same thing. Still You Look like a RBA to me and Don't lie on me because you still trying to revent again like kedah state assambley and Perikatan nasional. Can we End talk Dicussion ?.Mr. Samerkov (talk) 10:32, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

That IP address does NOT belong to me. No, I didn't accuse you at all. Everything I said about you on this page are the truth and I have the proof. Now, you are the one who is accusing me. You claimed that I am a RBA, what proof do you have for that? Besides, Wikipedia is NOT a place to talk about our political beliefs. You, for whatever reasons, have been busy reverting me and a few other users' edits on those pages, and you have never provided any reliable source or proper explanation for those reverts. This clearly shows that you are WP:NOTHERE. ChioBu (talk) 13:36, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

That was also You are keep accusing me that You keep Repeting the same thing. Come on dude i know everyone style. Firstly You Keep Revent on Kedah State Assamblely. Then you revent on Dewan Rakyat that You think GPS is a Allies Parties on Perikatan Nasional. I just Trying to follow and Fixed the error, Revent something wrong on Article like what Other Real Malaysian Wikis did. Until you did revent just like others. Like i Said before, i will not touch Dewan Rakyat's Article since you involve me here. I don't know what's Wrong with you. You keep revent and Revent the SAME Thing i make a good statement. It is better we end this. This also shows you are really WP:NOTHERE and Lier. I saw that Article about Mazlee but He Still didn't Support mahathir but rather Support Muhyddin Side. If you keep blaming me on this. It was Your Fault who remove my statement. This ends right here, Right now. Please !.Mr. Samerkov (talk) 13:51, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

You keep claiming that Maszlee Malik supports Muhyiddin. Let me ask you again, where's your source for that? Here, I have a few sources which clearly state that Maszlee does NOT support Muhyiddin's government. Next, with regards to the Kedah State Legislative Assembly, it is a fact that only the Sultan of Kedah can decide who gets to be the Chief Minister. Since the Sultan of Kedah hasn't made any announcement now, Mukhriz Mahathir is legally still the Chief Minister and Pakatan Harapan is still the government of Kedah. Both you and User:Qaidul are wrong in this matter. I see that you continue to edit war with another user on the Mukhriz Mahathir article over this issue as well. Please stop that. ChioBu (talk) 17:22, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Let me add that Gabungan Parti Sarawak is NOT actually part of Perikatan Nasional, it is just supporting Perikatan Nasional. Therefore, Gabungan Parti Sarawak's status in the Dewan Rakyat is Confidence & Supply, not Government. ChioBu (talk) 17:34, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

References

I knew you keep repeat and repeat again. Just stop ok. Your Sources Cannot be Trust anymore. Just Chill out eh ?. I feel had Enough Talking to you or revent everything.Mr. Samerkov (talk) 21:02, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring has continued (involving more than just the above two editors), so I have requested full protection for Dewan Rakyat. CMD (talk) 10:48, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Violation of discretionary sanctions on Joe Biden sexual assault allegation

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

---

Recently, Tara Reade was merged[34] into Joe Biden sexual assault allegation, as she was not notable in her own right. This led to the expected back-and-forth about how to trim it down and remove duplication, including some active discussions on the talk page.

In the middle of this, User:Cjhard deleted[35] all but the first couple of sentences from this section, entirely against any consensus. As the article is under discretionary sanctions, I believe this counts as vandalism, based on: "Edits made which remove or otherwise change any material placed by clearly established consensus, without first obtaining consensus to do so, may be treated in the same manner as clear vandalism." There was a clearly-established consensus to merge, and no consensus to delete.

Even though I believe this is vandalism, I did not revert them, but I did make requests on the article talk page and on their talk page for them to self-revert. They deleted my request and dared me to report them, so here I am.

I believe their behavior is unacceptable, not only for deleting so much against consensus, but for their disregard for my attempts to remedy the error. I ask that the deletion be reverted and Cjhard warned against doing this sort of thing. I have no opinion on whether a topic ban or block or whatever is also warranted. FollowTheSources (talk) 22:38, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Has the Christine Blasey Ford article 'likewise' been merged in a similar article on Brett Kavanaugh? Just curious. GoodDay (talk) 22:42, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Doesn't look like it, probably because Ford has more notability in her own right. But if it were merged, I'm sure we'd actually want to merge it, not just delete it.

I was not involved in the decision to merge Tara Reade, although I happen to agree with it. The issue here is that Cjhard is trying to turn the merge into a delete, and that appears to violate sanctions. FollowTheSources (talk) 22:44, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, Christine Blasey Ford has an extensive and successful academic career, and Tara Reade doesn't have any known claim to notability outside of her allegations against Biden. So, the cases are not comparable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:49, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Indeed. Here was the consensus to merge: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tara_Reade FollowTheSources (talk) 22:50, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Jeeze, I know you are a new editor so again I recommend you familiarize yourself with our policies, but you are misstating the result of that discussion. The RESULT was move merge. There wasn't consensus for that result, it was essentially a no-consensus close. There was consensus against keeping it as a separate article, but "no consensus" for completely deleting it thus merge (not consensus for merge).--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:02, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

This turns out not to be the case. Here is the actual result:

The result was merge to Joe Biden sexual assault allegation. Once one discards the obvious one-edit SPAs, the comments that do not reference any policy at all, and the large number of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS comments, mostly about Christine Blasey Ford, there is a consensus that this should not exist as a stand alone article, but there is not consensus to delete it. Black Kite (talk) 18:50, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

That's a merge, not a delete. End of story. FollowTheSources (talk) 23:04, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Not end of story. There is a important difference between "not consensus to delete it" (ie. absence of consensus) and affirmative consensus to do anything else. The distinction is important. I have been trying to explain that difference to you on the talk page for sometime now.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:12, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

It says what it says. And the discussion on the article talk page is focused on what to do with specific section of the merged material. There is nothing approaching a consensus to delete the whole thing. FollowTheSources (talk) 23:14, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for correcting your statement about the result. Will point out, once again, that merging is not the same as deleting. FollowTheSources (talk) 23:19, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

• The result "merge" doesn't mean there is consensus to include all content of the article. What's irrelevant is irrelevant and should not be included and what's relevant is relevant and should be included. And you should focus on consensus building instead of wasting your and our time in drama boards.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 23:30, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
• A merge does not require all material at the original to be retained at merge target, and in fact, it is expected that only relevant material be kept as appropriate for the merge target. Since this was a merge and not a delete, no contributions are lost through the redirect (outside probably a handful of revdels due to the situation, but those we don't worry about). While there's clearly agreement to merge, it should be understood that that merge comes with the implicit understanding that stuff needs to be pruned from it; in fact, I can tell from AzureCitizen's contributes they already cut more than half the information from the Reade article before adding, which obvious they did not seek any consensus for what parts to be kept. Cjhard was bold to further trim stuff down and in fact pointed to a prior consensus on that talk page [36] from prior to the merge close that judged to keep her bio only to facts relevant to the accusations. In other words, Cjbold did not come in blindly to trim down, they came in armed with past discussion to make that choice. No one has edit warred since, and so this feels like a 100% appropriate action, as if you are going to take action at Cjbold, then you have to take action at AzureCitizen too (which I dont think is being suggested). There's definitely previous support to trim down to the basics here, and consensus should develop if more should be added back, but you have all the past contributions without needing an admin to get at. --Masem (t) 23:32, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) The outcome clearly IS a merge, as stated; no arguing against that, and I don't know why Darryl Kerrigan tries to. Especially since there's no need to argue from that end; what they have been doing is within the boundaries of a merge. Merging doesn't mean that the entirety of the material has to be ported over. How much is integrated into the target article is up to further discussion - the only unavailable option being "nothing". So I'd suggest that editors keep discussing on the talk page about the extent of what is kept or removed, and don't try to turn it into lawyering about the close. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:34, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

To be clear, I never claimed we should keep every word from the merged article. In fact, I deleted the infobox.[37]

Having said that, there is absolutely no consensus for deleting everything but the first two sentences. FollowTheSources (talk) 23:41, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thanks Elmidae, I am not arguing the result wasn't a merge, simply that there wasn't an affirmative consensus to merge, and certainly not to include all of the content that happened to be in the Tara Reade article prior to the close. Thank you for your comments, I agree that we need to continue discussion of what should be included in the Joe Biden sexual assault allegation article (ie what is relevant and due in the circumstances).--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:49, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

By any measure, there is no consensus to delete all of the biographical material. FollowTheSources (talk) 23:52, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Read WP:ONUS and WP:BLP, those who want to include should seek consensus for inclusion, not those who delete. There is no consensus to include that material. The "merge" is not consensus to include all of the article content. And in my opinion some of the stuff about political opinions of the accuser is indeed not needed since it is irrelevant to the topic of the article and there is no evidence it is relevant and implying that it is relevant is a BLP violation. We don't poison the well here.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 00:02, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

There are no BLP violations in the rescued material, but if there were, then that would be an argument for removing them, not everything. FollowTheSources (talk) 00:08, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Even you think there is no BLP violation, WP:ONUS is pretty clear about that, whether the content is BLP violation or not,

“ The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is upon those seeking to include disputed content. ”

I should also add that I do believe that the content is a BLP violation but regardless, you should seek consensus anyway.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 00:26, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Feel free to point out any such violation. That onus is on you. FollowTheSources (talk) 00:37, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I have already explained. Tara's political opinion, past events and comments are not proven to be relevant to Joe Biden sexual assault allegations. They might be relevant in an article about the biography of Tara but they are not confirmed to be relevant in the article about her sexual assault allegations against Joe Biden. Don't tell me maybe they are relevant, no, unless they are confirmed to be relevant to the sexual assault allegation, they will not be included. This is not an article about Tara's biography. The onus to achieve consensus is on you because you want to include. I can easily turn this to a WP:boomerang discussion if you still think the content should be there until there is a consensus to delete it based onWP:NOTGETTINGIT.-SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 01:18, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

• Consensus at an AfD for article X doesn't override consensus among editors at merge target article Y. The AfD is about what to do with that article; what, if anything, is included in the target article is based on discussions between editors on the target article's talk page. Given that the extent of this seems to be a misunderstanding of this combined with a rush to ANI, followed by standard false balance/otherstuff fare, this should just be closed as a content dispute. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:01, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

There is no consensus to delete the entire bio and this is not a content dispute. It is a sanctions violation issue. There is an established consensus that some non-trivial portion of the bio should be retained. FollowTheSources (talk) 00:07, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I would prefer to assume good faith, so maybe this is all a misunderstanding. If so, then @Cjhard: could correct my misunderstanding of their motives. If they don't, then I can only continue to hold my conclusion that they knowingly violated sanctions. FollowTheSources (talk) 05:41, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I've explained before, look at the edit summary of the diff that you included of Cjhard's "removal", where if you look back at the talk page several days prior to the closure of the merge, there was general agreement to trim back any part of Reade's bio that would potentially be included on the allegation page to the parts relevant to the allegation. In combination with the general expectation that a merge is going to required trimming out material from the original to make it fit, this is all reasonable and within line. That's Cjhard's motivations, it's pretty clear. It is a content dispute. Trying to frame it as a sanctions violation, and not discussing the fact that AzureCitizen cut material when they brought it into the article is disingenuous - or basically that this is clearly not a sanctions violation but the first pass by two editors to complete the actions of the merge, and now the discussion should be on how to proceed, that is, a standard content dispute that has no place at ANI. --Masem (t) 05:48, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

The talk page is full of discussions about the removal of small sections of the biography, and even those did not have any clear consensus to remove. Given this, removing everything but the first couple of sentences is radically different to what was discussed, to the point that Cjhard went against consensus on an article that was put under sanctions precisely to prevent actions like this.

At this point, I don't think it's productive for us to continue discussing Cjhard's motives and try to insert our own interpretations of what they were thinking when they did this. Let them speak for themselves. FollowTheSources (talk) 06:05, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Assume good faith. This report does not warrant any further response from me unless someone decides to propose a boomerang against this 5-day-old SPA. Cjhard (talk) 07:40, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I did, but your response has not been collegial. In fact, you didn't respond except with hostility. I don't believe I've seen any explanation from you for why you think it's appropriate to delete the entire merged article. Perhaps if you'd communicated clearly and with civility from the start, we wouldn't be here.

In fact, I'm still waiting for that explanation, especially the part where you share why you feel you have some consensus behind you for this radical change. Instead, you've cleared your own talk page and avoided all discussion on the article's; full radio silence. This doesn't seem conducive to building a better article.

Now that you're here, you have the perfect opportunity to clear the air, but instead you're trying to offer more reasons to ignore me. That's disappointing.

Given that the article is under sanctions, I would think that unilateral decisions like this are counterproductive. What do you think?

Looks like you actually said something on the article talk page! I'm glad you're using your words. You still haven't explained anything, but hey, baby steps, right? FollowTheSources (talk) 14:02, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

• User:FollowTheSources should sign in under their original account. This is not a new user. serial ^# 08:03, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Hey, I remember you. Aren't you the one who reverted my good-faith removal of the infobox without any stated reason? [38]. My edit comment ended collegially, with "if you disagree, please revert and explain", but you just reverted and never explained. You still haven't. And here you are, defending the removal of the entire biography, as opposed to fighting to keep the infobox.

You haven't participated in the discussion on the talk page, but you're happy to come here and say weird things about me. That's interesting. Maybe you could form a club with Cjhard for editors who like to revert but hate to discuss their reasons. FollowTheSources (talk) 13:50, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

• Complete with a telltale RGW username. Grandpallama (talk) 12:53, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I have undone FollowTheSources's attempt to close this discussion, given that they are one of the parties whose behavior is under scrutiny, and the inappropriateness of their decision to close the discussion. The closure was doubly inappropriate, considering that they first posted a couple of snarky rejoinders [39][40] and then immediately closed the discussion four minutes later [41]. A few editors have expressed concerns about FollowTheSources's behavior and unusual familiarity with WP policies and procedures (to which we can now add "how to close discussions"), so it's not clear that this discussion was in any way over. And if it is, it should be closed by an admin or uninvolved party. Grandpallama (talk) 16:56, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I opened it, I can close it. If you have a problem with my behavior, go make your own ANI and watch it boomerang. FollowTheSources (talk) 18:09, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

As an involved editor whose behavior is under scrutiny, no you may not close it. Read WP:NACINV. And you certainly can't use closures to try to get in the last word on a dispute and then cut off further discussion. Grandpallama (talk) 18:27, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

This is a ridiculous waste of time. This report is dead. Cjhard actually broke radio silence, and now Tara Reade has been undeleted, so the issue is moot. You're just trying to cause trouble here, and I have no interest in interacting with you further. FollowTheSources (talk) 18:28, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Then you might want to quit posting to my talkpage, eh? Grandpallama (talk) 18:32, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

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

User:Vala keep repeat

As per the topic of a specific user someone has brought up but no one replied. It would be nice if someone can please participate in this discussion. I am kind of having enough of this user already. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Vala keep Typhoon2013 (talk) 03:18, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

The previous complaint was at this ANI archive. I have left a note for the user. If Vala keep continues to leave repeated message for other users demanding they take some action it might be viewed as harassment. In the previous ANI you mentioned 'adding incorrect information to articles'. I assume this is a question of unsourced changes. You might clearly identify this if you notice that it continues. EdJohnston (talk) 15:29, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Saurabhgurgaon being disruptive

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

User:Saurabhgurgaon is engaging in behavior that is infringing on WP:DISRUPTIVE. In their short time with Wikipedia they have claimed (and were warned here) user rights they do not have, engaged in removing AfD templates from articles despite warnings (warnings here), and in one instance retaliated against an editor who nominated their article for deletion by placing a template implying the nominator was a sockpuppet (though they later self reverted). I became involved with this editor when I noticed they were falsely claiming to be an admin on their userpage (see my warning here). They have once again added a template implying admin-ship to their userpage despite an explicit warning not to do so. Requesting an admin take a look. SamHolt6 (talk) 03:30, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Since creating their account in March, this user has added the claim to be an administrator to their user page three times. They have also removed AfD templates and added a sock template to another account. So there isn't a question of someone making newbie mistakes. They also seem rather fluent with templates. This suggests they could be a returning user. I have blocked indef. Any admin may lift this block if they become convinced that User:Saurabhgurgaon will follow Wikipedia policy in the future. EdJohnston (talk) 15:51, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Page move vandalism

• Kolkatacine (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Rubel Das (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Surya Rubel Das (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi. User:Kolkatacine has been disruptively moving pages and making a mess. See their contribs. Admin help is required to clean up, e.g., Wikipedia:Surya (I have no clue where that's from...). --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 19:36, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

I think I've cleared up the moves, unless a further histmerge is needed. This is related to Rubel Das vs. Surya Rubel Das. Which one should it be? Someone else will have to decide. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:18, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Zzuuzz! I don't know what the title should be, but it totally belongs in NS 11 --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 20:36, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

• Just to note: Kolkatacine (whose user talk page has numerous notices about suspected COI editing, whether justified or not) created Rubel Das (a BLP of an Indian actor) as an uncredited copy-paste of Surya Rubel Das, blanked the original article to an ad hoc redirect (URL of the article they had created), then reverted to that version. They also uploaded a photo of the subject, which I found online credited to Instagram. The preponderance of refs do not use "Surya", but some do, and the subject appears to have official Facebook accounts under both names. So I made Surya Rubel Das a functioning redirect and added the alternate name to the lead of Rubel Das, giving credit in both edit summaries. (Anthony Appleyard has now merged the articles at the request of Dl2000, so what I did is kind of floating in the history of the short-title article.) I also discovered the subject had an earlier career as a dancer, and added that to the article while I was at it. Kolkatacine has tried to efface the "Surya" name again. I'm going to drop a note on their user talk, but I'm not impressed. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:16, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Jorge1777 reported by Waddie96

Moved from WP:AIV

 – ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:57, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Waddie96 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Jorge1777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Unhelpful edits despite being warned and informed. WP:3RR at Maram Susli. comrade waddie96 (talk) 12:17, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

You do realise that they will check edits right, Waddie? Theyre not going to fall for your dirty tricks.Jorge1777 (talk) 12:18, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Jorge1777 had subsequently used profanity in a personal discussion on my talk page here. Violation of WP:CIVIL. comrade waddie96 (talk) 12:35, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Waddie96, please be more specific. If you would like to report an edit war, see WP:ANEW. If you would like to report a user's general behavior, please provide diff links (that worked nicely for the profanity report, so please provide similar diffs for the actual reported behavior) and be more specific than "Unhelpful edits". Jorge1777, profanity doesn't help your case; perhaps you could just <s>strikethrough</s> the message Waddie96 has later complained about. Both of you, please consider other means of disupte resolution (see WP:DR), including disengaging from the conflict and asking for a third opinion, before asking for administrative intervention, and instead of edit warring. And yes, it takes two people to edit war, and edit warring is disruptive even if you are "right". When in doubt, both participants can be blocked to prevent further disruption. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:57, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Sure Jorge1777 (talk) 13:05, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Jorge1777. Regarding discretionary sanctions, as mentioned by DIYeditor below, I have now informed both parties about the strict rules in the dispute areas covered by Template:Ds/alert. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:11, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Jorge1777 reverted my revert citing "repeated harassment" and WP:WIKIHOUNDING. (here, here, and [42].) Per BOLD, revert, discussion cycle I tried to discuss this on the talk page after reverting but my revert was still reverted. WP:3RR violation here. Revert of my revert despite later revert by another editor here. comrade waddie96 (talk) 13:21, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

• @Jorge1777: Can you explain this reversion? Looks like that was just out of spite? On a 1RR/DS American Politics article? Not looking good. —DIYeditor (talk) 13:05, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

  It seems it's not looking good overall, review my diffs above. comrade waddie96 (talk) 13:24, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

  Well going to another article and reverting out of spite (with no summary) seems particularly unacceptable, especially after complaining about WIKIHOUNDING. Obviously Jorge1777 already understood the concept and from appearances decided to do it himself just to make a WP:POINT or something. If no explanation is forthcoming I personally think that should be a block. —DIYeditor (talk) 13:40, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

  Hi,User:DIYeditor that revert was actually a revert of his revert, not a revert made out of spite. Waddie96 had stalked me over to that article, not the other way around as you have suggested.Jorge1777 (talk) 13:46, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

  Please use edit summaries for every edit to article space. Many or most of yours don't have any. If there is an automatic summary for a reversion please include an explanation as well. The only exception would be clear cases of vandalism. —DIYeditor (talk) 14:03, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

  @Jorge1777: I would like to partly apologize, as I did not notice Waddie96's reversion of you just prior. However that brings up another issue, that the article is on a 24-hour WP:BRD cycle which means you need to go to the talk page when reverted rather than revert back. —DIYeditor (talk) 19:29, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Mubashirsyed014 's edits

Mubashirsyed014 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - I went through the heap of warnings given to Mubashirsyed014, and chose 4+1 edits where he added unsourced/false info, and was given a vandalism/disruptive warning (+many other warnings about misleading edit summaries) before his next edit: 19 April1 diff, 29 April diff, 30 April diff, 4 May diff, 20 May diff. I believe repeated additons of uncourced content consitute vandalism. Sometimes his changes of article directly contradict his own sources = WP:SNEAKY. Also, was blocked for misleading edit summaries, and continued the practice. Seems almost WP:NOTHERE, pushing some kind fo agenda. Thanks for an assessment. WikiHannibal (talk) 17:56, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Indeffed. El_C 18:14, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

ClueBot III not working

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

---

On Cassiopeia's talk page, ClueBot seems to archive threads into redirects. Example: 1, 2. Pinging Cobi, the bot operator, to see if he can fix this. Interstellarity (talk) 13:35, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Probably not a bot problem. This seems to be due to a line in the archiving instructions, "archiveprefix=User talk:CASSIOPEIA/Archive". This should have been changed to lower case when CASSIOPEIA was renamed to Cassiopeia. I will let User:Cassiopeia know. EdJohnston (talk) 14:12, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: Thank you for doing this. I believe the discussion can continue on Cassiopeia's talk page. For this reason, I am closing this discussion. Interstellarity (talk) 15:11, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

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

Personal attacks, edit warring, and a possible conflict of interest by User:Rightventracleleft

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

---

I recently came across and reverted this edit [43] by Rightventracleleft (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for being unsourced. After looking at his contributions, I also reverted this edit [44] for lack of notability. This edit had already been reverted for lacking notability, and Rightventracleleft had simply reverted it back without comment. After this, Rightventracleleft reverted both my edits without comment, so I wrote this [45] comment on his talk page, and reverted his edits for the second time. Rightventracleleft responded on both his and my talk page, writing for example "This person is a paid troll that is vandalizing Wikpedia pages and attacking a very well known activist, removing properly sourced information, and making false claims against other editors", and reverted back to his original edits.

The reason I suspect Rightventracleleft of having a conflict of interest (note that I never claimed he is the person in question, I only asked about a relation or involvement) is because he has only made edits relating to a certain named person, or companies related to that person, and the vigor with which he seems to defend those edits. I'll also note that there have been very similar edits made previously by Metalface1981 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), for example [46], [47], [48].

I do not have much experience with editing Wikipedia, and I feel that this situation now needs the attention of a third party. Knuthove (talk) 20:09, 19 May 2020 (UTC)Rightventracleleft (talk)

While it's a bit difficult to read towards the end, I wonder whether this Teahouse thread may be relevant, particularly with regards to misunderstanding our purpose. M Imtiaz (talk · ~contribs) 22:22, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I've left the user with uw-nn and uw-coi. Please update with any further Matthew Berdyck promotion anywhere on Wikipedia. There might be a concerted effort here. El_C 22:54, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I believe that watching out for more Berdyck-related editing might be wise. I just found out that googling Matthew Berdyck produces some interesting results, such as the twitter account "MB Victim Resources" (with a google drive full of documents). I really have no idea what is going on with this person, and who is harassing whom, but there are a lot of strong feelings involved. I also have a question: Should I give more evidence here of a possible link between Rightventracleleft and Mathew Berdyck? Should that be done at all, and if yes, is this the place to do it? Thanks in advance for any help or advice! Knuthove (talk) 23:18, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't think that's necessary at this point in time. Again, just update any further MB mention/promotion, by anyone whatsoever. El_C 23:24, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

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

Change to all our welcome templates

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

---

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

---

We recently had a change to our main welcome template....this of course did not fly over well with many old timers but most were willing to live with it as those familiar with the templates simply used others that still contained all the important links , But now we have ever template changed to this users preferred format and their favorite links with ZERO talk. This mass change to our templates had changed the wording all over and has resulted in the removed of links to our five pillars and to simple how to pages like the simplified MOS and links to our article wizard and how to edit a page....while at the same time highlighting their favorite links to be more dominate then the links related to the templates purpose. Really think we need a wider talk on the matter before a mass change to drop our main links that we have had for over a decade. The editor in question has been reverted a few time but do we really want to mass revert and cause more problems till we have a solution? As a NEW template editor who knows this may be contentious they should be following the rules outlined at Wikipedia:Template editor#When to seek discussion for template changes.--Moxy 🍁 13:27, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Aside from the obvious blunder here, I'm confused as to what possible benefit granting sdkb TPE has for the project...this right should be yanked until they explain this mess and you know...the need. Praxidicae (talk) 13:51, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Praxidicae, good shout, I have done this. It was probationary anyway - I think we can consider this as evidence that the user is not ready for this right. Courtesy ping Primefac, who granted the right. This is a WP:AGF thing I think: an excess of enthusiasm on Sdkb's part but nonetheless incompatible with the initial temporary grant of template editor rights. Guy (help!) 14:20, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for taking care of that Guy. As you say, this was largely an AGF thing - I had actually written out a rather large post at their initial application detailing why I felt they should not receive the right, but I felt that my personal opinions were getting too much in the way of a good faith request, so in self-reflection I opted to grant it temporarily to (if anything) prove myself wrong. I should have listened to my gut, I guess. Primefac (talk) 14:24, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Primefac, I think you did right, because the problem doesn't appear to have been that hard to fix. Guy (help!) 15:03, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Moxy, so revert it and discuss at an appropriate venue. Guy (help!) 13:51, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

(ec) I would revert all...but since I have had the same conflict with them over the main template and a few others ....think its best a third party do all the reverts. I got an email this morning asking WTF is going on by someone who cant revert because of the protection level involved.--Moxy 🍁 13:58, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Moxy, OK, done then. Guy (help!) 14:15, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Strongly agree; significant changes to templates should be vetted, or at the very least proposed first before being mass-implemented. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:53, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Strongly agree here too! -- Alexf^(talk) 14:25, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

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

 Comment from Sdkb Hello all — this was obviously rather unpleasant to wake up to. There seems to be a large misunderstanding here that I was making edits with "ZERO talk" or consensus. That is not true. Some context: At the widely-attended Village Pump discussion on the standard welcome template that was closed last month, there was strong consensus in favor of the general changes proposed (reducing links, making the template more personal, and better visual design), and a rough consensus in favor of the specific proposed template. It's important to note that, while I respect much of the work Moxy has done, they were the primary dissenter, and have strenuously resisted implementation at several turns since. The main welcome template was subsequently updated, and at Template:Welcome-anon, we established with the closer over Moxy's lone objection that the changes carry to other welcome templates with the same basic structure as Template:Welcome. Prior to this change, I posted at Template talk:Welcome to see if anyone objected to adding the parameters that would be needed for the change, and no one replied (the welcome templates are a notoriously neglected area), so I went ahead and added them.

Regarding the merits of the change to wrappers, there is a clear need for consolidation among the welcome templates to help make them easier to maintain, within the spirit of WP:CONSOLIDATE. Many of them claimed to be e.g. "the same as the standard welcome, just with [variation]", when in fact they had drifted out of alignment not just years but many years ago. Thus, as an implementation of the VPR consensus, I had been updating them to bring them back into alignment and set them up to stay synced to the main welcome via use of a wrapper. I rolled out cautiously, starting with Template:Welcome-autosign a month ago (converting to a module on the 6th) and then Template:Welcome cookie on May 3. I also asked a brief question at the technical pump that didn't hide what I was working on. There were no objections raised, and I did extensive sandbox and testcase testing and confirmed that Twinkle still functioned properly. Given all that, I saw fit to roll out the change to other welcomes that had a very similar format to the standard welcome. It's important to note that most of them are very low use compared to the main welcome; only two or so were template-protected, and most allowed edits by all users. During implementation, I studiously took care not to make any radical changes to the wording (despite plenty of instances where it could really use a refresh—again, this is a neglected area where it's hard to have big discussions), and I preserved formatting at templates like {{Welcome-vandalism-fighter}}. I did not wrapperify templates that differed substantially from the format of the main welcome (e.g. {{Welcome screen}}, {{W-FAQ}}; my only recent edit at the latter is fixing an unambiguous copy error that has now been reintroduced), as was agreed here.

I am not surprised to see Moxy disgruntled, but I'm disappointed to see that this was already closed so quickly by the single sysop out of any on Wikipedia I'd consider most WP:INVOLVED with me (due to a recent unrelated matter), and that that sysop has subsequently reverted not just the changes I made turning the welcomes into wrappers, but what looks like it may be my entire history of template edits, including many from months or years ago that appear to have zero connection here (e.g. [49]). Given my extensive backlog, I have no clue what sort of errors or downgrades that might be reintroducing, but I'd expect that there will be plenty. There was no need to revert on such a massive scale so hastily given that nothing was broken, and the rollbacks are unquestionably doing more damage than whatever objections there might be to the wrapperification. I hope that it will be possible to fix this all up without too much effort.

Overall, it looks like I did move too quickly on this, and I certainly erred in using only a basic edit summary ("turning into a wrapper template to keep synced with main welcome") that didn't include a link to the discussions. I'm happy to open up a larger discussion on wrapperification, but I think the immediate pressing need here is to undo the damage from the far too blunt rollback (restoring everything prior to this edit apart from the {{Welcome cookie}} test should be sufficient). Apologies that this has ended up here, and my thanks to those of you putting in effort to review everything. Regards, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:00, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy pinging prior participants and others involved: @L235, Moxy, Praxidicae, Primefac, JzG, Ohnoitsjamie, Alexf, and Naypta: thanks for your attention{{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:00, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

In the interest of transparency, disclosing that I noticed on my watchlist Pppery undoing some of the individual rollback edits that broke things. I left a message on their talk page about cleaning up the damage from the rollback, and there is some discussion beginning there on that topic. I won't be making any direct edits to live templates while this thread is active. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:45, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

• Without comment as to the merits of granting or revoking the template editor role, I am very disappointed in the conduct of the user filing this ANI thread. Bringing a non-conduct dispute to ANI and, critically, withholding relevant context from the thread is misrepresenting the situation to the community. The filer failed to link to the relevant VPR discussion or to previous discussion at another welcome template talk page or to another one (all of which he vigorously participated in and knew were relevant). I understand that the filer and others feel strongly about this template, but this comes across as a trick designed to make Sdkb look more culpable. I also understand the filer's position that the consensus at VPR only applies to the {{welcome}} template and not to the others, and I think he's partially right about that, but it's really unfair to imply that all of these changes were entirely made without discussion and to neglect to mention Sdkb's likely position that the consensus covered the other templates. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 19:17, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

They were fully aware that this would be contentious and have out right lied that I am the only one that contested the changes (very disappointing to see this). What we have is an overzealous new editor that is all over the place trying to make changes and getting into conflicts in many placed over their persistent approach.--Moxy 🍁 21:27, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

• So there's a lot to unwrap here. I'm in no position to be qualified to opine on the template editor role, so much like Kevin I won't even try and get into that. The discussion I had with Sdkb over at Template talk:Welcome-delete may be of interest; I asked in particular about whether consensus had been established, and Sdkb told me All of these templates started out as variations of the standard welcome template (you can find lots of old references to "same as the standard welcome but with..." for templates that are no longer actually the same), but they just drifted out of sync over time, so yeah, I think it can be assumed that the consensus ideal practice is to keep them synced, and converting to a wrapper will help with that in the future (it should have been done when these were created, but either people didn't know how or the functionality didn't exist back then).

  I'll freely admit I'm not the greatest fan of the new welcome template, and I hadn't seen that VPR discussion - but that's on me for not seeing it, not on Sdkb, who did obtain consensus for that change. Whether or not there was consensus to make all the other templates a wrapper, however, I can see is a point of contention. I'm inclined to say that there may well not have been, in fact, but I don't think Sdkb in any way intended for that to be the case, and I'm yet to see any evidence whatsoever that would call into doubt their good faith in all of these matters. They may have been mistaken in their modifications, which were definitely bold even if there was consensus, but I think it's clear from the extensive discussions they'd had on the subject that they were not operating in bad faith.

  I, like L235, am concerned by the way that Moxy went about this all; I think the quote from Template talk:Welcome-anon in response to Kevin politely suggesting that they perhaps ought to revert their good faith edits sums it up: Yes very bad close but it was not about this template. That said its a much bigger problem then just here. Will have to write up a proper RFC to fix all the problems we now have. Will revert to show good faith... will just need a better explanation so others not familiar with how to retain editors can understand. This quote, of course, was from a page that was not disclosed when this report was made to ANI. To be clear, I'm not suggesting that Moxy's being deliberately antagonistic or acting in bad faith either; from their point of view, I can see that these changes are extremely frustrating, much more widespread than perhaps had been previously understood to be the case, and done by a relatively new template editor. However, it's possible they're unintentionally biased by their own opinions and experiences; the same reasoning we ask for uninvolved admins applies here IMO.

  I left a message on JzG's talk page talking about his reversion of a particular edit Sdkb had made to a page I was watching, and he quite happily reverted his rollback there, which is good. I hadn't, however, realised that he had been just rolling back all of Sdkb's template modifications, including the ones that they had made prior to being granted template editor and far prior to any of these modifications. Once again, I don't think this is a deliberate abuse, and I don't think it's bad faith, but I do think it was a mistake under the circumstances and not really warranted.

  The final thing I want to address here is the early "closure" of this ANI discussion: I'm really not sure it's appropriate in a case like this to have closed the discussion before the subject of the discussion has even been able to come to ANI and discuss the problem. There was no urgent reason to close that I can see: if participants felt urgent action was needed, they could have taken that action, but left the discussion open such that Sdkb was able to respond to the criticisms that had been levelled against them. Inevitably, such a closure just results in the discussion continuing, making the point of closure rather moot.

  Overall, I don't think there's sufficient evidence at the moment to suggest that this is a case of bad faith on any side - which is sort of what makes it so difficult. A lot of people have made various mistakes here, often by feeling they're really doing the right thing for the encyclopedia as a whole - which is a great feeling, and we ought to make sure we're not discouraging any editors from feeling that. I suggest we collectively take this as a learning opportunity for the future, and it'd be good to get a completely uninvolved administrator to review all of this and suggest some learning points for people (including myself!) where appropriate. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 20:16, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Yup still agree it was a very bad close. As stated in the close no consensus on links to use.... no consensus to use action buttons and definitely no consensus to change every template to the same thing whatever that is. Only consensus was to trim links. Because of this horrible close with little direction we are now here dealing with this over talking about how to retain the thousands of potential editor's that are losing interest about learning how to edit with the new format.--Moxy 🍁 21:27, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

I think it's a bit early to be making claims like "we might be losing thousands of editors to this". If you look at that same graph over a longer period, the story is quite different. And that's not to mention, of course, the fact that "clicks on this help article in particular" are not the same as "new wiki users coming along and learning". Whilst I do appreciate your genuinely-held concern for ensuring new editors know what they're doing, I'm not sure this is the venue for it. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 21:43, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

The link your saying shows better stats shows me that it's even worse than I thought.....more the 80 percent give up on the first page....that page has zero data to help add a reference. We should be learing from our past mistakes...not trying them again for the 4th time.Wikipedia:Adventure was once a preferred link til the same type of data came up.--Moxy 🍁 21:55, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Naypta, my take: the tempalte editor right was granted in good faith, Sdkb acted in good faith, Moxy reported in good faith, several uninvolved editors and admins commented in good faith, and now we have a good faith fight about what to do with the aftermath :-)

I am happy to help fix whatever mess remains, of course. If only I knew what the consensus view is of "mess". Guy (help!) 21:31, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Ah, Wikipedia. Never change. The only place where this discussion isn't just a food fight I agree with you, JzG. I'd like to suggest that part of the solution to this is a full and formal RfC process, notwithstanding the previously closed discussion at VPR: I think there's now separate issues which have been raised, which need separate discussion, not just of the main welcome template but also of now all the other ones. In terms of the immediate aftermath - do we know if any welcome templates are currently in an unusable state? They might well have to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. If they're currently usable, it might be best to leave them how they are now until a stronger consensus is obtained. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 21:43, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Naypta, an RfC makes perfect sense. Guy (help!) 21:48, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

If Sdkb and Moxy are happy with that, I'm happy to go and write one up in neutral text seeing as I'm only tangentially involved in any of this, probably on Wikipedia talk:Welcoming committee/Welcome templates (unless anyone has any better suggestions for a venue). And no, I didn't just accidentally transclude the entire article for the letter P onto the Incidents page briefly before fixing it, what are you talking about... Facepalm Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 21:52, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

@Naypta: I'd be happy with you opening an RfC at that page. Regarding timing, there's a lot of cleanup that needs to be done to reverse the damage caused by the mass rollback. That and addressing the conduct issues raised here is going to preoccupy myself and others in this area for a bit, so I think things may go smoother if we wait for this thread to settle and be closed before launching that, so that we can devote our attention to one thing at a time. But the decision is up to you. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:34, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Sounds good to me.....now that we have raw data and guideline updates about accessibility the outcome should be more definitive in nature. I believe all those involved in one RFC should be notified and the 8 or so editors involved in talks at the individual templates should get a wider say. We currently have an odd problem that people are creating new welcome templates because of how upset they are about the changes.--Moxy 🍁 22:03, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

I now use User:Johnuniq/Welcome. Johnuniq (talk) 23:24, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

• Note for closer: A previous reclose of this conversation was undone by the closer following discussion here. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 02:52, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
• Following up, despite the agreement on how to handle the wrapperification question, this thread is still unresolved. A large portion of all the template edits I have ever made completely unrelated to welcome templates remain accidentally rolled back (with damage compounding), and the initial close remains in place despite the follow-up which established (from others, not just myself) that it was made lacking vital context left out by the filer. Pinging the uninvolved admins who commented at the top and may not have seen the follow-up @Praxidicae, Ohnoitsjamie, and Alexf: I know that my comment above is long, but please consider reading it and the subsequent discussion that affirms it. If the consensus is no longer what it was, the unsupported actions hastily taken from what it was should be reversed as fruit of the poisonous tree. Regards, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:05, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

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

User:Meineliebe97

Addition of copyright violations and such despite warnings. Seemingly WP:NOTHERE. RandomCanadian (talk | contribs) 17:09, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

RandomCanadian, I don't think this rises to NOTHERE. They've posted a copyvio and a couple of poorly-written drafts, but that isn't enough to block. creffett (talk) 17:25, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

IP editor on a crusade at 1985 Gujarat riots

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

---

• 99.250.144.197 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Seems to have problems with and is disruptively removing content from the following source:

• Engineer, Asghar Ali (2003). The Gujarat Carnage. Orient Blackswan. ISBN 978-8125024965. Retrieved 19 July 2013.

However, as far as I can see, that source seems reasonable (and the content checks out). Is there anybody here who is more knowledgeable in the matter? I am unsure whether this is run of the mill vandalism or if the IP has some form a point. Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk | contribs) 02:34, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

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

User:Senor Freebie won't follow WP:BRD and consensus and is making false accusations

By this edit:[50] User:Senor Freebie inserted a controversial statement into the lede of Phoenix Program. I reverted the change [51] saying that it needed to be discussed on the Talk Page. Several days later Senor Freebie reverted me again [52] telling me my undo was "absurd" and then adding refs into the lede: [53] and saying "do not revert". The next day I undid these changes: [54] stating in my edit summary "don't put refs in the lede; US war crimes is debatable and should be addressed in the body of the page; don't revert this, follow WP:BRD and discuss on talk Page" Senor Freebie then reverted me [55] with this edit summary: "You are being pretty blatant here. Stop it. Go to the talk page if you have problems with well referenced statements about the widespread use of war crimes as a part of the Phoenix program, or expect this to go to arbitration quickly." and this "It looks like from your listed contributions that you take it as a personal mission to delete content about US war crimes from Wikipedia. Stop it. If you have a problem with well sourced content, discuss it." and then this [56] on my Talk Page. I responded with [57] and then opened the discussion on the article Talk Page here: [58]. Apparently this overlapped with Senor Freebie posting this: [59] under the heading "WP:BRD does not apply in this instance and it is an abuse of that policy to refer to it.". I responded to Senor Freebie giving a detailed analysis of their sources and advising that BRD always applies: [60]. Senor Freebie did not self-revert pending resolution of the issues, but did engage in the discussion: [61] and I responded: [62].

An uninvolved User User:TheTimesAreAChanging then joined the discussion and agreed with my views: [63] and reverted Senor Freebie: [64]. Senor Freebie then reverted them: [65] with this edit summary: "They have not raised reasonable objections and the fact that you claim that they have makes your contribution VERY questionable". Senor Freebie then made this change: [66] on TheTimesAreAChanging's Talk Page claiming to have opened an SPI against me (no such investigation was actually opened and I wasn't notified of anything). I then reverted Senor Freebie: [67] with this edit summary: "you must follow WP:BRD and discuss on Talk Page, not edit war this". Senor Freebie then reverted me: [68] with this edit summary "BRD does not apply in this case. You have had this explained to you and are now clearly acting in bad faith." TheTimesAreAChanging then reverted this: [69] with this edit summary: "Keep it up and you're headed for a block." Senor Freebie reverted once again: [70] with this edit summary: "I find it rather disconcerting that you have made no substantive contribution to the discussion and are threatening me with a block. I do not think this is in the spirit of good faith editing." Senor Freebie has just made further edits to the Talk Page of Phoenix Program here: [71] and once again made accusations of Sockpupperty with these comments: "I suggest that any other editors Google the two usernames above. They frequently edit the same articles and agree with each other on what I posit are subjective positions. I think that if they are not sockpuppets of each other, they are at the very least allies, and while the user; timesareachanging isn't presenting any new arguments or evidence they should be disregarded."

Senor Freebie continues to insist that WP:BRD doesn't apply and is acting disruptively by not accepting consensus on the Talk Page, edit-warring and making false accusations of sockpuppetry. Mztourist (talk) 05:47, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

I've skimmed the first paragraph of this and Mztourist has left out some crucial details of how this discussion played out. From my perspective they are attempting to maintain some kind of version of the article this dispute has arisen from, that does not address the seriousness of the subject matter, in a way that they feel is critical of US military actions. This appears to be a pattern for them, with much of their editing dedicated to deleting references to war crimes during the Vietnam War, something the other user has also engaged in alongside them over what appears to be a number of years. Each time I have attempted to address their concerns in good faith, they have made more difficult demands and written lengthy comments, often with multiple inaccuracies, that when corrected they don't return to or attempt to remedy. I'm finding this behaviour to be quite a challenge to deal with, considering that I made a small edit, backed it up with a large number of sources on request, and I feel that this might indicate a pattern of behaviour that is intentionally designed to allow this user to maintain ownership of certain narratives in certain articles.

A clear example of this is that when I pointed out that the My Lai massacre occurred within the context of the Phoenix Program, and that I'd provided references which pointed to this fact, which mztourist deleted from the article, they pointed me instead to the article on the My Lai massacre, stating that "You can look at My Lai Massacre and Operation Muscatine and their underlying sources, none of them will support the statement that My Lai was part of the Phoenix Program." They also appear to be a rather prolific editor of that article. So for all I know, they've also deleted references to the Phoenix Program from that article.

My very last interaction with them, before they made this complaint consisted of me pointing out that I'd provided them with a source linking the topics, and that their insistence that a Wiki article that they contribute to is more pertinent is concerning. And yet here we are.

No doubt, I will have to spend a great deal more time going through their comment above in detail to address the multiple issues with it, before I can even get back to editing Wikipedia in my normal, civil and occasional fashion. But frankly, this behaviour that I've encountered on this article is of concern to me. And I find it even more concerning that I have been reported to administrators for attempting to get to the bottom of why this editor thinks that it's appropriate to push a very strong, and problematic POV on Wikipedia. So ... I'm going to ask that I'm given a substantial amount of time to address this. The user mztourist has previously expressed unreasonable expectations on me to reply to his comments and they've sought, I think deliberately, to make this matter far more complicated than it has to be, possibly to discourage me from continuing to edit on this topic.--Senor Freebie (talk) 07:37, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Senor Freebie inserting some of your comments within my comments doesn't help readibility and I would argue shows your continued disruptive editing. Mztourist (talk) 08:33, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

I've reverted Senor Freebie's WP:BLUDGEONing, which seems designed to make this thread unreadable. Senor Freebie, please do not respond to other editor's comments with line-by-line rebuttals, as you have been doing both here and at Talk:Phoenix Program.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 11:27, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

• Mztourist, Mztourist, Mztourist ... Why do I know that name? EEng 04:26, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

EEng, I think that might shed some light on it. Necromonger...Arbs were wrong, Resysop BHG! 11:51, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I think it might have been something else:[72]Lurking shadow (talk) 13:13, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

EEng and Lurking shadow if you're not going to address the issues raised then what exactly are you doing here? Mztourist (talk) 15:08, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

• Comment. It looks to me like Senor Freebie, a relatively new editor, is edit warring and I'd be prepared to impose a temporary block if he can't control this tendency. Deb (talk) 15:24, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Deb Senor Freebie has been on WP for over 11 years.Mztourist (talk) 06:33, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
    • With only just over 1000 edits all told. I should have said "inexperienced" rather than "new". Deb (talk) 08:05, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Action taken

I've restored the article as it was on 14 April, the last edit before you two started warring being this one by User:WereSpielChequers. Mztourist, Senor Freebie, if either of you changes it again without first building consensus on the Talk page, you'll be blocked. If the other one "retaliates", they will also be blocked. Deb (talk) 08:12, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Deb that really smacks of "you're both to blame" which I don't think is the case. What do you intend to do about Senor Freebie's refusal to follow BRD and false socking allegations? Mztourist (talk) 08:25, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

What I've just done. If you don't like it, I'm afraid you'll have to find another outlet for your complaints. Deb (talk) 08:31, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Please advise what that would be as I regard this as inadequate. Mztourist (talk) 08:56, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment if you like.Deb (talk) 09:04, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

No, I mean questioning your action. Mztourist (talk) 10:14, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Ditto. Deb (talk) 10:55, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I've undone your edit on the relevant article because you appear to have made an erroneous edit summary. I'm also going to have to ask for more time to discuss this topic. The extent of the claims made by Mztourist, the lack of civility, and the fact that they have refused to be constructive makes this a very time consuming dispute to resolve, over a well sourced, and uncontroversial statement. As someone who has had close personal connections to refugees, and victims of serious war crimes, of the kind discussed in the article, it takes a large amount of emotional effort to deal with people who seem intent on not only burying commentary about war crimes, but attacking those who attempt to include well sourced material on the subject, and as such, I need to find a decent amount of clear space and time to even reply to this user.--Senor Freebie (talk) 13:15, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I've undone your edit on the relevant article because you appear to have made an erroneous edit summary

And I've undone that because the edit summary did exactly what it said. If you're so hot to keep you changes -- "time-consuming" or not -- go use the talk page. --Calton | Talk 14:52, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Senor Freebie is now blocked for 1 week. He can either attempt compromise on the article Talk page then or I'll just close this discussion. Deb (talk) 15:01, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

IP editor constantly reposting NOTAFORUM material

A German IP editor using multiple IPs continues to post and repost incomprehensible NOTAFORUM comments to Talk:Responsibility for the Holocaust. [73], [74], [75], [76], [77], [78], [79], [80], [81], [82], [83] The material has been removed by multiple editors (Kierzek, Obenritter, Jpgordon, myself), and I've explained why their comments are being removed on the talk pages of all the IPs involved, [84], [85], [86], [87] but they continue.

Is a range block possible? The IPs used so far are:

• 89.15.239.157
• 89.15.238.80
• 89.15.237.116
• 89.15.236.236

Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:29, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

All IP numbers notified. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:32, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, easily done via a partial block. I did a week long range block, which will hopefully get the point across. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:37, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:43, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, both. Kierzek (talk) 19:04, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

de:Benutzer:Lutz Fehling doesn't exist. I can see why. Narky Blert (talk) 21:06, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

• Before this gets closed, I want to note that the IP has now gone directly to the article to add the unsourced claim "All German Jews were psychiatrically diagnosed "Whiteheadsches Syndrom", an artefact, which was stamped into the identification-card." [88]. I've removed it, but I'm going to assume the probability that they'll re-add it again and again, just as they did their comment on the talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:02, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

• My search wasn't exhaustive, but I can find no information on a psychiatric condition called "Whiteheadsches Syndrom" or what I guess would be the English equivaent, "Whitehead's Syndrome". I can find "Whiteheadsches Hämorrhoidenoperation", or "Whitehead's Hemorrhoid Surgery", but that's it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:26, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

• I too could find nothing about "Whitehead's Syndrome". The nearest I could get was "Dinno Shearer Weisskopf Syndrome", from what looks like a distinctly non-RS and non-MEDRS source. Link. Narky Blert (talk) 21:48, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

• @NinjaRobotPirate: I placed a comment on the IPs latest talk page about why I reverted their unsourced addition to the article [89], and they almost immediately restored it using the new IP 89.15.237.48 [90] (another editor, user:RandomCanadian, deleted it again). They then posted on their talk page that their source is "All Quiet on the Western Front", a work of fiction, and said that we were on the verge of Holocaust denial by deleting their edits. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:52, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
• NinjaRobotPirate, et al.: I remember this guy from last year[91]. He was blocked at dewiki and will clearly never contribute anything useful. Please consider whatever is necessary to protect the project (and others?) from his toxic drivel. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 01:54, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
• I extended the partial block to include the mainspace article, too. Partial blocks can block someone from up to 10 pages, so we can pile on quite a few more pages before it gets untenable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:49, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks very much, I hope that ends the matter. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:01, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Irrelevant to this subject

beyond my Ken and others, do not remove what you dont like when you are faced with truth you can not conquer: en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=957583991&oldid=957583962 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.77.223.28 (talk) 21:23, 19 May 2020 (UTC) It's lucky I didn't read this, or go to the link, or I might be insulted and ask for NPA blocks for both of the IPs involved, and maybe even the IP editor above who insinuated that I might be a Holocaust denier; but fortunately I didn't read any of it, so there's no harm done. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:52, 19 May 2020 (UTC) the above link only deals with stalin, beria and 22000 polish katyn victims; your denial of holocaust is your personal opinion.197.48.93.4 (talk) 22:40, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

KyleJoan reported by ToeFungii

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

---

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

KyleJoan regularly makes reversions with no edit summary to edits that were not vandalism/disruptive and contrary to WP:REVEXP. The examples below are all reverts with no edit summary AND where the user being reverted has no warnings and were/have not been blocked. All were done with Twinkle which states it "should not be used to undo good-faith changes unless an appropriate edit summary is used." at WP:TWINKLEABUSE. These are just the examples since May 1. There are many more including at least two other edit wars and 3RR violations. They are too stale, but they do indicate a user issue of working with other editor's collaboratively and a willingness to allow changes to articles by other editors.

1. Diff01
2. Diff02
3. Diff03
4. Diff04
5. Diff05
6. Diff06
7. Diff07
8. Diff08
9. Diff09
10. Diff10
11. Diff11
12. Diff12
13. Diff13
14. Diff14
15. Diff15
16. Diff16
17. Diff17
18. Diff18
19. Diff19
20. Diff20
21. Diff21
22. Diff22
23. Diff23
24. Diff24
25. Diff25
26. Diff26
27. Diff27-ip warned by another user, but unclear if same user as there was an editing break
28. Diff28-ip warned by another user, but there was a two week gap in editing so likely different user

KyleJoan engaged in an edit war and 3RR reverting another user with no edit summary for edits that were not vandalism.

1. Diff29-15:18, 11 May 2020
2. Diff30-15:21, 11 May 2020
3. Diff31-15:25, 11 May 2020

Although these are not reverts, they are additional edits with no edit summary.

1. Diff32
2. Diff33
3. Diff34
4. Diff35
5. Diff36

— Preceding unsigned comment added by ToeFungii (talk • contribs) 11:43, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

• Previous discussion WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1034#User:KyleJoan and User:Davefelmer which might have some bearing on this, also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Davefelmer‎. Govvy (talk) 12:03, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
• Should we dissect each diff you provided and see how guilty I am of what you're accusing, ToeFungii? I'll start. The first diff saw an IP user remove a BLP article's nationality without any explanation. Do tell me how that qualifies as a "good faith" change. KyleJoan^talk 12:33, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

  I haven't been through all the diffs, and am not chiming in to criticise you KyleJoan, but I would have AGFed on that one and used an edit summary. It's possible the IP editor didn't realise he had adopted Japanese nationality? The lead doesn't touch on that. The edit summary doesn't need to be lengthy, just something like - 'Rv - he's got Japanese nationality' would have sufficed. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:46, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

  KyleJoan, I've looked through quite a few of those diffs, and while I'm not seeing any reverts I disagree with, I think you are being a bit heavy with the red Twinkle rollback. Please use an edit summary to revert edits except in cases of obvious vandalism - quite a few of them look to me like they might have been good faith. As for the 'edit war' example, you didn't go over 3RR, but you came close - again, an edit summary, and an invitation to discuss the changes on the article's talk page, wouldn't have been a bad thing there. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 16:34, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

  In regards to the "edit war", I absolutely should have done better and added edit summaries and reached out to the IP user to discuss the matter. I'm going to start adding edit summaries and being more mindful with rollbacks in general, Girth Summit. Thank you! KyleJoan^talk 18:04, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

  KyleJoan, thanks for that - I think that's all we need to hear at this point. The question I always ask myself when deciding between red and blue Twinkle rollbacks is 'Would another editor, who knows absolutely nothing about this subject, understand why I'm reverting?'. If the answer is yes (e.g. if an edit has changed someone's occupation to 'professional bitch') it's a red vandalism rollback; if it's no (e.g. if someone has added 'singer' to a list of occupations), it's a blue or green rollback with an edit summary. It does slow you down a bit, but speed isn't the only thing we're aiming for. Thanks for all your work patrolling. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:11, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

  ToeFungii - have you attempted to discuss these observations with KyleJoan anywhere? I'm not seeing anything on their talk page. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:48, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

  @Girth Summit: Don't know if this should be closed, but ToeFungii just got blocked by BBb23 for socking after a CU check. Govvy (talk) 18:47, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

  Govvy, I'd be comfortable with this being closed. I won't do it myself, since I've commented on the issue,but I don't think there's anything else that needs saying. GirthSummit _(blether) 21:53, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

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

I am being inappropriately threatened with general sanctions for COVID-19

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

---

Please refer to my talk page. This is not collaborative editing, this is disruptive administrator behaviour. --Almaty (talk) 15:09, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Almaty, on your talk page, I see an admin approaching you in what appears to be quite a polite manner, and you then taking umbrage and messing about with their posts to the page. If there is some history to this that puts that approach into a different context, would you mind presenting diffs? GirthSummit _(blether) 15:35, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

The admin warned me without any mainspace conflict, simply for opposing their proposal to add further sanctions, for not following WP:MEDRS which other people oppose. Its unwelcoming to newcomers which we need I have had a hard time being able to keep up with keeping Wikipedia making sense on the issue as per the sources it quotes which change constantly, and I seem to be the only person doing it. Then I'm just warned for no apparent reason, nothing. Thats inappropriate administrator behaviour. --Almaty (talk) 15:39, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Also can you please let the administrator know that hes not allowed to topic ban me for not following MEDRS guideline to the letter? I do my utmost to uphold that guideline where possible, I just disagree with him just banning people for not following MEDRS guideline. Thats why we have a WP:BRD cycle, so that we can be welcoming to newcomers and not leave the whole tranmsision section up to me. --Almaty (talk) 15:52, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I note that Almaty didn't bother to notify of this report as required.

The following are the edits by Almaty on Talk:Coronavirus disease 2019 that caused me concern. The context is that I'm attempting to remove unreliable medical sources (preprints, primary sources used to support biomedical claims) that breach WP:RS and WP:MEDRS, but I'm getting pushback from a handful of editors who think that it's okay to breach sourcing policy and guidelines because otherwise the article wouldn't keep up with breaking news.

• 05:11, 16 May 2020 (UTC) - criticising the removal of a primary source
• 05:27, 16 May 2020 (UTC) - challenging the community's imposition of general sanction on the topic area
• 05:30, 16 May 2020 (UTC) - criticising the semi-protection on the article, properly imposed by an uninvolved administrator
• 00:33, 17 May 2020 (UTC) - a snide comment aimed at me for warning editors about improper sourcing

I am aware that last month Almaty was topic-banned from COVID-19 and only had the topic ban lifted because they gave assurances that they would not repeat the behaviour. I came to their talk page to try to persuade them to desist from challenging our agreed sourcing standards, and remind them of what they said in asking for the topic ban to be lifted. I was met by defiance, a rejection of MEDRS, and personal attacks on my contributions as an uninvolved administrator. I would hope that everyone agree that the state of the sourcing in the article is sub-standard and that it is important to uphold the general sanctions as well as our sourcing requirements. You have only to read either the article or its talk page to see the difficulties administrators are facing.

I suggest that WP:BOOMERANG is the appropriate response here. --RexxS (talk) 15:40, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I suggest that this has been a ridiculous escalation caused by RexxS wikilawyering me. I didnt reinsert anything that was removed, I asked. I oppose that they shouldn't put general sanctions for MEDRS, thats our most odious guideline to follow, regular contributors dont always follow it to the letter. I was the main one attempting to help with sourcing. This adminsitrator is warning me for helping him. Its the most ridiculous thing i've ever heard. I am allowed to voice an opinion on removing sanctions because I am stressed because I dont have any newcomers helping me with the transmission section which is always out of date. Because people are terrified to edit the article becuase of the sanctions. --Almaty (talk) 16:03, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS is the best thing about Wikipedia at the moment. -Roxy the effin dog . wooF 16:09, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Almaty, I find it hard to believe that anyone would think it would be OK to add biomedical information to an article that important if it isn't compliant with MEDRS, or that the general sanctions that have been agreed on wouldn't cover that. RexxS isn't wikilawyering, he's stating the obvious. You don't need to be terrified to edit, just stick to MEDRS sourcing - it's not like RexxS was threatening you with a ban or anything. You say above that you're stressed - maybe you need to step back for a few hours and reflect, this seems to have been blown out of proportion. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:18, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm stressed because I'm the only person who actually seems to read the QnAs on transmission and update them, based on the sources that we cite which are updated constantly. I was hoping to leave it to newcomers and others now. But because of the sanctions, many people who could don't edit. Thats my opinion on that. --Almaty (talk)

RexxS, how do you consider yourself uninvolved at Coronavirus disease 2019 given your contributions to the article and discussions on the talk page there? PackMecEng (talk) 16:21, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

@PackMecEng: WP:INVOLVED:

One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvements are minor or obvious edits which do not show bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area. Warnings, calm and reasonable discussion and explanation of those warnings, advice about community norms, and suggestions on possible wordings and approaches do not make an administrator 'involved'.

I'd be grateful if you could point to which of those 41 edits of mine you think fall outside of "an administrative role" and "minor or obvious edits which do not show bias". I honestly do not believe that edits adding a "See also" entry, or removing small text from infoboxes, or adding a {{convert}} template, or adding the abbreviation "PFR", or marking/removing non-MEDRS sources, make me an "involved " administrator. Where's my conflict of interest that INVOLVED describes? Does upholding MEDRS or WP:ACCESS count as CoI in your opinion? --RexxS (talk) 16:32, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

For the article itself stuff like removing the protest section[92] and disagreements on a WHO report[93]. On the talk page voting on RFCs[94] and discussions about sourcing and content[95][96][97] PackMecEng (talk) 16:41, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I would have thought that removing content about protests against measures against this in three out of 50 states in one out of about 200 countries relevant to this article is pretty obviously a minor or obvious edit per WP:WEIGHT. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:50, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

@PackMecEng: you think that voting in an RfC about which image to use for flattening the curve, or supplying a list of secondary sources (having been asked for them) makes me an involved administrator? What do you think is the point of WP:INVOLVED? --RexxS (talk) 16:56, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Per WP:INVOLVED In general, editors should not act as administrators in disputes in which they have been involved. This is because involved administrators may have, or may be seen as having, a conflict of interest in disputes they have been a party to or have strong feelings about. Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute. I do not care the content specifically you are involved with there. You are active on the page discussing, building, and disputing content is all that matters. PackMecEng (talk) 17:00, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

In that case, you should be able to state the conflict of interest that I appear to have. I don't think you can do that. --RexxS (talk) 17:05, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I gave sources for your extensive involvement at the article and the article talk page. You even had a content dispute with Almaty it looks like. That all meets the bar for involved in that subject. PackMecEng (talk) 17:09, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

(ec)Rexx you don't need to have a WP:COI to be INVOLVED. Participation on the content side of things has normally been read by the community to make a sysop INVOLVED and thus an editor with no special powers or abilities, including the ability, in this case, to level general sanctions. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:09, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: Yes, you do need to have a CoI to be INVOLVED because that's what INVOLVED says, as PackMecEng quotes above. I simply restored properly-sourced content that had been removed inappropriately. That's not a content dispute. INVOLVED is about administrators being involved in disputes as you can see from reading it, and editing content through "minor or obvious edits which do not show bias" has never been a reason to label an editor as involved. I ask again: What's my bias? What's my CoI? Nobody has been able to answer that. --RexxS (talk) 17:31, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

At this point four different people have said you are involved. I think you are misunderstanding what involved means. You should take on board the advice given you here. PackMecEng (talk) 17:37, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)While I agree with RexxS on the substance of these issues, I have to agree with Barkeep49 and PackMecEng that the content dispute participation and removal of content based on WP:WEIGHT (the linked diff for the Protests section) constitute some involvement here. An outside editor could view the past removal, for instance, as bias for the status quo and bias against introducing certain content (regardless of whether that bias is grounded in a solid application of WP policy). — MarkH₂₁^talk 17:42, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

@PackMecEng: That's a coincidence, because I think you are misunderstanding what involved means. I have no bias; I have no CoI. --RexxS (talk) 17:57, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

@MarkH21: I take your point about that edit that depends on WP:WEIGHT. But contributors here seem to be confusing editing content with "conflict of interest in disputes they have been a party to", which is what INVOLVED says. I don't agree that removing UNDUE content displays a bias toward the status quo. I do agree that I have a bias against adding biomedical content that is sourced only to primary sources. --RexxS (talk) 17:57, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

@RexxS: I hope we all do, even after removing the word biomedical from that statement! — MarkH₂₁^talk 18:03, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

You seem to have things the wrong way round. It is precisely because there are many reports of preliminary findings, sometimes contradicting each other, that we have to be even more careful about following the exacting standards of WP:MEDRS in articles about COVID-19. Very many researchers are working on aspects of this disease, and on reviews and meta-studies, so it won't be long before we get proper WP:MEDRS-compliant information about any plausible claims made in primary studies. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:29, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I in general support MEDRS as the guideline to follow. I do not support it being used as a bludgeon or a threat of sanctions if someone doesn't follow it, mainly newcomers, because otherwise the most important parts of the article wont be edited as per the WP:BRD cycle here. --Almaty (talk) 16:37, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

It is better that an article, in particular its most important parts and especially one about a health condition, is not edited at all rather than have potentially inaccurate information added. Again you seem to be arguing for the relaxation of WP:MEDRS in the precise article where it is most important. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:44, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm just mainly so suprised that one of MEDRS most strident supporters is being warned for not following MEDRS, by an involved administrator. It shoudl not be used as a bludgeon, and having sanctions for MEDRS is it being used as a bludgeon. We can simply follow WP:BRD for sourcing issues. And I'm surprised that we have so few editors checking the WHO, ECDC and CDC sources and updating them when appropriate. --Almaty (talk) 17:06, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

And it is not better for it not to be edited at all, when the sources have been updated and wikipedia shows inaccurate information as per the sources quoted. It is better to encourage editing rather than sanction people or threaten sanctions which may be unnecessary at this point. --Almaty (talk) 17:10, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

We are not a news service and there is no timeframe by which articles should be updated. If a piece of information depends on a non-MEDRS compiant source, then it simply doesn't get added. This is not a difficult concept, surely. Black Kite (talk) 17:11, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I dont add them in general, havent since february or early march at the latest, when there was arguable reason and always discussed, never reinserted without discussion. I replace non medrs with medrs. However the MEDRS compliant sources are being updated constantly, and wiipedia is often completely inaccurate in its assertions, from the sources quoted. Using MEDRS as a bludgeon, and sanctions, and warning inappropriately to one of very few editors that appears to be reading and updating wiki on IMO the most important documents in the world on the issue, detracts from this article, and removes the ability of other experts, other newcomers and other editors to help. --Almaty (talk) 17:19, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) But you're not a strident supporter of MEDRS, are you? "One can cite a pre print if it isn’t to make a medical claim for instance, I have inserted several, such as that Wuhans lockdown was arguably successful which stood for at least a week." Those preprints carries the warning "Caution: Preprints are preliminary reports of work that have not been certified by peer review. They should not be relied on to guide clinical practice or health-related behavior and should not be reported in news media as established information. You've been using sources that aren't even fit for a newspaper in the article, and want the licence to carry on running roughshod over any sourcing standards. The community instituted general sanctions because of edits like yours, and your calls for just BRD to apply means admins would only take action if you re-insert the content often enough for WP:EW to apply. That sort of attempting to game the system is inappropriate for articles under GS. --RexxS (talk) 17:23, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Comment Where's the disruption here? I see some disagreement on the talk page, and some reverts via the article history, but nothing that seems to be edit warring for the user who brought this subject to WP:ANI. Disruption warranting a topic ban should be clear and concise. The diffs cited by Rexxs appear to just be normal talk page disagreements, which are normal and part of the process for gaining an eventual WP:CONSENSUS. Barring any additional diffs of disruption, I don't see the topic ban as being warranted. Also, given the content dispute between Rexxs, and Almaty, I do see Rexxs as being an WP:INVOLVED administrator, and should not have been the one to apply the topic ban. Tutelary (talk) 17:27, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

@Tutelary: I haven't topic-banned anyone, and I simply don't agree that I am involved. But to avoid this sort of pre-emptive complaining, I'll make sure that I bring any requests for sanctions to AE or ANI if I feel Almaty needs to be sanctioned. --RexxS (talk) 17:47, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I am, I just support consensus and discussion, and particularly the contributions of other editors who may not understand technical lanuage. @FriendlyRiverOtter:'s contributions with non medrs compliant content back in march in the transmission section for instance, led to a rewrite by myself and Doc James, because no one knew the difference between "airborne" the technical term and being "borne by air". We then cited WHO's tweet as opposed to WHO's QnA. The WHO then rewrote their QnA to reflect their tweet. That is consensus and wikipedia working at its finest. --Almaty (talk) 17:26, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

If we were talking about a disagreement about whether particular content was WP:DUE, for example, there would be a consensus to be sought. But when a editor deliberately undermines MEDRS, the consensus is already established, and warning them about the need to meet sourcing standards isn't a debate. --RexxS (talk) 17:47, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Youre an involved administrator, and you shouldn't warn me without a content dispute, actual disruption or an edit war. I disagree with your proposal to topic ban people for not following your interpretation of MEDRS. That's well within my rights. And this is a storm in a teacup, I would say that your actions demonstrate inappropriate ownership of the article. If you wish to contribute now that you are involved, please contribute. Thankyou --Almaty (talk) 17:51, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm an uninvolved administrator, and in any case, any editor can warn you about "repeatedly or seriously failing to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process."

I disagree that you have the right to edit contrary to MEDRS on the COVID-19 topic. I disagree that any interpretation of "all biomedical information must be based on reliable, third-party published secondary sources, and must accurately reflect current knowledge." is needed. MEDRS is clear, and you are challenging it on a talk page of an article under GS. That is clearly disruptive. If you breach those expected standards of behaviour, you will be sanctioned, whether I am the one to apply the sanction or not. --RexxS (talk) 18:11, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

• Comment The involved/uninvolved thing seems to me to be a blind alley. All RexxS has done is caution the Almaty that general sanctions are in place, and that they apply to maintaining the quality of sourcing - there was no threat to implement sanctions himself. Any editor, admin or not, involved or not, can issue reminders, cautions or warnings - there's been no improper conduct, let's not waste a few more screens worth of text on the question of involvement. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:02, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

  Girth Summit, exactly. And Almaty's reaction suggests the warning was on the mark. Guy (help!) 18:23, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

  With all due respect it's not a blind alley. Rexx explicitly threatened Almaty that with sanctions - not a generic warning but that Rexx would re-implement a topic ban. That topic ban, as shown here, might be appropriate. But that does not make it appropriate for an INOVLVED administrator to impose. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:26, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

  Barkeep49, just a note to acknowledge that you were right - the OP's talk page history was somewhat complicated by editing other people's posts, but I accept that there was a threat by RexxS to implement a ban, and so the involved question is relevant. My bad for not thoroughly reading through the history. GirthSummit _(blether) 21:41, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Is inserting non MEDRS compliant content in an article under general sanctions disruptive? Is talking about it disruptive? MEDRS is a guideline and exceptions apply. I dont need a warning, my intention the whole time has been to defend @FriendlyRiverOtter: against what I considered inappropriate, involved administrative action. Does the involved administrator wish to topic ban Doc James? What about all of the thousands and thousands of other editors that have contributed to this quite fine article? He's not enouraging MEDRS compliance, he is exhibiting WP:OWNERSHIP behaviours that have no place in a collaborative encyclopedia. --Almaty (talk) 18:32, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

  Almaty, MEDRS shouldn't be a bludgeon (as you mentioned earlier). But using MEDRS sources is a way of ensuring that Wikipedia doesn't cause real world harm for our readers - a risk that is particularly acute in the health arena. I am not sure based on your comments here if you fully appreciate that piece. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:40, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

  Is inserting non MEDRS compliant content in an article under general sanctions disruptive? - IMHO yes.

  Is talking about it disruptive? - IMHO yes, when it's a direct challenge to our sourcing standards.

  MEDRS is a guideline and exceptions apply - But you have given no reason whatsoever why your edits should be one of the rare exceptions.

  He's not enouraging MEDRS compliance, he is exhibiting WP:OWNERSHIP behaviours that have no place in a collaborative encyclopedia. - Another personal attack, utterly unfounded in fact. I should not have to put up with this sort of abuse, when I am demonstrably solely concerned with upholding the quality of sourcing. At what point does their behaviour warrant action? --RexxS (talk) 18:48, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Lets go right ahead and warn these people and topic ban them hey:

This one This one I was going to add all the diffs from the last few days but its a waste of my energy. Anyone can see that this is a normal editing process of WP:BRD Everyone does it, because its a guideline. We discuss, we include, we remove. We dont warn or ban for good faith edits. The ability of the article to be written in a collaborative fashion is being bludgeoned by the administrator, from the WP Med Foundation. Given the arbcom case and the toxicity of the editing process that has been going on for several years with these bludgeons, it's all connected, and its impossible to fix without many people taking a long think. The medical encyclopedia is currently stuffed, by people bludgeoning WP:MEDRS and WP:MEDMOS, scaring newcomers away, making prose unreadable and making longtime contributors repetitively wonder why they ever contributed, to anything. --Almaty (talk) 18:48, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Okay so you've made your agenda clear. You want to be free of the discretionary sanctions imposed on the article by the community, and you want to be free of the restrictions of MEDRS. You think that scapegoating Wikimedia Medicine is a way of deflecting attention from your intent. You have no diffs to support your position, so you bluster. I am an editor in good standing with a long history of constructive contributions to the encyclopedia, and you you have only just returned from a block and a topic ban for exactly the sort of behaviour that I find concerning. I won't need to sanction you, because there will be plenty of other uninvolved admins available to do that. --RexxS (talk) 19:05, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

You want to be free of the discretionary sanctions imposed on the article by the community, and you want to be free of the restrictions of MEDRS Not at all. I don't care for diffs, I just want you to stop proposing to bludgeon MEDRS like you have already admitted that you propose to do, with warnings and topic bans, bludgeons, on good faith editors. You need to back down on doing this. I don't think proposing any of the things that I have said warrants anyone to topic ban me again. I'm allowed to ask questions of your actions, which are very inappropriate. --Almaty (talk) 19:13, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

@RexxS:: You are clearly involved here per WP:INVOLVED. WP:INVOLVED does not require a conflict of interest. It would be a clear violation of policy for you to act as administrator in this conflict. Paul August ☎ 19:37, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

@Paul August: if that's the case why does it say

In general, editors should not act as administrators in disputes in which they have been involved. This is because involved administrators may have, or may be seen as having, a conflict of interest in disputes they have been a party to or have strong feelings about.

How can someone accuse me of being involved when they can't tell me where I "may have, or may be seen as having, a conflict of interest in disputes they have been a party to"? What is the dispute that I'm a party to, and what is the conflict of interest that I seem to have? Nobody seems able to say.

I've made a post at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard #Review of a page-specific general sanction asking for review of the specific general sanction and of my status as uninvolved. I have no intention of going through this mud-slinging the next time I find an editor breaching PAG at an article under GS. --RexxS (talk) 20:25, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I linked to several instances, any one of them would be enough. This is not controversial. PackMecEng (talk) 20:38, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

• This looks like a tempest in a teapot. The diffs provided [98][99][100][101] just show a few questions at Talk:Coronavirus disease 2019, but not disruption. RexxS I strongly support your advocacy of MEDRS, but warning of sanctions is not necessary and a surefire way of increasing tension when... I'm sure everyone editing on this topic is stressed. I recommend this discussion be closed. -Darouet (talk) 19:50, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
• Yes its 6am in Australia, I just spent virtually the whole night doing that dispute. I need to work out what was this website and what was me. I wish I didn't feel I had to escalate like that, but one too many times on this website for this young doctor. So long and thanks for all the fish --Almaty (talk) 20:07, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
• Upon reflection, it is because the design of wikipedia as exemplified by this dispute, and the ARBCOM case allows you to bring unrelated grudges from past unrelated disputes and display them for all the world to see, ad infinitum. Its impossible for many people to cope with, its not how humans interact. Stop with the diffs. Good luck with that. --Almaty (talk) 20:36, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Almaty, WP:MEDRS has strong consensus, probably the strongest of our guidelines. It means that Wikipedia can't be an early reporter of new medical information, which is frustrating, but it's how we've chosen to approach getting things right in the longer term. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:45, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
    • The nuance of this dispute is that I do uphold MEDRS in the mainspace all the time. I like batting for the underdog and I play devils advocate sometimes. If you take this out of context, and conflated with an unrelated heated content dispute, that I specifically removed from my talk page, is in the opinion of the involved administrator and others on this page, a pattern of disruptive behaviour. Which ignores the countless hours, the countless doctors I consulted on the content of the related pages, and the amount of good faith that I've always had.
      On wikipedia you are able to just ignore all the positive things, and bring up unrelated stuff from the past, presenting it without nuance, without tone of voice, literally forever, to prove anything about an editor you do not like for whatever reason. And as we see in the ARBCOM case, present 10 years worth of "evidence". No thankyou, this website is not worth having things I wrote whilst stressed during a pandemic dredged up when im 40. Or even 6 weeks later when the unanimity of admins removed my topic ban. This website is not for me, period. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Almaty (talk • contribs) 20:59, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

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

Dicklyon and page moves

Dicklyon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been brought to AN/I for making undiscussed controversial page moves multiple times:

• in 2015, where There is a very clear consensus for some kind of restriction imposed on Dicklyon with respect to moving pages. which resulted in a 6-month ban on undiscussed moves. (Shortly after this he was indefinitely blocked for using sockpuppets to move-war, and unblocked under the standard offer in 2016 with provision to avoid large scale, controversial actions,
• in 2016,
• in 2017, when Dicklyon is therefore strongly cautioned to abide by the strictures of WP:RM, and to initiate a discussion to seek consensus for any page move to which an objection may be raised, irrespective of whether it is believed that the proposed move conforms with the MOS or other policies, and
• in 2019, two weeks after a block for edit warring. (The page move ban was lifted later in 2019, with some opposition.)

He was blocked eight previous times from 2007 to 2015 for edit warring, largely over page titles and other style issues. Today - three days after arguing with myself and two other editors of the capitalization of railway infrastructure in Boston - he made five undiscussed moves changing the capitalization of railway infrastructure in Boston. One of those moves, of Highland Branch, was to an article brought to GA by myself and Mackensen; both Mackensen and I have repeatedly disagreed with moves that Dicklyon has made changing capitalization of railway infrastructure. It is unfathomable that Dicklyon that thought these moves would be uncontroversial, or that he is unaware that WP:RM#CM requires a move discussion if there is any reason to believe a move would be contested.

It is clear that Dicklyon is unwilling to abide by this policy, and is determined to make moves regardless of disagreement. (His attitude during RMs is also objectionable, and he has engaged in canvassing at least once.) Something needs to be done to stop this aggressive and disruptive behavior, which has been consistent throughout his entire period of editing.

Pinging @Bbb23, Dreadstar, DoRD, NawlinWiki, Prodego, and Magog the Ogre: as blocking/unblocking admins since 2015 and @Spartaz, Drmies, NinjaRobotPirate, and Bd2412: as closers of the linked discussions. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:18, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

• Dreadstar is a deceased Wikipedian. Dr. K. 19:29, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

@Pi.1415926535: could you please add diffs for the recent behavior you find inappropriate? Dicklyon has made hundreds of moves in the past week. Mysticdan (talk) 06:44, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Relevant moves were at Green Line "A" Branch, Green Line "C" Branch, Green Line "D" Branch, Green Line "E" Branch, and Highland Branch. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 07:26, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Is there a discussion somewhere that would have caused Dicklyon to believe those moves might be contested? Mysticdan (talk) 07:50, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes. There's another discussion on Pi's talk page, User_talk:Pi.1415926535#What_sources_are_you_looking_at?, about contested railway line moves in the Boston area involving Dicklyon. The last post was three days ago. Dicklyon knew, or should have known, that this would be a controversial move. Moving these articles without a formal discussion feels provocative at best. Mackensen (talk) 13:10, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

The last post is 3 days ago there, as you note, because he decided to stop contesting those edits (which were not page moves). He just shows how sore he is that the consensus was against him there; it's not relevant to the "branch" downcasing moves. The more relevant discussion is at User_talk:Pi.1415926535#Highland branch which I started after he reverted one of my moves. Rather than reply, he came to AN/I. Dicklyon (talk) 16:21, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Dicklyon is very active page mover. Even taking reasonable care (as all editors should) to avoid controversial edits, there are going to be some with which other editors disagree. For this, we have talk pages and the dispute resolution process.

• Has a wider discussion been engaged in for these moves?
• Has Dicklyon (and the other involved editors) been willing to engage in those discussions in good faith?

Prodego ^talk 16:23, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Transit/transport-related page names are a frequent RM topic. It's been my experience that DickLyon proceeds to a full RM, instead of manual moving or speedy WP:RM/TR, at the first sign of grumbling about a page title or set of related titles. When he got in some trouble back-when for controversial manual mass moves, he was instructed to use full RM process in the face of any controversy, so he does. Since then, various parties (often from the transport sector) have attempted to pillory him at ANI again – for using full RM process and for doing manual moves that aren't controversial. Thus this ANI. Cf. Mackensen doing this below again ("Dicklyon has now filed a move request at Medford Branch (Boston and Maine Railroad) ... clearly in retaliation for this ANI report"), and again here. These bogus ANIs – for not breaking the rules – always close without action, so why is this one still open? It's time that the users abusing noticeboards, RM, and other processes to personalize style disputes were enjoined from doing so again.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:21, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

So far in 2020 I've moved about 650 pages, most for station name conventions, river name conventions, and capitalization per WP:NCCAPS. The only number that have been reverted or seriously challenged were a group of 40 North Korea station downcasings; a Talk:Pyongyang_station#Requested_move_5_May_2020 subsequent multi-RM discussion found unanimous support for lowercase, so those were subsequently downcased again (and I presume that makes the rest noncontroversial, so I'll work on them in the future). Now one lowercasing move at Highland branch has been reverted by Pi. Jumping from that to AN/I rather than respond to the discussion I started at his talk page is not a sensible process for resolving this disagreement. His complaints mention "sources" but he doesn't respond about what sources. I got another book (that's not online) recently on the Boston subway system history, to see what entities it treats as proper name, and found more support for lowercase "subway" and "branch" in almost all cases. I am operating from sources, and provided a detailed listing of sources I was looking at back when we decided to downcase subway in Tremont Street subway and Boylston Street subway, and can do the same for Highland branch when we get to the RM; for now, I'm reverted on that one and trying to discuss, not war or complain. Dicklyon (talk) 16:46, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

• Highland Branch is a good article at a stable title; you knew that it would be a controversial move in the sense that multiple would be likely to object. Why you went ahead and moved it anyway without a discussion, given your past history of such moves, is why we're here (again). Is "Highland branch" the correct location for said article? Maybe, but in the absence of an actual naming convention on railway infrastructure (long overdue) there needs to be a discussion. Moving the article with the bland message "case norm; reserve caps for proper names" without a discussion is disingenuous at best under the circumstances. Mackensen (talk) 17:46, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

  I had no particular reason to expect pushback on that one, relative to the many other over-capped articles I've fixed. Now that we have an objection, we can discuss, looking at sources. Dicklyon (talk) 18:20, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

  That is blatantly untrue, given that every move you have made or proposed about US (and particularly Boston-area) railway infrastructure has been contested by multiple editors. Dicklyon has now filed a move request at Medford Branch (Boston and Maine Railroad) (which I created this week), clearly in retaliation for this ANI report. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:00, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

  That's a bizarre interpretation of my intent. And please don't call me a liar. Dicklyon (talk) 22:04, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

• "I had no particular reason to expect pushback on that one" - Anyone who has been here as long as Dicklyon knows perfectly well that any significant change to a good article is likely to face pushback, even if its unwarranted. Let alone moving the article to a different title. This statement would only be credible from a newbie who; isnt familiar with the good articles process, controversies surrounding page moves, and hasnt had multiple sanctions related to them before. Coming from Dicklyon? It is not a believeable statement, lacking anything approaching credibility. Even for articles that have not gone through the good article process, experienced editors know that page moves/title changes are almost guaranteed to face pushback unless no one is looking at the articles at all. Ignorance is an excuse that can be used for people who dont know better. Dicklyon does know better, and this has been well documented given the previous sanctions. But this complaint was opened at 05:18, 16 May 2020. At 21:07, after replying on this discussion, Dicklyon has opened a request to move a page created last week by the filer of the complaint. The chances that this isnt a deliberate retaliation and/or attempt to inflame Pi.1415926535 further are very slim. When someone complains about something you are doing on a noticeboard, you dont subsequently a)continue to do it, b)deliberately target a fresh article created two days ago by the person who complained about you. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:36, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

  So you're saying no pages can be moved. I'm not ignorant of the fact that sometimes someone will object. I had not noticed the Good Article status of Highland Branch until Mackensen mentioned; so I checked the GA review, and there was no indication that the article had been looked at for style such as caps; this is a common problem, the likes of which I fix all the time without pushback. Only about 1% of my moves get any pushback, typically (the big block of North Korea moves being an exception, but that got fixed OK); I don't think it's because the articles are unwatched. Also please note that I have not continued to do what he complained about. I have attempted to raise appropriate discussions, and now you complain about that. Dicklyon (talk) 22:47, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

  "I had not noticed the Good Article status". I do not believe an editor of your experience would fail to notice both the good article symbol on the article, nor the singularly large GAR section on the talkpage. Unless you havnt looked at the talkpage whatsoever before attempting to move the article. Again, your statements just lack any credibility. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:19, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

  O, it might surprise you, but I've never paid any attention to GA, FA, etc., and didn't know about that GA symbol until you mentioned it and I went and checked. And yes I admit I might have failed to look at the talk page, or if I did I just looked to see if there was a previous RM discussion (which there was not). Dicklyon (talk) 03:30, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

  This entire subthread is a silly distraction. GAs and FAs are not magically immune to guidelines, policies, and processes, nor are they WP:OWNed by WP:VESTED editors. A GA icon (which can be entirely hidden by user CSS/JS) has nothing to do with page naming.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:04, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

  Indeed, we expect GAs and FAs to adhere strongly to our policies. They represent Wikipedia's best work. WP:OWN aside, I think there is also a community expectation that editors tread carefully around such articles, recognizing that they are the product of considerable labor by whoever supports them, be they one editor, several, or a whole project. It's not unreasonable to expect that someone moving an article take the time to establish the basic fact of whether it had been at a particular title for a long time, or was a GA or FA, or if the title had been the subject of previous discussions. This would require a glance at the talk page, which among other things would establish that it was a GA. It's difficult to believe much consideration was given to the correct title of the article when Dicklyon didn't even know it was a GA. Admittedly, two of the most important sources for the article's title are offline but available to me. I consulted them when I wrote the article in the first place, and I gave considerable thought, at the time, to whether "branch" ought to be capitalized or not. I would have been happy to explain all that, but I wasn't asked. Mackensen (talk) 19:24, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

  An RM is open, and you've done so (and curiously argued more in support of lower-case consistency despite labeling it an oppose !vote). So, there is no ANI-level issue to raise. Maybe you just don't deal with page moves very much? I do, and I don't treat GAs or FAs as especially different when it comes to these matters; there isn't a policy or guideline requiring that, so again there's nothing for ANI to care about here. This is all mountain-out-of-a-molehill stuff. Any manual or speedy move can be auto-reverted by request at WP:RM/TR, and DL in particular has a long history of doing full RM without any grumbling about it. Only one side of this extended dispute has been overreacting, only one side is breaking policies (the civility-related ones); it's not Dicklyon.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:46, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

  You wouldn't find anything curious about my position if you weren't, in my view, blinded by something of a battleground approach to the subject. I've warmly supported NCCAPS for years for stations (including most recently over the Phillippines and North Korea), and in my more recent work on Swiss articles have rendered "line" as lowercase in all article text (the actual article naming is a horrible business and I'm not dealing with it right now). However, here I find myself accused here of things I haven't said and positions I haven't taken. I would happily support lower-case consistency as a way to end all these arguments, but Dicklyon opposes that position for reasons which aren't at all clear to me. If I'm supposed to endorse the orthodox view, or else, frankly I'm not sure which side I'm supposed to be on. If we're doing this one-by-one, I'm obliged to point out that the academic sources don't back a lowercased name. I'm glad we agree that this is a minor matter, but I'm not sure I believe you, given the amount of invective you've hurled at railfans in the course of this discussion. Mackensen (talk) 19:56, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

  Already addressed most of that below. What I found curious at that RM was that you put in an oppose while arguing more in favor of support points. You didn't open this ANI. I haven't "accused" you in particular of anything. I did point out where you personally attacked Dicklyon by alleging bad faith, simply because he used RM after apparent controversy, which is what he's supposed to do. Diffs and quoting you isn't an "accusation", it's evidence. That you're not personally in the "capitalize all the train stuff or else" camp doesn't make groundless bad-faith allegations okay. Two forms of poison in the same cup don't make the drink safe to imbibe, as it were.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:09, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

  Mackensen wrote I would happily support lower-case consistency as a way to end all these arguments, but Dicklyon opposes that position for reasons which aren't at all clear to me. I do support lower-case consistency and ending these arguments, because there's a history in discussion of a broad consensus to do as MOS:CAPS says. But I'm against making a new rail-specific guideline, because the current guidelines serve well. So, yes, it would be nice to have a bigger/sharper hammer to "end all these arguments", but if we can just make it clear to people like Pi that following well established guidance is not an attack on him or his newly created articles, we should be able to work things out. Dicklyon (talk) 20:48, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

• Close without action (except possibly a boomerang). There is no problem here. For years, we have consistently been moving transport/transit-related articles to use "line", "branch", "station", etc. in lowercase, following WP:NCCAPS, MOS:CAPS, and the majority of independent source usage (aside from specialized sources favored by trainspotters/railfans, and Official Government Signage Hyper-Capitalization Just Because Bureaucrats Love Big Letters). DickLyon got in a spot of ANI trouble several years ago for doing mass-scale moves that were clearly controversial. This is not controversial (WP:Consensus does not require unanimity, just a consistent community result); it's standard practice. Any time someone raises the same tedious, rejected arguments again, DickLyon takes the matter to a full RM anyway. And then the RM goes lower-case anyway, as we would expect.

  This ANI is just someone who doesn't like DickLyon and who doesn't like the consensus direction of dozens (at least) of transit-related RMs, and who is seeking to muzzle an opponent in WP:BATTLEGROUND fashion by hoping that ANI watchers will be unfamiliar with the background and will give a different answer than RM has been giving for years (see WP:OTHERPARENT). In short, there's a tiny handful of railfans who resist every single railway-related NCCAPS move, never get what they want, yet keep trying over and over again to drive any wedge in anywhere they can so they can WP:WIN. This is the very definition of WP:Tendentious editing. It would be one thing if it had been going on for a month, but it's been several years of this crap by now. It needs to stop. If you are losing your shit over style trivia and personalizing debates about it in an attacky fashion, then you need to stay away from style matters (mandatorily if necessary). If you think an RM was decided incorrectly, use WP:MR. If the argument you make doesn't work at RM after RM, then stop making it, and either accept that consensus is against you, or present a new argument. Don't foment misleading WP:DRAMA like ANI reports in hopes of somehow, someday righting the WP:GREATWRONG of you not getting to capitalize everything in sight just because trains are involved. Special topical interests do not get to make up their own linguistic rules and impose them on everyone else, against site-wide guidelines (WP:CONLEVEL).
   — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:09, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

  • It's always good to feel appreciated. Mackensen (talk) 00:29, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
    • Your personal attack against DickLyon here is the sort of thing that makes me believe you need to be excluded from this topic area, or at least from any WP:ARBATC (style-and-naming) discussions involving it. Some of the anti-DickLyon attacks posted at various transport-related wikiproject talk pages have been even worse, and they go back several years. Frankly, I'm getting sick of a tiny handful of people manufacturing overly personalized drama against DickLyon; I see this crap every other time I bother to log in, and it helps make this an increasingly unpleasant e-environment. Attacky, battlegrounding "style warrior" crap like this is one of the reasons I edit WP less and less as time goes on. At bare minimum, I would like an admin to drop off a {{Ds/alert|at}} at your talk page, so that if you continue engaging in character-assassination against other editors over trivial style matters it can be swiftly addressed at AE.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:55, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
      • You've definitely got me confused with someone else, someone who hasn't been a major figure in getting lower-cased "station" naming conventions adopted on a wide scale, particularly for North American articles, enduring a great deal of abuse from "railfans" in the process. Mackensen (talk) 19:14, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

        I'm not confusing you with someone else. I'm including you in the small class of users making WP:NPA/WP:CIVIL/WP:ASPERSIONS-transgressive posts against Dicklyon over style and naming matters, most often pertaining to transport/transit. I diffed one of these already, and there's another one (about the same thing) from you right here in the middle of this ANI.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:25, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

OP has stated about me that "every move you have made or proposed about US (and particularly Boston-area) railway infrastructure has been contested by multiple editors". He links 5 moves; 1 of those was reverted by him, and the other 4 still have neither been reverted nor even mentioned by anyone here or elsewhere. I have made many other moves of US rail stuff, mostly without any reaction. I don't claim to be perfect, but if there are problems, I'd like to hear about them and discuss on the relevant talk page, not here at AN/I. So can we close this now? Dicklyon (talk) 03:40, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I chose not to revert the other four moves from last week because I did not wish to escalate after deciding to file this AN/I report, but I absolutely consider them in need of discussion. That they would be controversial should have been obvious from the far-from-unanimous RMs that followed your undiscussed moves of other Boston-area railway line articles: Boylston Street subway/Tremont Street subway in December 2018, and Causeway Street elevated in December 2019. The October 2018 RM of the extremely similar Ashmont–Mattapan High-Speed Line (in which you commented), your unsuccessful 2017 RM of New Haven–Springfield Line (following your reverted undiscussed move), and the January 2020 RM of Blue Line (Los Angeles Metro) (in which you commented) should all have served as indicators that moves of US railway lines are likely to be controversial. If you simply treat all moves of US railway lines and infrastructure as controversial - they represent a small fraction of your moves, yet a much larger fraction of your reverted moves - we can avoid future reverts.

There is a second similar problem, which also requires a change in your behavior, that has become apparent. The moves of Green Line "A" Branch and three of its siblings were obviously made without any check of current or potential sources. Any such check would have made it clear that the quotation marks around the letter are not used anywhere except Wikipedia. You also did not do any searches of Wikipedia or Google before the Medford Branch RM, where you claimed that Disambiguation is not needed, as there are no other such articles or mentions that I can find. even though a simple search finds two. If you both file RMs and make undiscussed moves without basic background checks, how can your moves be trusted? Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:39, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for replying, Pi. My point was really that your claim of "contested by multiple editors" was untrue, unless by multiple you meant to include zero or just you. As for the quote marks and whether I searched sources, yes, I did, and I agree the quote marks are unnecessary and therefore inappropriate. But that's not what I was working on at the time, and hadn't much background on whether the quote marks would be controversial (as they were in the case of the Chicago "El" where some users strongly prefers single quotes as in 'El'). So I left that for another later pass. As for Medford Branch, yes, I did search WP for conflicts and Google for usage, and have linked a bunch of sources that lowercase it in the RM discussion. In any case, I don't think we're here to discuss whether I'm the best editor or not. If you have problems with my edits or moves, please reply to my attempts to discuss, instead of ignoring those and heading to AN/I. Dicklyon (talk) 03:24, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

By the way, I don't know how I missed fixing the B branch, too. If this ends without anyone contesting any of those other branches, I'll go ahead and fix it. If you'd rather see a discussion first, WP:BRD should be a clue to what you should do. Dicklyon (talk) 03:52, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Davefelmer

Davefelmer seems to believe that a sockpuppet (who has now been checkuser-blocked) responding to RfCs during the times that their puppeteer was already checkuser-blocked means that said sockpuppet's responses still bear consideration and that we shouldn't strike them even though WP:TPO suggests we do so. To clarify, the puppeteer was blocked on March 10 and their sockpuppet responded to the RfCs on April 5 and May 18, respectively. Davefelmer stated that the sockpuppet was simply the sock of another user, that other user didnt contribute to the article so it's not like he used multiple socks to sway an opinion or anything. Can anyone provide clarity on how the sockpuppet's responses should be handled and whether they should be considered in the same manner as other users' responses in relation to building consensus? KyleJoan^talk 05:09, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Where are you getting that the user in question was check-user blocked at the time of the edits? The very post history you link to shows no signs of a block, he was only blocked YESTERDAY after an SPI investigation found a connection between the two accounts, seen here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Davefelmer. You were a part of this investigation so you know this, you thus appear to be feigning ignorance to manipulate the facts. There was no ban in place at the time of the edits, so this appears to have simply been a case of a user deciding to make another account and editing from it instead. There was no ill intent in his edits, all of his contributions on the pages in question were fair opinions made in good faith and there was no manipulation of for example using multiple sock accounts to sway a debate in a certain direction. I dont even see where WP:TPO advises on doing as you say. Just because a user got banned does not mean all of their edits are now invalidated and should be removed. Davefelmer (talk) 05:18, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Note: Davefelmer has also violated 1RR, by which they promised to abide, on Talk:Charlie's Angels (2019 film) (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) in relation to the sockpuppet's responses. KyleJoan^talk 05:23, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

You conveniently ignored that said restriction was placed on me for 3 months....in 2015 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Davefelmer&diff=692246061&oldid=692191572. But let's not go down that road. You're rehashing comments from half a decade ago lmao I havent picked up a ban on this site since 2015. You on the other hand got banned for a month less than a year ago where you yourself promised to abide by 1RR (which you yourself have since violated) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:KyleJoan&diff=prev&oldid=904738800 after being found guilty of violating a 1 week ban by ducking through IP edits, ironically. This after you had promised to retire from the site in general! https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:KyleJoan&diff=prev&oldid=904717474 So let's not play that game. Davefelmer (talk) 05:45, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Their comments can actually be removed, per WP:BANREVERT and WP:BANBLOCKDIFF. Striking is simply often a better way to handle things especially if there have been replies, to avoid confusion. Obviously comments with have been struck or removed are irrelevant in deciding consensus except in so much as needed to understand other comments. Nil Einne (talk) 05:26, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

@Davefelmer: I have not looked into the details but the master was checkuser blocked on 10 March 2020 per the above. Any edits after this were clearly in violation of a block. They may even be defacto banned per WP:THREESTRIKES depending on the details. An editor cannot simply decide to create another account to edit in violation of a block or ban, nor can they continue to use other accounts to violate the block or ban. Edits by illegitimate socks are not okay until we find out they are socking, they are not okay period. That's a key part of both WP:SOCK and WP:BLOCK. I'd add that even without a block or ban, or using multiple accounts to contribute to the same discussion, contributing to a discussion with a sock can be problematic if it's intended to confuse or mislead as may be the case when an editor is well known in the area or are on thin ice. Nil Einne (talk) 05:36, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

I understand the judgement. Although I saw no ill-intent in his edits on the pages where he did contribute in the same discussions as me, I do see the rulings in place against such matters. Davefelmer (talk) 05:45, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Well from the norms here, they do have ill-intent if they are socking in violation of a block or ban. I'll add that from my PoV, even if I completely agree with an editor, I'd much rather discard their opinions completely when they're clearly in violation of a block or ban. Other editors who share more or less the same PoV are fine, if anything their contributions are even more annoying to those who do share that PoV because of the way they've unfairly tainted the discussion. What I say to socks or evaders is: if you cannot be bothered following the most basic rules here, then you should fuck off and leave it to those of us who do. Nil Einne (talk) 05:55, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Macuto Bay raid move proposal

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

---

On 8 May, a move proposal was started in the Macuto Bay raid article by ZiaLater . Yesterday, on 18 May, more users from another move discussion were pinged by the same user.

As I commented in the talk page, around 76% of these users showed support for a specific outcome and there were others move discussions where participants could have been invited. Because of this, there have been concerns that this constitutes WP:CANVASSING and/or WP:VOTESTACK.

I only wish to notify an uninvolved administrator about the situation and to consider how this can affect the closure of the discussion. The neutral point of view noticeboard related thread can also be consulted for reference.

Many thanks beforehand. --Jamez42 (talk) 15:36, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

To those reading, I am a user who has always tried my best to respect neutrality and I take pride in maintaining Wikipedia's credibility. Regarding Venezuelan topics in particular, I was recently recognized for my "neutrality and objectivity" (by a user that does not always agree with my edits, nonetheless). Since the integrity of my edits is being questioned, I am deeply concerned about the motives of some users. So, let me provide my account on these edits.

During and following the 2019 Bolivian political crisis, I created WP:COUP to assist with potential "coup" events that were to happen in the future. The essay was created in an attempt to maintain neutrality and verifiability in articles of future events that may be described as a "coup". Now regarding the Macuto Bay raid article, many, many reliable sources have described the event as a "coup" (see article's talk page). So since the description of the events as a "coup" was seeing widespread use by generally reliable sources (the most reliable sources we utilize on Wikipedia), I proposed renaming the article "2020 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt". As with Venezuelan articles in general, discussions became disputed and circular.

This brings us to the pings. I receive mass pings all the time and saw no issue with sending out some innocent pings to users who have been involved in similar discussions. Knowing the valuable precedent of the very detailed move discussion regarding the 2019 Bolivian political crisis, I pinged everyone who was included in the previous move discussion. The only individuals who were not pinged were already involved in the Macuto Bay raid move discussion. This was not a targeted effort of canvassing. Whether the pinged users supported one decision or not in a previous discussion does not mean that they would support a move in this case. I do not control the edits of such users nor do I have the ability to know what they will decide in such a controversial discussion. The motive of the pings was to determine a more clear consensus and to possibly set an additional precedent for coup article discussions in the future, all to maintain the integrity of the Wikipedia project. This is why I encouraged detailed discussions among users, similar to what happened with the 2019 Bolivian political crisis article.

To any users reading the allegations of Jamez42, I must bring attention to their previous efforts of forcibly defending the controversial Juan Guaidó of Venezuela. In this previous discussion regarding Jamez42's behavior, I argued that Jamez42 was editing in good faith. My opinion has now changed as they have continued to remove[1] or cover up sections potentially critical of Juan Guaidó. Now, I know this discussion is mainly about my actions and I take for responsibility for my edits. However, I have to share this contextual information due to being brought to such a severe noticeboard without the slightest bit of Wikipedia:Goodfaith.----ZiaLater (talk) 23:18, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I would also like to mention (thanks to a mention by a user) that according to WP:APPNOTE, appropriate notifications include "Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)". This is clearly what I was doing as I pinged everyone involved, not a select group of people. Jamez42 also asked why I did not ping users in the 2019 Venezuelan uprising attempt discussions. There are multiplte reasons. The obvious reason is because many of the users in the 2019 Venezuelan uprising attempt move discussions were already involved in the 2019 Bolivian political crisis move discussions. Also, there were more users involved in the Bolivian article's discussions, so it appeared to be more thorough. Lastly, the discussions in the Bolivian article are what inspired me to create WP:COUP, so it was the first thing that came to mind when looking for users knowledgable of such a controversial subject.----ZiaLater (talk) 00:08, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Despite the response given, the point remains that there are concerns regarding canvassing: As laid out in the article's talk page: Out of the 25 pinged users, 19 showed support to move the article to "coup" (a 76%, 13 of which specifically showed "strong support" and one that had made few or no other edits outside this topic), compared to only 5 that opposed and one that commented. I'm not denying Zia's previous feats or the importance of their involvement in other articles; this notification is not meant to be punitive but, as I stated when I stated the thread, to inform administrators about the situation in the talk page and how the things can affect the discussion. At least two other editors have shown this concern as well: [102][103][104].

Two wrongs don't make a right. If there are concerns regarding any of my edits, they can easily be discussed either in the article's talk page or in mine, but they shouldn't be used as a justification of concerns whose explanations are offered. --Jamez42 (talk) 11:21, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

There has been a second ping in a discussion about the removal of a section, unrelated to the move proposal. All of the users from Bolivia's move proposal were pinged again, and of the 31 editors notified only 6 were originally involved in the talk page, before the ping, less than 20%. I don't think the cited WP:APPNOTE still applies, and venues such as a RfC could have been used.

I want to stress that I didn't start this thread to seek punitive measures whatsoever, but rather being concerned of the course the discussion has taken. --Jamez42 (talk) 15:30, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

 Comment: Please see this warning/restriction by El C resulting from this action, where a number of editors felt that Jamez42 should be topic-banned from this area from behaviors such as WP:POV editing, edit-warring, and other concerning editing behaviors in the topic area. --David Tornheim (talk)

The community restriction states a 0RR [restriction] when you've been reverted and 1RR otherwise. I have done my best to comply with these restrictions, and I would like any possible violations to be pointed out. As I have mentioned before, I look forward improving my behavior if there is wrongdoing.

However, I call upon again not to turn this into an ad hominem argument and shoot the messenger. There appears to have been a second ping now to the discussion about the removal of a section, which is unrelated to any of the move discussions mentioned before. --Jamez42 (talk) 13:11, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

I think it should also be noted that David was the user that started the cited discussion, was the one that first requested a topic ban and fears of possible WP:TAGTEAM were brought up during said discussion. --Jamez42 (talk) 15:53, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it looks like canvassing to me. The logic of pinging in everyone who participated in a similar Bolivian discussion-- while ignoring those who participated in a similar Venezuelan discussion-- doesn't wash. Also, I think Zia could do less pinging in general, because of the potential POV introduced.

And for Tornheim to bring up Jamez42's 1RR restriction because he brought a canvassing issue to ANI says more about Tornheim's tendencies than it does about James.

I hope the closing admins will take this canvassing into account. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:33, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

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

Persistent addition of unsourced, incorrect information relating to height and weight

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

---

Wikiuser88888881 is persistently making disruptive, unsourced changes to height and weight in articles. None of the edits is sourced and the user regularly changes sourced information. They appear to be using several IPs to make similar changes, one of which appears to be 92.98.9.20. All of the edits are the same, so a quick analysis of their edit history will show this persistent behaviour is continuing unabated. Here are some diffs that make the behaviour very easy to spot.

Here the editor changes information that is explicitly contradicted by the source given. 1

Here the editor simply changes the height without explanation or source, seemingly at random. 2

Here, again, the editor has changed the height, directly contradicting the source next to it. 3

Here, the editor has again made unsourced changes. 4, the editor was reverted and warned by another editor, then they made the same edit again, here. 5.

Not including the IP, which I strongly suspect is the same editor, warnings have been given:

1 2 3 4 5

It is enormously frustrating having to correct unsourced changes - repeating the same edits in spite of warnings, and failing to communicate once on their talk page, suggests that this behaviour will not change.NEDOCHAN (talk) 13:48, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I have blocked indef as WP:NOTHERE 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:05, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks.NEDOCHAN (talk) 14:44, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

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

Alessio Bidoli

Maxxdetom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Maxxdesignvc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Article is being plagued by two SPAs (who are almost certainly the same editor) who are persistently reverting the article back to their preferred version, which is promotional and has few sources. I partially blocked User:Maxxdesignvc from the article previously, only for the other editor to start doing the same thing. They have also tried to have the article deleted, supposedly on the orders of the subject ([105]).

As I spent some time rewriting it with better sources and less promotional prose this morning, only for them to simply revert it all again for the fourth or fifth time, I'm probably INVOLVED now, so could someone remove User:Maxxdetom's ability to edit the article, please (or just block them for disruption)? Black Kite (talk) 14:03, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

• Self confessed block evasion. Blocked indef. Tiderolls 14:13, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

• I missed that. Ironically, I actually rewrote the article to remove the PROMO tag on the top, which is what the subject wanted - and he put it back in his mass revert. Thanks. Black Kite (talk) 14:49, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Personal attacks by User:Lucius Corin

Lucius Corin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Personal attacks and harsh languague at my talkpage. Lucius Corin is a new created User and started disruptive editing. Tried to talk to him civily at my talk page, but got this.Mr.User200 (talk) 17:42, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

I just replied to you on my user talk page. I did issue a "only warning" to Lucius Corin and C.Fred is mentoring the user. If any other admin wishes to take other action, I would not oppose it. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:53, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm hoping that the warning is sufficient, and that there will be no future conduct from Lucius Corin that requires using the administrative toolbox. —C.Fred (talk) 18:33, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Nikkimaria

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

---

Can one of you sort this shit out please? The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 22:01, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

As best I can tell, by examining the last dozen or so contributions of Georgeparpas (talk · contribs), they had a conflict with Nikkimaria (talk · contribs) on the article Erumpent, and took a particularly creative approach to furthering their goals. They moved User:Nikkimaria to User:Kill me., then deleted the contents. Not clear why this would solve the original issue, but I'm guessing Nikkimaria might not appreciate the humor involved. I think you need to be an admin to move a page back over a redirect? You may also want to take whatever action in regards to Georgeparpas you feel is appropriate. They are a relatively new user, under a hundred edits, so possibly may be granted some latitude ... or not.--GRuban (talk) 22:03, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

TRM was just a bit more concise, I see. Thanks. --GRuban (talk) 22:06, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Shit sorted. :Moved back, protected, and Georgeparpas indeffed. Acroterion (talk) 22:07, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. Shearonink (talk) 22:08, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but I believe you don't have to be an admin to move a page right back to where it was, as long as there have been no edits to the target page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:09, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

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

User:Bdeven

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

---

• Vandalizing Arnab Goswami and Baburam Bhattarai.Likely sock puppet of an active editor to vandalize protected pages. Maybe raise the protection of the pages ? And remove the Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material. // Eatcha (talk) 08:12, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

They are cross wiki vandals. refer to history of File:Arnab Goswami Times Now.jpg. //Eatcha (talk) 08:14, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Indeffed, latest edits revdeleted. El_C 08:20, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing by User:Drmies

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

---

User:Drmies is disruptively editing Jacy Reese Anthis and is beginning to also disrupt other articles (Michael Pollan). I request a third-party administrator to take a look at this behavior. I am relatively inexperienced on Wikipedia, I admit, but I know that we should discuss disagreements on Talk pages instead of repeatedly editing the page and making condescending and ad hominem attacks on editors who disagree. I have tried to raise these points with Drmies to no effect. When I commented on their talk page with the edit warring template, they said "Aw boohoo." I do not know what to do. Please let me know if this is the wrong noticeboard. It seems that the issue goes beyond edit warring so I did not post there. I am worried about the state of other pages on Wikipedia and Drmies' behavior towards other editors, especially new ones. Bodole (talk) 21:25, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

I should add here that there seem to have been previous complaints about Drmies aggressive and disruptive behavior before such as this one. I am not really sure how to search for these but I would not be surprised if this is a pattern of problematic behavior. It saddens me that an administrator is able to get away with this. Bodole (talk) 21:31, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

And there have been previous complaints that you are editing in a COI-fashion regarding Jacy Reese/Jacy Reese Anthis: see the links in my comment below. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:27, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree. I am happy for my behavior to be critiqued as long as that critique is consistently applied to Drmies as well given their disruptive behavior. Bodole (talk) 22:31, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

• That's not how you use the citation template, which is why he's removing it (and why I've just removed it from the Pollan article too). The template is for citing content. Using it that manner you just end up with the template output in the main article, rather than in the footnotes where it should be. The other removal appears to be a big section of text about the organisation that Anthis works for, which already has an article. Black Kite (talk) 21:37, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

  That doesn't seem right. The citation template is not the reason Drmies gave for making these changes. But even if it is, that does not seem relevant to the appropriateness of their behavior. Bodole (talk) 21:38, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

  Well that's another point; we don't list articles that someone has written, either, otherwise articles (for example) of well-known journalists would be stupidly long. If he's notable as an author one would expect to see a bibliography, which appears to be one book. If the articles are notable they can be mentioned in the prose and then cited to those articles using the template you were using. If they're not, they don't belong anyway. Black Kite (talk) 21:46, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

  Um, what? Since when do you not use citation templates to give information about articles, books, etc.? SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:40, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

  We don't use a list of bare cite templates in a list - they cite text, not themselves. Have a look at the version with the bare cites and you'll see. Black Kite (talk) 21:46, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

• Could you explain further? MOS:LISTSOFWORKS suggests using citation templates as pointed out by a user on the Pollan page. Bodole (talk) 22:52, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

• I think this is probably irrelevant now, but if you are going to use the cite template it should be used without the Retrieved parameter (because it shows on the page and that's for when you're using cite for footnotes) and it should only be cite news for actual newspapers, not articles on websites (use cite web for them). Also, they really need to be important articles and/or cited in the text. Black Kite (talk) 23:20, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

• I think we should focus on the behavior here, not the subject matter and content of the article, but as you can see in the discussion page there, many writers including journalists have these bibliographies. It does not include all of their work but perhaps 5 to 20 of their most notable works. The issue is not about citation templates. Everyone agrees those are not what a list of works should look like. Bodole (talk) 21:48, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

  Why 5 notable works. Why not 20 notable works. Why not 100 notable works. What even is a notable work for the purpose of these lists. Is that your interpretation of notable or someone else's ? If you're including only a selection, why do these lists claim to be incomplete and in need to help to expand/complete them ? Nick (talk) 21:54, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

  I don't have the answers here. I don't even have a personal opinion except that in the cases of Pollan and Anthis more than their books should be included on the apge. But this isn't the point. I am raising this on WP:AN not for a discussion of what bibliographies should look like but for my concerns about Drmies' behavior. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bodole (talk • contribs) 22:02, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

  Since the issue appears to be you doing things incorrectly and Drmies fixing your mistakes, this may not go how you intend it to go, as YOUR behavior can also -- and, fairly should be -- examined. --Calton | Talk 22:18, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

  I have supplied my arguments for my edits. I think bibliographies should include non-book items for writers with significant non-book works, such as Pollan and Anthis. I do not agree with your assessment that Drmies was fixing my mistakes, but even if I did the issue is how they went about doing so and how they seem to be aggressively interacting with other editors on this website as well. Bodole (talk) 22:24, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

  I do not agree with your assessment that Drmies was fixing my mistakes

  So we can add WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT to the list, now. --Calton | Talk 04:52, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

  (edit conflict)@Bodole: The answer is that we're not supposed to list random articles they've written because we're not Academia.edu and it'll clutter up the place. We just list major publications (either books or other writings which have received significant independent analysis, such as the Annus Mirabilis papers). If we are going to focus on behavior, you are just as culpable since you're spamming the titles of minor works. "But pages on other people--" don't matter. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:21, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

• Perhaps I am missing something, but I don't see how the the edit warring template Bodole put in Drmies's talk page was necessary given that Drmies made a grand total of one revert to the article. Aoi (青い) (talk) 22:05, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

  My impression was that if you make an edit then another edit reverts it then it should be discussed on the Talk page and both editors should avoid further edits until it has been discussed. Perhaps my impression was mistaken then. Bodole (talk) 22:08, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

  That's odd, Bodole, since you've been telling me all day long how Wikipedia works and what our conventions are. Drmies (talk) 22:11, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

  Just because I am less experienced than you does not give you the right to dismiss and revert what I say. That needs to be based in Wikipedia policy. I am eager to learn but I am also strongly concerned by your behavior. Bodole (talk) 22:17, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

  Bodole, I understand you are frustrated by the situation, but if your belief is that "both editors should avoid further edits until it has been discussed," why did you immediately turn around and revert his edit a second time? Aoi (青い) (talk) 22:22, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

  Thank you for your understanding. I reverted because my impression is that if a bold change is controversial then the main page should be kept in its original state pending discussion. I was attempting to keep the main page in its original state. If that was a mistake, please refer me to the relevant policy so I can learn exactly how and why it was inappropriate. Bodole (talk) 22:28, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

  Please read through WP:EW. I don't see anywhere in that policy where it states it's appropriate to edit war a page to its "original state." In fact, if there wasn't an "original state" to revert back to, it wouldn't be possible to edit war. Aoi (青い) (talk) 22:53, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

  I'm not asserting that it's appropriate to edit war a page to its original state. Reverting the page when someone preemptively edits it before discussion seems to be the appropriate response according to WP:BRD as long as one does not violate the 3-revert rule, which I did not. Bodole (talk) 22:55, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

• I wasn't going to come here, since my advanced age and being locked in the house with a bunch of criminals (aged 7-14) don't really allow me any more stress--but after yet another disruptive revert by the Bodole editor, I am convinced that they have a serious conflict of interest with the Anthis article and associated articles. Note also the long and tedious exchange on the Anthis talk page about the name--I couldn't care less what this person is called, but that discussion, and the way in which Bodole tried to sweep that under the rug (thank you AlasdairEdits), only confirm my suspicions. Drmies (talk) 22:11, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

• I have no conflict of interest. As I stated multiple times on that page I have spent a lot of time on that page because it has ended up being edited in unfair ways and I am compelled to defend it. Unfortunately I do not have a huge amount of time to spend editing Wikipedia, so having even just a handful of pages I contribute to fills my quota. More importantly please do not turn this discussion around on me. I was already brought up to the COI noticeboard and you could put me up there again. These are distractions from your own behavior which is why I added this section to the administrator noticeboard. Bodole (talk) 22:15, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

• You keep complaining about "unfair ways" and yet you think that you know better than everyone else. You're accusing me of edit warring when it is obvious you are just as guilty--and you're the one who restores content that violates our policies, including WP:V and WP:RS. So excuse me if I think you have a conflict of interest, yes. As for turning this discussion on you, you should have seen that coming. So far I think I'm in the clear, and if you think that "aw boohoo" somehow outweighs your aggressive edits and hostile comments, then ... well. Say, you won't be coming back to my talk page anymore, I hope. Drmies (talk) 22:21, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

• How have I violated those policies? Please explain. I don't mind my behavior being critiqued. I will explain my decisions and hopefully learn something. I am just trying to ensure the focus stays on your behavior because that is what I created this discussion for in the first place. I think critique of my behavior would be more appropriate elsewhere or perhaps in a subsection herein. I am not trying to argue anyone's mistakes outweigh anyone else's. In fact this all started because I agreed with you at the Project Veritas Talk page! Bodole (talk) 22:30, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

• Noting that Boodole appears to be an WP:SPA, perhaps one who is here to WP:Right great wrongs. Of their 228 edits, it appears that the vast majority of them concern Jacy Reese/Jacy Reese Anthis in some way (Jacy Reese Anthis, Sentience Institute, The End of Animal Farming, Effective altruism, Meat analogue, Livestock, List of vegans, List of University of Texas at Austin alumni, Sentientism, Cultured meat, Huntsville, Texas, Intensive animal farming, Veganism, Commodity status of animals, Charity (practice), List of animal rights advocates, etc.) I do not think it is going too far to say that Boodole's primary purpose in editing Wikipedia is to insert the name of Jacy Reese Anthis and his book The End of Animal Farming into as many articles as humanly possible. Boodole was the subject of an inconclusive COI report in January [106] regarding Jacy Reese, and a Dispute resolution case [107] regarding Jacy Reese Anthis' inclusion on a template. Their protestations of not having a COI appear to me to be sort of unbelievable given their editing history, but I suppose this could simply be fan behavior. In any case, since they can't seem to edit about Jacy Reese/Jacy Reese anthis without being disruptive, perhaps a topic ban would be appropriate? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:18, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

• As I said above "As I stated multiple times on that page I have spent a lot of time on that page because it has ended up being edited in unfair ways and I am compelled to defend it. Unfortunately I do not have a huge amount of time to spend editing Wikipedia, so having even just a handful of pages I contribute to fills my quota." Bodole (talk) 22:22, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

• ...being edited in unfair ways and I am compelled to defend it
• Really. So what drew you to this miscarriage of justice, how do you know that, and what, exactly is "compell[ing]" you to "defend it"? --Calton | Talk 22:27, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

• I'm more amused that that was their response to being called an RGW account. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:29, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
• I am not sure exactly what you are asking. I joined Wikipedia because I care about the project and share its goals of promoting knowledge. This page has seemed like a place where those goals are not being properly realised so I have worked on that. I think this is a common Wikipedia story. Bodole (talk) 22:34, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

A common Wiki story is someone comes here and begins to edit, likes it, and works on lots of different subjects and articles, becoming part of the culture. Another common story is someone comes here with a COI, tries to ram their version of an article through and then screams bloody murder and slings accusations around about unfairness and rule-breaking by everyone but themselves. Which seems to fit you better? Heiro 22:41, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Neither. I think editors like me came here and began to edit, then found themselves so caught up in discussions on a single contentious page or group of pages that they were unable to expand to work on lots of different subjects and articles. I would like to do that one day but it is tough with this terrible mess! Bodole (talk) 22:44, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

If you were actually caught up in a "group of pages" or focusing on one topic (as you said on the talk page) like factory farming or animal welfare issues or whatever, it might be easier to believe you. But actually, from a quick look this isn't how you've edited. In fact your sole focus here seems to be on one person. There are surely many people who have discusses the issues, some of them who's views tend to get more attention than the random person you've focused on who's name I can't remember. Therefore the fact that somehow, it always seems to come to this one person makes your defence far harder to accept. Nil Einne (talk) 06:44, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

• Whether a fan or some other WP:COI, I think they are exhibiting WP:OWN and attempting to bully their chosen version in. The whole “edited unfairly motif” and their insistence in adding promotional material, coupled with this uncollaborative stance as seen here, makes this clear. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 22:25, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
• Having looked at the article history and talkpage, it is apparent that:
  • Drmies is not editing disruptively and/or against consensus.
  • Bodole is doing both, and have been doing so for months, with the obvious effect (if not effort) of promoting Jacy Reese on wikipedia . Beyond My Ken has already provided a thorough review of the apparent COI, to which I'll only add this RFC sparked by the DRN Bodole initiated, where consensus was found to be clearly against their effort to include Reese's name in a template.

Barring self-admission it may be impossible to know whether or not Bodole has a real-life COI. But their promotional editing and tendentious conduct is clearly problematic. Should a topic-ban from editing the articles (not talkpages) in this subject area be considered? Abecedare (talk) 22:30, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

• • Please keep in mind that as I pointed out there, all 4 of the editors who voted against me on that had strong ties to the "effective altruism" movement and various COIs. I took issue with calling that judgment of consensus. Bodole (talk) 22:38, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
• Forgive me if I am wrong, but isn’t thinking one is correcting a page that has been “edited in unfair ways” one of the hallmarks of WP:COI? Please set me straight, if not, as I too am old, and sometimes I forget. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 22:32, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

@Abecedare: I thought this was tendentious, but I'm never quire sure. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 22:34, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

• Caring about the quality of Wikipedia pages is a COI? That would be news to me! Bodole (talk) 22:36, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Oh good grief. We all care for the quality of our pages. That’s why we are trying to educate you. I do wish you’d listen --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 22:46, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

And I am open to education! But without specific feedback on exactly what I did and exactly what policy it violated, what can I learn? So far today I have mostly just learned about the Manual of Style for bibliographies and the noticeboard process. Bodole (talk) 22:51, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

• Also noting that Bodole is the third [108] [109] (the fourth if you include an IP) editor to add these articles and interviews in the same non-standard format. It's not sockpuppetry - they don't overlap - but it's weird; though perhaps not so weird when you realise that a number of articles on effective altruism were written for pay. Black Kite (talk) 22:39, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

• This is far from conclusive, but it's interesting. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:13, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
• I'm not sure if this means much. Non standard format perhaps, but standard for that article perhaps? What I mean by this is at least with the case of Utsill, it looks to me like they only did that after Reckston had already added all those essays in that format. When they created the article, they added that book as a simple item [110]. I wouldn't be surprised if it was the same for the IP. Has Bodole actually commented on why they chose that format? It seems easily possible it's the same reason. Point being that for inexperienced editors, if they come across something someone else has done, the may simply repeat it it looks good to them. To be fair, Utsil has an interesting edit history for an inexperienced editor but still.... Nil Einne (talk) 09:40, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Proposal WP:TBAN Bodole

Whether WP:COI, or WP:RGW or some other reason, Bodole’s editing of Jacy Reese Anthis related articles has become overly strident and disruptive. I propose a 3 month topic ban on Jacy Reese Anthis related articles and templates, and any pages I've missed, to be revisited after 3 months of constructive editing of other subjects. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 22:43, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Support Clearly either a case of WP:COI or WP:RGW. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:48, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Oppose I am not sure if it is appropriate for me to comment here, but what is disruptive about it? I and a few others have been dreadfully caught up in these messy debates regarding the page and related pages, but what have I done that is actually disruptive? Argue? Make bold edits? I ask partly because a topic ban seems undeserved but partly as well because I would like to improve as an editor. I have pushed strongly for my opinion, or rather pushed strongly against a few editors' changes, but what is wrong about that? Bodole (talk) 22:49, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: (edit conflict)@Bodole: I have had issues with Drmies in the past, but I'm not seeing anything in these links that demonstrates disruption on his end. The best you could argue for is edit warring, but if we blocked Drmies for editing warring, we would have to block you as well (it takes two to tango and you were both reverting each other). You claim that Drmies made personal attacks, yet none of those supposed diffs are linked here that I can find. If you are trying to make a case against him, that's a very important thing to leave out. Especially considering:

• A) You are reporting a connected and well known administrator on Wikipedia, so obviously people are more likely to take his side or assume innocence.
• B) The onus is on you to supply diffs and proof of your accusations (assuming they are correct to begin with). Most people aren't going track down the discussions, read through the situation in chronological order, or go hunting for the diffs themselves.

If evidence of personal attacks exists, provide it. If not, I would advise you to vacate the situation. DarkKnight2149 23:04, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

• Darkknight2149, are you sure you're in the right section? El_C 23:08, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

I referred to an example where Drmies said "Aw boohoo" in response to my concern. But yes I agree that in retrospect raising my concern about Drmies here was a mistake, not just because of the potential topic ban but because it because a much bigger deal than I expected. I was thinking that I may get one administrator to respond and explain to me whether Drmies' behavior was appropriate in a sentence or two, and if it was inappropriate, they would be warned about it. I definitely did not expect this huge discussion! I am glad that I have seen some improvements I can make in my own editing though obviously I would prefer to work on those without having a ban of any sort.

Should I vacate the situation at this point? I honestly do not know what the relevant policies or norms are in this situation. I have been doing my best to respond to concerns herein because I thought the discourse would be important for all sides. Bodole (talk) 23:14, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

I will add that I was not previously aware of the WP:OSE policy which has been informative. Bodole (talk) 23:17, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support 1-month TBAN: And escalating measures if this continues. I think the best thing you can do is take a break from this and focus on something else. Try to familarise yourself with our policies and guidelines before edit warring or filing another report (with the exception of reporting obvious vandalism). DarkKnight2149 23:28, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Support- a 3 month topic ban to all subjects Jacy Reese Anthis related sounds reasonable. If they truly are here to learn how to edit and become productive contributors to the 'pedia, they will stick around, learn the nuances of editing and the relevant policies, and contribute to more than this one very specific subject. It will be their chance to prove they are not only here to "right this great wrong" on this one one subject. Drmies has been here for almost a decade and a half, longer than myself by a few years, OP should be paying more attention when such a long term and respected editor gives them advice on editing policies and the ins and outs of behavior here. Heiro 23:02, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

But what have I done wrong? These accusations of RGW and COI seem to be attempting to peer into my psyche. Am I being judged on your guess of my intent, or is there actually some policy I have broken or overly bent? I am open to learning, but I have to say this seems like an entirely unsubstantiated process. I have made a number of edits on other topics, as many as I've had time for, but these discussions are such quagmires that I have little option except to make comment after comment trying to resolve the debates unless I want to just abandon the discussion. Maybe that's what I should have done but I felt and still feel like I had something valuable to contribute. In fact in some of those cases I seem to have been vindicated, such as with the naming debate in which the final consensus seemed to be that the subject should remain named Jacy Reese, which I argued for from the beginning. Obviously this has changed now that the subject has changed their own name. Bodole (talk) 23:08, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

@Bodole: WP:COI is defined as "contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships. Any external relationship can trigger a conflict of interest. That someone has a conflict of interest is a description of a situation, not a judgement about that person's opinions, integrity, or good faith. Do not edit Wikipedia in your own interests, nor in the interests of your external relationships." It extends to editing on behalf of anyone, including people you have not met, for your or their own personal benefit. Beyond My Ken and others have cause for concern that you are editing to insert the name of a specific living person into as many articles as possible. DarkKnight2149 23:23, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. I understand that and take "editing on behalf" to be included in "my psyche" as it seems to assume I'm doing something on behalf of someone. This is also the case for "editing to insert the name..." which again assumes my intent. I found a subject on Wikipedia that I was interested in and have made edits on that subject, including adding content into other relevant articles. As far as I know each of those additions have been in accordance with Wikipedia policies and best practices, but again I am open to being shown why they are not! Was there a page I added something to that I shouldn't have? If so, please point it out so I may learn. I will certainly be more cautious about doing so in the future if I continue editing Wikipedia but I would appreciate any guidance in doing so here. Bodole (talk) 23:30, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

I can't really compete with Darkknight2149's green text, but here goes. Bodole, maybe it's time to stop bludgeoning the discussion. You do not, in fact, need to respond to every single comment here. In any case, there are millions of other articles to contribute to on Wikipedia. It would have reflected well on you to have voluntarily withdrawn from this particular set of articles as a sign of good will. That would have demonstrated you're not just here to affect change in this limited area alone. El_C 23:26, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

I wish I knew that earlier! Thank you for the information. (This is hopefully a short enough comment. I will try to now leave fewer comments on this discussion.) Bodole (talk) 23:32, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support - Given the evidence, I think 3 months of editing outside of the topic of Jayce Reese Anthis (broadly construed) would go a long way to show what Boodole's purpose is in being here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:35, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support. I think a three month ban in this instance is reasonable. It will hopefully motivate Bodole to contribute in other areas and forget about Jayce Reese Anthis for awhile. As an aside, I really enjoyed this thread. It's refreshing to come across a new editor with a decent attitude at an Admin Board. Except, perhaps, for the comment below (amended my comment). ---Steve Quinn (talk) 01:53, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support the three month topic ban as described, and I would recommend broadening the topic ban to include meat, veganism, vegetarianism, animal rights and animal sentience, all broadly construed. This editor needs to learn that pushing a POV is not acceptable conduct. In the spirit of full disclosure, most of my own article editing in the last month has to do with documenting the failings of the American meat processing industry during the pandemic, but I try very hard to be neutral and not push a POV. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:51, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

• I agree that those topics should be part of the TB, but thought that making it "Jacy Reese Anthis (broadly construed)" would be sufficient. I guess, though, that being as specific as possible would avoid the possibility of probing the edges of the ban. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:00, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support per the above, and also per Bodole's own WP:BLUDGEONing of the discussion which is tending towards the IDHT variety. The bottom line is, if they want to edit here productively, they aren't prevented from doing so; if, on the other hand, they just want to push this book and/or its author, then they are. serial ^# 10:02, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support a three-month topic ban, and predict the editor will cease editing altogether once the pipeline to allow their COI editing is closed. Grandpallama (talk) 14:05, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

A final comment

Thanks to everyone for the comments here. I have learned a lot. I think regardless of the outcome of the vote above, I will now sign off of Wikipedia indefinitely. I now know that I have left too many comments and argued too strongly, and I also should have diversified my editing experience earlier in my Wikipedia experience, but I also feel very disappointed with the Wikipedia community's behavior here, particularly adminstrators, who I hoped would be above the insults and ad hominem. I really do care about this encyclopedia and would love to contribute more. I know I am talkative, in real life too, but I don't think that has justified the dogpile I have been met with. I know some of you will see this as "Woe is me! Poor Bodole!" but I hope you also consider what if I'm being sincere. In posting on this noticeboard, I hoped one or maybe two administrators would respond to my concerns, as I was feeling very disheartened after Drmies' actions and did not know what response was warranted. (Isn't that what noticeboards are for? To get someone to notice?) I did not mean to rope in half of Wikipedia. I only meant to share what I took as inappropriate behavior for third-party evaluation.

I really do wish all of you the best with your endeavors here, but please give some more thought to how you treat new editors. Bodole (talk) 23:48, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

If personal attacks took place, you have to actually post links proving that this is the case (and even then, context would play a role unless it's a blatant personal attack). It can't just be you saying it. Although you could use a break from that topic area, I hope you reconsider leaving Wikipedia permanently. DarkKnight2149 02:19, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I think we need an essay on this area. Call it "The Newbies guide to Flouncing." -Roxy the effin dog . wooF 10:23, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

• Watch out, Roxy the dog, I got (momentarily) blocked for using the word flouncing. Also, you spelled elfin wrong. EEng 22:51, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 23:32, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

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

Problematic editor

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

---

Harry-Oscar 1812 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This is the 2nd time I am reporting this user to ANI for repeated unsourced additions, specifically genres. The last time they were given their 2nd block by Ymblanter for a week but soon returned to their disruptive behavior, hence my issuing of this final warning and personal plea. It seems that the 2 blocks and repeated warnings on their talk page are not having the desired effect with their lack of communication further compounding the issue. Here, here & here are some of their latest unsourced genres. Please could an admin assist with this. Robvanvee 18:51, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Blocked indef until they agree to change their behavior. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:03, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the help Floquenbeam! Robvanvee 19:05, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

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

Irresistible (2020 film) Theatrical Release Cancellation Category Removal

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

---

Hello, I am here to report one Bovineboy2008 for removing a category that I added to Irresistible (2020 film) without my knowing it. He apparently didn't know that the film's theatrical release was scrapped and has engaged in an edit war with me. Call me when you get the chance 17:59, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Call me when you get the chance, can you provide a diff of where you tried to discuss the matter with the other editor? Schazjmd (talk) 18:07, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Sure. His edits have removed the category from the page against my wishes. Call me when you get the chance 18:13, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

I brought this conversation to their talk page. We are currently discussing it. BOVINEBOY2008 18:13, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

And can you provide a diff of where you provided a source for this change? And can you explain how the other editor was edit-warring but you were not? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:17, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Sure: Here is me bringing the conversation to their talk page. The edit history shows that I reverted twice on that page and have thus stopped. User added a category to an article without a supporting source, which is why I removed it in the first place. Also, I was ever pinged about this ANI. BOVINEBOY2008 18:21, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Here's a source: I just found it. Call me when you get the chance 18;24, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

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

Bullying by User:Games of the world

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

---

I'm in complete amazement by User:Games of the world 's horrible treatment of other editors. Please take a look at his latest outbursts: Stop being stupid! with absolutely no provocation from User:Wici Rhuthun 1. Other outbursts, intimidation and provocation include: This table is nonsense, declares that he or she is trolling me and left a No-heading warning on my Talkpage in error, other than he or she doesn't agree with my attempt to change COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom into a balanced, non-biased article. I wish I could work out how many reverts this editor had made on this article; every time an edit is made about Northern Ireland, Scotland or Wales, User:Games of the world will either revert or find something negative to say. This is not nice.

The editor also turned against User:Capewearer, who has stopped editing since. To put it simply, I think many of us, now are frightened of this user. I stopped editing the English Wikipedia for a few years because of such behaviour, and if this doesn't stop, then I give up! John Jones (talk) 11:13, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: I see that User:Games of the world is a relatively inexperienced user. I have given him/her a mild warning. Repetition of this conduct could lead to a block. Deb (talk) 11:19, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Can someone look at John Jones' behaviour. Not only has he not followed guidance. But he has repeatedly stated that other editors have a conflict of interest and incited that they worked for the government and were being paid to edit. He repeatedly doesn't understand any wiki policy in regards to neutrality and balance and blatantly ignores others. In respect Caprewearer and I had a disagreement over how to write something not the content and that is a substantial accusation which is unsupported by JJ, considering the last time we interacted we were cordial with each other. The really bully here is JJ who has made numerous threats. Games of the world (talk) 11:32, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

It's true that their editing in this area has not always been optimal (something I'm sure Deb is already aware of), but honestly, Games of the world, you can't go around telling people they're being stupid (in boldcaps, even), it's really not on. ——Serial ^# 11:40, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

That one comment aside (which was out of frustration ) as this is the umpteenth time that a welsh user has attempted the same argument and frankly it is tiring. So would you agree that JJ going around accusing me and Defacto of paid editing is on? Which he has done numerous times. Games of the world (talk) 11:44, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Not at all, Games of the world; if you provide Deb diffs as to Jones' remarks, I'm sure she'll address them also. The article talk page, I suspect, is symptomatic of the wider real life sense of crisis. If tensions on COVID-19 pages are rising, then editors should considor temporarily self-isolating from them. ——Serial ^# 11:50, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Comment I was only on a long break, thanks. But I agree with John Jones: Games of the world's edits at COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom are often combative, frequently skating to the edge of WP:3RR and occasionally breaching it. Other editors who have disagreed with John Jones' edits there, such as DeFacto and RWB2020, have adhered to WP:AGF and WP:BRD and patiently discussed proposed changes at the talk page. My own attempts at dialogue with Games of the world at Talk:COVID-19_pandemic_in_the_United_Kingdom/Archive_3#Lifting_lockdown have been replied to with long, bombastic essays, which appear to be aimed at discouraging other editors from joining the discussion. Warnings at their talk page from John Jones[111], me,[112] and Deb,[113] are blanked with no reply apart from an angry edit summary.

I believe I tried in good faith to maintain a neutral tone in COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom, but my most recent edits there were consistently reverted by Games of the world, often accompanied by accusatory edit summaries, multiple reverts of my and John Jones' edits disguised with misleading edit summaries, and other WP:OWNBEHAVIOR. So I've quit editing there, as to be honest I found Games of the world's aggressive reverts too much like bullying, so I've given up trying to clean up that mess of a page. Capewearer (talk) 11:45, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

• My opinion: Those who have seen my two warnings to User:Games of the world (both now deleted by him/her) and his/her response to my attempts to calm the situation may well come to the same conclusion as I have: that this user is incorrigible and probably needs a short block to concentrate his mind on the problem. I propose a topic ban. User:Serial Number 54129, what do you think? Deb (talk) 18:09, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Deb, I don't disagree; after all, what other people do is has generally fared pretty poorly as mitigation. It's very much within the range of reasonable admin responses open to you—particularly, as you say, after two warnings. ——Serial ^# 18:21, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry but ranting on my talkpage saying that it was quite all right to make COI accusations and to state they've been hear longer therefore I ain't doing anything is not a great response from an admin. I do not think that these are appropriate comments from Deb's, nor is it an appropriate way to calm a situation. All users should be warned. Banning people is not going to help nor is chastising one person over another! Games of the world (talk) 18:26, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

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

Lame edit war at List of prime ministers of Australia by age

Yes, I've been participating, and I asked for the article to be protected a day ago or so, and it was, for a day. The other party is an IP hopper out of Australia, and I don't know what their intention is, except to revert what I've done there. My attempts to politely communicate on the talk page have also been removed, so I dunno what else to do, but tell on myself and ask for assistance. Thank you and I apologize. Dawnseeker2000 12:41, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

You can probably just ask for longer protection. Perhaps a partial range block would also work but I imagine RFPP could deal with that if they feel it's a better solution. It's good that you're seeking help rather than continuing to just revert. The only real fault I see with your editing is that especially since (I believe) the trailing zeroes do nothing other than slightly increase the page clutter, it would have been better to stop reverting the IP when this first started and wait for them to join the discussion. Once all they did was remove your talk page comments, it became clear that was fruitless so simply reverting them and asking for protection if they tried again was reasonable. Nil Einne (talk) 13:45, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Added a month of protection to the article.--v/r - TP 15:11, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

• I have a question: Why do we have stupid trivia lists like List of prime ministers of Australia by age? Can someone falsify the thesis that 95% of lists could be deleted without anyone caring beyond those who create and tinker with them? EEng 23:43, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

It has a surprising 2200+ pageviews over the last month, so apparently it's of some interest. To whom, I can't imagine. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:15, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Maybe people visit it just to see whether such an idiotic thing actually exists. Kind of like a road accident where you just can't help looking. EEng 05:16, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

As an almanac peruser, I can see how it would spark interest. But isn't calling the edit war "lame" redundant? --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 13:22, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

User:RaphaelQS

RaphaelQS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has now twice reverted a good-faith claim of a BLP violation, the second time while making a fairly unambigous personal attack. Please see revert 1, revert 2, personal attack after violating WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE, and finally a refusal to self-revert. The discussion is at Talk:Alison_Weir_(activist)#smears_by_association. nableezy - 06:22, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Very clear BLP violation. A particular website (which personally seems to me to be rather on the nose) reprinted some of this LP's articles first published elsewhere. I checked all of them. The website does not list her as a columnist. However, RaphaelQS claims that she writes a column there and combined that with attacks on the website which don't mention her at all. This is classic smear by association and can't be tolerated. Zero^talk 09:39, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Though we need a proper secondary sources its not like the accusation is WP:REDFLAG claim there are plenty of sources about her that put her in negative light [114],[115] --Shrike (talk) 10:37, 21 May 2020 (UTC)]

Implying that a living person is racist is definitely a BLP violation. Calling other editors liars multiple times[116][117][118] even after being warned is also unacceptable. And this is not the first time I see this editor accusing other editors of lying, here some more [119][120].--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 11:18, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

There are sources that implying that [121] --Shrike (talk) 11:40, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

On the one side you have backers of the IHRA working definition; on the other, critics such as Alison Weir. The author of the linked source is Mark Weizman, chair of the IHRA's Committee on Antisemitism and Holocaust Denial [122][123] (described as the architect of the IHRA definition [124]) and also the director of government affairs of the Holocaust research group of the Simon Wiesenthal Center [125]. Alison Weir being a strong critic of the IHRA definition and the groups promoting it [126]; it's questionable to use a footnote from a source written by the definition's "architect" as being neutral biographical fact.     ←   ZScarpia   13:34, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Not only do I claim and maintain my assessment that characterizing the original facts as a "smear" is a lie, but I also add that saying that I call other editors "liars" when I am not is a lie in itself. The difference between saying something is a lie and calling someone a liar is the difference between making a personal attack and criticizing a particular edit.

I'm not surprised to see SharabSalam trying to pretend that I'm making personal attacks because he's been on the opposite side on an issue on a previous article.

In response to my comment ([127]) that you gave an example of a personal attack, I maintain that you lied. You pretended that I said the article was "my page" which is a lie. I let everyone read the exchange and see for themselves. --RaphaelQS (talk) 11:46, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Comment It seem that user indicated that they will disengage from this article [128] --Shrike (talk) 11:53, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I can't think of anything else to add in addition to the things I've already said on the talk page of the article. I would simply add that I believe that I've criticized edits and not users, and therefore that I'm not guilty of personal attacks. I withdraw from this article and let other users decide what to do. --RaphaelQS (talk) 11:55, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

You said, "Not only do I claim and maintain my assessment that characterizing the original facts as a "smear" is a lie". (The underlining is mine)

What's the "original fact"? Are you trying to say "original research"?. Also, please read WP:NPA, you have repeatedly accused other editors of lying. And you should read WP:BLP which says that any content about BLP that has been challenged should not be reinstated until there is a consensus to include it.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 12:11, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Also you said, "I'm not surprised to see SharabSalam trying to pretend that I'm making personal attacks because he's been on the opposite side on an issue on a previous article.". I don't think I have had any interaction with you before. I only remember you from that article because it was in my watchlist. I saw the conversation only. I didn't join that conversation or made any edit in that article. You probably think I am the person who you were arguing with. No, I am not. I am a completely different person.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 12:29, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Hamamat Montia

Could someone knowledgeable have a look at this page, specifically the comments near the bottom of the page about her partner and the car purchase Lyndaship (talk) 17:56, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

• Lyndaship, WP:BLPN is a better venue for these questions. I see that WikiHannibal made some significant edits (thank you)--and I see that I need to go through and revdelete part of that history. Darkemperor, please read WP:BLP. I don't know what you were going for here, but that was not OK, not at all. Drmies (talk) 22:17, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

• Drmies, they probably need to read COPYVIO, too. The material that WikiHannibal edited out was lifted directly from the Ghana Web source in the article. Grandpallama (talk) 13:53, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

• Grandpallama, I'm not surprised, but in all honesty I didn't look to see if it was copied. Is there anything left that needs to be cleaned up? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:22, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

• Drmies, their edits were only copyvio, so assuming that needs to be cleaned completely out of the article's edit history, all four of WikiHannibal's edits, not just the first two, need revdel. Grandpallama (talk) 16:32, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

User:TylerKutschbach

I am not sure @TylerKutschbach: understands how to use talk pages, read edit summaries, or collaborate on Wikipedia. In their 10 months of editing (14k edits), they have not used a talk page of any type. I have brought up issues to them twice, as have other people. This user will revert to their desired version continually, with no discussion. I am not sure what to do further... ɱ (talk) 02:33, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I had just reached out to this user and saw this ANI. I had reached out in the past and never gotten a response. It's clear now that the lack of response is not because I'm being ignored; it's because the user seems to have no understanding that messages have been sent. We need to find a way to ensure that users new and old (TK has more than 10,000!) know that the talk page is a vital part of the communication process. Alansohn (talk) 03:13, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I blocked them from the mainspace for 24 hours so as to get their attention to this report. El_C 03:25, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks El_C. I saw that when I went to warn him re this. Same issue Alan noted above. John from Idegon (talk) 03:54, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I haven't got attention for the talk pages, but I now know how to use the talk pages on Wikipedia now. So can you unblock me please.TylerKutschbach 3:58 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Can you first please address the constant reverting established editors, with seemingly no attempt to learn how to talk? And can we resolve the Columbus issue? ɱ (talk) 04:01, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

How do I address the constant reverting established editors? TylerKutschbach 4:08 22 May 2020

Responded on my talk. In the future, please talk to people after they revert you, do not start edit wars. ɱ (talk) 04:50, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Charlie's Angels (2019 film)

I am a bit concerned that the RfC on that page is running a muck, I have no way in knowing, but after ToeFungii was blocked for socking could there still be socks RfC vote stacking?? Govvy (talk) 10:03, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Ew. What are you doing to the English language? Robby.is.on (talk) 10:10, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

So instead of being helpful you rather be rude to a dyslexic guy, it would of been better if you didn't posted at all. Govvy (talk) 10:38, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I am sorry. Please accept my apologies. Robby.is.on (talk) 10:42, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

• I was the initiator of the RfC, and I concur that the process has been strange. Long story short, a user from the discussion that led to said RfC canvassed for responses; one out of the three canvassed joined said discussion and another responded during the RfC period. I tried addressing the canvassing multiple times, to which no one responded. Now, the canvassing user as well as the canvassed RfC responder have suggested changing the scope of the RfC multiple times, with the former even suggesting starting another RfC only to incorporate their suggestions. KyleJoan^talk 07:26, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Reporting User ElKevbo

This user has repeated reversed my good faith edits on Duke University's page citing inane reasons like "these rankings suck" based on nothing more than his/her personal opinion.

• ElKevbo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Repeated reversal of good faith edits.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.74.237.226 (talk • contribs)

You forgot to notify him of this report. Also, Content dispute. Consider dispute resolution. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:37, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

ElKevbo is right. The sources you're using are not great (the store page for an HBR paper?), and you should work to establish consensus for your proposed addition on the article talk page, particularly considering that Duke University is a featured article and as such, has undergone extensive editing and discussion. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:41, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Duke's a great university - a lot of my family went there (although I went to Yale). But as you've been told, it's a feature article, you don't seem to understand our sourcing policy, and you need to get talk page consensus. Doug Weller talk 08:22, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Pakistan International Airlines Flight 8303 again

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

---

This is far more than a dispute now. User:WilliamJE is not obeying WP:STATUSQUO and freely continuing to do what they want. They falsely believe that by having numbers they can break any policy they want. After he reached a 3RR limit, User:Samf4u helped him out by reverting me. I'm not going to achieve anything by reverting myself, that's clear. So I'll just give up on it instead of starting an endless edit war. But this isn't just a content dispute.

WP:1E and WP:BLPNAME allow usage of names of even people only famous with one incident. Just because users on some previosus articles may have decided such people may not be mentioned, doesn't mean it should apply to other articles or override policies. Are you admins going to do anything or just sit by an watch as they run roughshod over what they want? Saynotodrugs12 (talk) 19:00, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

The edits you want to introduce are in a direct violation with WP:BLP. If you really want to add this person to the article, you need to create a Wikipedia article about him and see whether it survives an AfD. Right now, you are pushing him through a backdoor.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:07, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

This editor refuses to accept the consensus both on the talk page and past discussions. Between the earlier ANI and the talk page there is a 6 to 2 vote (Martin Evans, me, Vellela, Andrew, Sporting Flyer, and Sam mentioned by Sayno. On sayno's side, Mar4d) there not to name the persons and as noted there is at least 5 past discussions on this....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:08, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

No Ymblanter, the edits are not in violation of WP:BLP. The survivors being removed are notable and they as well as their family members have chosen to reveal their name. The government too has revealed his name. Notability DOES NOT depend on having a Wikipedia article. Don't just make up anything. If you can prove me wrong, please do. Saynotodrugs12 (talk) 19:18, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

User:WilliamJE consensus is not the be-all, end-all. You can't defy policies and yes consensus don't always have to be accepted, even if obeyed. I asked you in clear words what rule prohibits adding name of survivors or victims or anyone associated with an incident. Until now you have failed to list even one. Saynotodrugs12 (talk) 19:18, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

No, they are not notable. Not at least before they have a Wikipedia article each.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:20, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Notability doesn't depend on a Wikipedia article. Saynotodrugs12 (talk) 19:23, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Sure. However, in the case of dispute, it is determined by consensus. So far, the consensus was against you. Fine, everybody is wrong and you are right. This happens. But then you have to prove that you are right using a valid process. I suggested AfD which is a valid process and would validate notability. If you do not like this either, that you have to suggest something else.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:27, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

So now you have shifted to the criteria being consensus in case of dispute instead of Wikipedia article no matter what. That means you either didn't know the criteria or made up one. And that said the dispute must be legitimate too. One of the survivors is independently notable, has been covered by media before the crash. Is placed in a prominent government position. There's literally no notability guideline he doesn't meet. What's the dispute? Saynotodrugs12 (talk) 19:41, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I am not going to prove you wrong. This is not my role here. My role is to warn you that if you continue edit-warring (which is accompanied by a BLP violation) your account will get blocked. Usually, if you find yourself edit-warring against several users there might be at least a slightest chance that you might be doing something not perfectly correct. Please consider this change rather that continue edit-warring.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:24, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I have proven you wrong (at least I believe so) or should I say sufficiently challenged your claims, so yes you must prove me wrong. Otherwise you falsely accused me. I'm not the one edit-warring any longer. In case you didn't bother to read my first comment, "I'm not going to achieve anything by reverting myself, that's clear. So I'll just give up on it instead of starting an endless edit war."

The people you are defending are the ones still edit-warring and are the ones that intend to do so unlike me. I know that I won't get anything out of it. I have considered who is wrong, and it's not those keeping the names of the survivors. There is no BLP violation, you know that already. Saynotodrugs12 (talk) 19:36, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Review WP:BLP1E. The person on the flight that WAS notable should be included. The others that were not should not be included. We have a precedent set in the past with other crashes, the list of survivors are not listed. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:45, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

• I think the one thing guaranteed to cut down on the drama here would be a topic ban for Saynotodrugs12 from the Pakistan International Airlines Flight 8303. They claim that all these other editors are doing X/Y/Z wrong; but it is they who repeatedly start—and then badger to the point of bludgeoning—ANI threads (this is the second, the first closed by me above), cast aspersions on multiple other, experienced editors, insists they are always in the right and that everyone else is in the wrong, repeatedly have Wikipedia policies such as BLP and V highlighted, guidelines such as N and 3RR, but still dictate their actual meaning.
  The thread above was a timesink; this thread will likely become a timesink; and, very much thanks to Sntd12, the article talk page has already become one. ——Serial ^# 19:49, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I was exactly writing this: Now I see why you can not reach consensus. You just do not listen. I am blocking you for disruptive editing (note that I am not involved, all my text above is an attempt to explain you the policies), we just already wasted too much time for you as a community.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:52, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Saynotodrugs12 has been blocked indef from editing Pakistan International Airlines Flight 8303--Ymblanter (talk) 19:55, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

An excellent choice, Ymblanter, and a talk page full of folk thank you. ——Serial ^# 19:58, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

First of all I did try to discuss unlike others. And I am not breaching 3RR when I explictly say I don't see a point in reverting others anymore. Means I have no intention to revert. WilliamJE doesn't care however. And that said you can block or ban me, but I am not compromising on any principals. You falsely accuse me of violation of WP:BLP which I have proven you wrong about. Saynotodrugs12 (talk) 19:56, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

And can WilliamJE be banned as well? He has reverted me 3 times today. Yesterday he reverted 2 times. Unlike me he hasn't even promised not to revert. Or does he walk free no matter what? After all my complain was about him. Do let me know. Saynotodrugs12 (talk) 20:03, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

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

Pakistan International Airlines Flight 8303

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

---

Two users User:WilliamJE and User:Andrewgprout keep inserting back their edits without caring to understand the rules.

On the article I have removed the victim nationality table multiple times. The table has no source for all passengers bar one being Pakistani. Andrewpgrout still inserted it back without any source. [129]

And would you look at his edit summary, "if the numbers are wrong it will be corrected". What he added is pure conjecture, only one passengers has been confirmed as American, so based on that he decided to add all other passengers as Pakistani (though I believe the table was made by someone else).

Further, many users including Andrewpgrout, WilliamJE and Martinevans123 keep removing names of some survivors [130], [131], [132], [133], even though names of people notable for incident can be mentioned per WP:1E. But being under WP:3RR I can't keep reverting them. And at least one of them, a provincial bank executive, is notable enough to be mentioned. I don't think we need a Wikipedia article for them.

I have told them many times on edit summaries to use the talk page and mention any rule that disallows naming the survivors if they're not notable. Instead I got a list of talk pages of other articles from WilliamJE. I don't have time to check them, he should intead show a rule simply, if he has one. He talks about consensus. I might not be much knowledgable but consensus cannot overrule a rule until that rule is changed, correct?

Also they aren't adhering to WP:STATUSQUO. The names of survivors have been there on the article for a long time, they are making changes by removing the names. When in dispute, they need to refrain from removing the names again once reverted, as they're restoring the names and violating STATUSQUO. They don't seem to understand WP:BRD.

Now I may not be right about everything, I after all haven't been here for a long time. But if I am right, I ask that Andrewpgrout and WilliamJE be blocked, Martinevans123 only reverted once so he's not a problem for now. Saynotodrugs12 (talk) 05:32, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

There is further discussion on this at User_talk:Andrewgprout#Remove_victim_nationality_tableFleet Lists (talk) 06:50, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

You're not right, and you have absolutely no grounds for a block. There's consensus that we don't include names of survivors. Not one but two of those recent discussions were linked in one of the diffs you reverted. There is common agreement on how we handle these issues so you need to gain consensus if you want to make that change, not the other way around. There is currently a source which matches the nationalities on the plane. Furthermore there is no "long time" for the survivor's names - this article represents a very recent and tragic event. I am glad you are following WP:3RR, but this is a content dispute, not an ANI issue, and you are on the other side of how we typically handle these things. If you feel that strongly, take this to the talk page and try to get a consensus, preferably on each of these issues separately, but also don't be surprised if things don't go the way you'd like them to. SportingFlyer T·C 07:45, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Consensus matters zilch in front of actual policies unless those policies are changed. But also, I suggest you read Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_138#WP:NOTMEMORIAL_and_victim_lists_in_tragedy_articles where consensus was that victims can be listed on case-by-case basis. Also read WP:1E, even articles for people notable for one incident are allowed on case-by-case basis. WP:BLPNAME allows inclusion of names on non-notable people as long as they are prominently covered. Presumption should be in favor of privacy, but the authorities and one of the survivors are themselves giving out their names.

Victims who are prominently mentioned by the media do qualify. One of the survivors, a Bank of Punjab CEO, actually has been notable even before the crash. There is no reason to not include him.

Now people on other articles may have decided to not include victim names, but what they decided doesn't matter. Only the rules matter. And consensus cannot make its own rules unless a discussion to modify a rule is actually held.

Secondly, the editors in question have repeatedly ignored me asking to use them talk page first without changing anything. This goes against WP:STATUSQUO as they are changing something that had been there for a long time. Andrewpgrout just made one comment in response to me after removing the survivor names. He also indirectly admitted in his edit summary and on his talk page that he had no source regarding nationalities of 98 people on board the plane, he's just using conjectures and admits it can be incorrect. So I will ask for him to be blocked. Saynotodrugs12 (talk) 09:00, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

• I'm not here to get into an argument with you about content. I see WilliamJE has posted several links to discussions where there's been agreement survivors do not get listed in aviation incident articles unless there's a noteworthy reason to do so. That is what the users you are trying to get blocked are doing in this article - they are editing based on what is currently the accepted WP:STATUSQUO. The guidelines for this exact instance have been established on various talk pages, there is no need for a formal rule, especially because we are not a bureaucracy. Also, as I've mentioned, the table you're arguing over is currently sourced. If that user is mistaken, that's not something we'd block over anyways, that's an editing/content issue. What I have seen admins block on is over concerns such as WP:IDHT and tendentious editing. Again, I am recommending that if you want to make these changes, you acknowledge that you are adding something against the WP:STATUSQUO, take it to the talk page, and try to convince others that you are correct. SportingFlyer T·C 09:21, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
• As far as en.Wikipedia is concerned Zafar Masood is still red-linked and so non-notable. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:46, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Not having a Wikipedia article is not grounds for non-notability or being mentioned in an article. There's no such criteria for notability. Wikipedia articles are created based on notability, see WP:BLP.

And what people on other articles think is not an excuse to set up a fictional rulebook, consensus or not. The rules are WP:1E and WP:BLPNAME. If the consensus doesn't respect them, well I will contact an admin to annul that consensus, consensus is not supreme.

And how do you define your "accepted WP:STATUSQUO"? Based on whatever a group wants and likes? We are not a bureaucracy, neither a democracy where a set of people pick and choose. And on what basis do you say it's an accepted STATUSQUO? Users don't choose it.

There is a formal rule: "Similarly, if you make an edit which is good-faith reverted, do not simply reinstate your edit – leave the status quo up, or try an alternative way to make the change that includes feedback from the other editor." I didn't make the good-faith edit and change, Andrewgprout and WilliamJE did. The names of the survivors were already there for lomg and I just reverted the edits removing them. So the ones violating staus quo are WilliamJE and Andrewgprout. Please don't add your own interpretation.

And lastly, I think you haven't noticed that a discussion on the article talk page had begun long before my complain. Yet except Martinevans no one is really involved in any discussion, but you're telling me to discuss while defending those who aren't discussing. Saynotodrugs12 (talk) 13:00, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I am not a significant contributor to this article but I do agree with the general status quo position. Naming people who have no other caim to being noteworthy adds little, if anything, to the encyclopaedic value of the article, and it may cause unnecessary distress to friends and relatives with no balancing benefit here. Please just let it go It isn't worth all this aggravation. You will win more arguments by making considered suggestions regarding policy and rules away from this emotional article.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   13:12, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

You know the funny part about the thing is that many of the rules I am quoting, I only READ AND LEARNED ABOUT THEM TODAY OR YESTERDAY. Yet some people who have been here far longer than me (and disputing me) don't seem to know even a bit about them. Saynotodrugs12 (talk) 13:15, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is much, much more than the sum of its rules and procedures. It is about collegiate action, establishing consensus, and learning from past experience and outcomes. Some of us have been hear more than a few days and I, for one, have learnt (most of the time) when it is right to go into battle and when to accept that consensus is not in one's favour. I have had editing interactions with some of the editors involved in this issue and I have great confidence that they know the rules and guidance and are using that knowledge, together with common-sense, expoerience of the past and knowledge of issues elsewhere in Wikipedia to make sensible editing decisions. You are digging a deep hole, please don't dig it deeper. Thanks  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   13:26, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

The less funny part is that you brought your issue, which is essentially a content dispute, here before fully discussing it at the article Talk page? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:19, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I did bring the disputes to the article talk page - both the victim nationality and mentioning names of the victims. The people I want to get blocked barely care to discuss. Which is why I complained. Saynotodrugs12 (talk) 13:25, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Velella, I don't think I need to inform you about this: Wikipedia is not a democracy. What others want can't always be the law of the land that too when there is no such room allowed for a specific situation in policies. Saynotodrugs12 (talk) 13:38, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Saynotodrugs12, if you came here just "to get people blocked", I think you're going to be disappointed. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:53, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I think you didn't read my comment: "The people I want to get blocked barely care to discuss. Which is why I complained." If WilliamJE and Andrewgprout don't care to discuss even when I have started a discussion, and instead just keep reverting, whose fault is it? Not mine. Saynotodrugs12 (talk) 14:02, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I've read all your comments, thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:14, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Saynotodrugs12, You state "haven't been here for a long time" but your not listening to or possibly failing to understand several very long time and experienced editors. Non Notable passengers in aircraft accidents has been discussed ad nauseam, please see [[134]] and [[135]], just two of many such discussions.

You also said "Consensus matters zilch" which I have a problem with. It shows you don't understand the way things work here. You have been given some very good advise above, I suggest you take it. - Samf4u (talk) 14:35, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Samf4u, as I said to many others before and no one has actually contradicted me on it: Wikipedia is not a democracy. It's not like you've taken some binding referendum. Your consensus on a few articles hasn't changed the policies.

Per WP:1E and WP:BLPNAME, whether to mention people notable for only one incidence shoyld be considered on case-by-case basis. But one survivor (Zafar Masud) is independently notable. Saynotodrugs12 (talk) 14:58, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

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

List of alumni of Jesuit educational institutions

I added Pope Francis and Donald Trump to List of alumni of Jesuit educational institutions.

It is well-documented and well-sourced that both of these men are alumni of Jesuit educational institutions.

But, User:Kvoien reverted my edits, claiming these edits were unconstructive.

There is no basis for User:Kvoien's actions. Shoebringer (talk) 13:01, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I reverted your edits because of your Poor Referencing . I didn't see any siting. If I'm wrong, please correct me, or discuss this further on my talk page. Kvoien (talk) 13:08, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I just added sources. My edits were constructive. Shoebringer (talk) 13:25, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

@Shoebringer:@Kvoien: It looks like with the addition of a source things should be smoothed over? If not, please discuss on the talk. Should that fail, seek a Third opinion, and should that fail, seek formal dispute resolution. As a heads up, this board is not for dealing with content disputes, that is why talk pages exist. This page is for urgent or intractable behavior problems or issues which threaten the encyclopedia. Smooth sailing, CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 15:12, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

The source is correct but the interpretation is wrong (WP:SYNTHESIS anyone?). Trump attended such an institution but he transferred to the University of Pennsylvania before graduating. He is thus not an alumnus (in that he did not graduate from Fordham University). 86.164.109.84 (talk) 13:43, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

This has come up before: Surprisingly, "alumnus" can refer to simply having attended an educational institution, not necessarily to having graduated from it. [136] In that respect, Trump is indeed an alumnus, but not a graduate, of Fordham. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:44, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Now the subject of a move request. A little research shows that there is a WP:ENGVAR issue here. (British) English sources define 'alumnus' specifically as a graduate (Oxford, Cambridge and Collins all concur). However: American English sources define 'alumnus' as an attendee or graduate. Since the list is a global list, the alternate title should provide less scope for the confusion. 86.164.109.84 (talk) 17:10, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Apparent deliberate copyright violation on a talk page

I removed an entire section from a talk page as being in breach of authors' copyright, but my deletion was summarily reverted as "It is not normal to delete other peoples contributions from a talk page- or to make personal accusations in a H2" --Ohconfucius (on the move) (talk) 09:23, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Reverted and warned on personal talk page. I suggest a short block if it is repeated. Zero^talk 09:34, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

@Ohconfucius (on the move):, just an FYI for the future, please make sure to let the subject(s) of any ANI know on their talk page that the discussion is occurring Nosebagbear (talk) 17:51, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

In case there is some confusion, ClemRutter is not the one who added the original copyvio. That was User:Kiranj2605 [137], who is already indefinitely blocked I think mostly for spamming links to dailyknowledgefactory and those reposts [138] [139] [140]. That doesn't mean it was any more acceptable for ClemRutter to revert the copyvio removal of course. Nil Einne (talk) 18:36, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for taking all this seriously- there is obviously a lot more going on here that was not explained in original edit summary. It would be helpful to share with those of us who are monitoring the article so we know the intention. There still remains the offensive ==H2== ClemRutter (talk) 21:36, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

"rem section as being copyright violation" -- complete with link -- seems clear enough to me. Was there something unclear about that? --Calton | Talk 23:42, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

@ClemRutter: are you referring to the Premier of Victoria bit? If so I agree with you that it's an inappropriate header although frankly a politician being called a traitor is such a minor thing it's not really that important. Still since it arguably is a BLP-violation, and no one "owns" a section per WP:SECTIONHEADINGOWN, I've re-worded it [141].

However I have no idea what this has to do with the copyright violation issue. The header was added by an IP [142]. Ohc on the move's contribution to the talk page besides removing the copyright violation was this [143]. The closest thing to an "accusation" is "over indebtedness". I guess copyright violation was also an "accusation" of sorts, but it wasn't in a section heading but an edit summary. Frankly though, it's a perfectly fine section heading, as is the edit summary.

True Ohc on the move did not do anything about that section heading but nor did you [144]. If you had dealt with the section heading and re-added the copyright violation in the same edit, and someone has reverted you without re-implementing a fix of the section, I could perhaps understand why you were complaining about no one reintroducing your fix.

But since I was the first person to actually do anything about that section heading, I have no idea why you keep bringing it up. Just deal with the section heading and be done with it. Frankly since the IP has a single edit's it's not even worth a warning although I've notified them about this thread since I'm a sickler for notifications.

Nil Einne (talk) 13:16, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: Thanks. As I said at the start in the comment box- this was a difficult edit. The end result is we have all got what we needed and we can go back to monitoring this one normally- if normality isn't blacklisted! ClemRutter (talk) 14:39, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

@ClemRutter: I still don't get why there is any connection between the subheading and the copyright violation. These seem to be completely unrelated and I have no idea why you brought it up here, or in your edit summary. As I said, there was nothing wrong with dealing with it yourself. If you weren't sure what to do, then seek advice in an appropriate place like WP:Teahouse or WP:Help Desk. Randomly bringing it up in an edit summary is not likely to achieve much, especially since there's a good chance most people viewing the edit summary would have no idea what you are referring to. And bringing it up here, well it meant I dealt with it, but mostly it's just caused confusion since as I said, AFAICT, it has nothing to do with anything discussed in this thread nor any editors involved, until you brought it up.

Nor do I get what was a "difficult edit". It's simple, don't re-add copyright violations. If someone removes something as a copyright violation, then don't revert them unless you're certain that it's not a copyright violation. Again, if you're confused about something, seek help in an appropriate place. Don't blindly revert when you don't know what you're doing. In this case, you could also have asked Ohconfucious for further clarification.

Nil Einne (talk) 14:43, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

The last cleen edit I had was in April 2019, a quick diff at the history showed multiple edits and some reversions. You will notice that I invited other editors to help restructuring the article. There is no connection between the copy vio and Australian politics. It is just annoying when an editor steps and fixed one thing but does not check that the rest of edits are clean. This is a talk page and some indication should have been left of what the back story is and why the fix was so important. At a quick glance I saw the url in a similar H2 and in the editor it looked as if the entire text had been embedded in the url. It seemed as if the deletion had been a quick act too- and there was nothing in the edit summary to indicate otherwise- →‎Blue Dot Network : Counterpart to China's Belt And Road Initiative: rem section as being copyright violation. There was nothing to indicate why the H2 had been removed. If I had had more time I would have checked. But I did notice the other H2- I have mentioned. As soon as I was criticised I put myself in self isolation with regard to this page and wont make any edits till these conversations have finished.ClemRutter (talk) 20:47, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand why quicker action can't be taken in such clear cases. Neither the original removal of the copyright violation nor its restoration touched any heading of another section, so that is a complete red herring. The only question is whether the editor who restored the copyright violation made a simple mistake and apologised when it was brought to his ("Clem" looks to me like a male name) attention or made a silly attempt to justify the unjustifiable. The latter happened. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:18, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

@Phil Bridger: You can have as many apologies as you want, I was wrong. At this point it is also necessary to understand why the original gave the wrong signal to me. I have never in over a decade, seen an edit on a talk page that removed an H2 as well as the content (which would be normal) in main space- that flagged up concerns. Sorry, if I was too hasty. ClemRutter (talk) 20:47, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Block evasion and disruptive editing of taxonomy templates

Jaimelesmandarines is a french language user who is making large volumes of unexplained changes to taxonomy templates which are breaking them, see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Dinosaurs#Changes_to_taxonomy_templates and Special:Contributions/Jaimelesmandarines. This is the same pattern as Prehistoricplanes another french language user who was indefinitely blocked for the same pattern of behaviour several months ago. Both users have requested similar changes on talk pages, see Template talk:Taxonomy/Synapsida Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:59, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Blocked, thanks NinjaRobotPirate. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:37, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Now I have to figure out how to report sock puppets on French Wikipedia... ugh. I should have practiced my French more. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:39, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

fr:Wikipédia:Requête aux administrateurs/2020/Semaine 7#Demande de blocage de Prehistoricplanes closed 14 February 2020

fr:Wikipédia:Requête aux administrateurs/2020/Semaine 12#Demande de re-blocage de Prehistoricplanes closed 22 March 2020

fr:Utilisateur:Prehistoricplanes blocked 22 March 2020

fr:Utilisateur:Jaimelesmandarines registered 17 May 2020. Narky Blert (talk) 22:44, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

It is worth noting here that in this diff Prehistoricplanes stated that he was an alternative account of fr:User:LoiDavid2307171 a user who was blocked on the french wikipedia on the 14th of March 2019, Prehistoricplanes started editing also on the 14th March 2019 immediately after the block, so this user has a consistent history of sockpuppetry to evade blocks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:10, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Minor editing user

User DodgeBoy102 has continuously been making minor edits even with multiple warnings on their talk page. Even after warning the user on their talk page today, they continued to do the same exact thing. Looking through their contribution history, they've also used the edit summary approximately 0 times since they began editing in December 2019. There are a few edits not marked as 'minor' but there is still no edit summaries used whatsoever. See here, here, here, and here for some examples of edits without any edit summary that are marked as 'minor' (and are very clearly not...) The user also often adds completely unsourced content, which would also be helpful if they used edit summaries for explanations... Something probably needs to be done here, as apparently warnings will seemingly be completely ignored by the user. Thank you. Magitroopa (talk) 23:09, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Might need a short block to catch their attention. Zero^talk 03:04, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Failing to collaborate is bad for the community. I tried to find a discussion about another habitual minor-marker because it contained someone's observation that leaving the user messages was wasted because their edits were tagged with, as I recall, something about "mobile edit". Apparently the tag meant that the user received no notification for talk page messages! DodgeBoy102 (talk · contribs) has edits tagged " Mobile edit, Mobile app edit, iOS app edit". I couldn't find the discussion but I did find another case: DerTorx (talk · contribs) (see User talk:DerTorx#Minor edits). I propose manually archiving the talk pages of these two editors, then putting a nice-but-firm message on them with what I said to DerTorx, but with a statement that I will issue a block unless the issue is addressed. I would start with a 24-hour block, but that would quickly escalate to indefinite with a polite message announcing they can be unblocked as soon as the issue is addressed. I would not blame them for failing to see a new message on their long talk pages, so would start with clearing them. Johnuniq (talk) 03:38, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Hmm, El_C's method at #User:TylerKutschbach below sounds good: block for 24 hours from Article space with edit summary requesting attention at ANI. Johnuniq (talk) 03:41, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Before I saw Johnuniq's comments, I gave DodgeBoy102 an indefinite block, explaining the need to communicate with other editors and pointing them to Help: minor edit. This editor can be unblocked if they agree to collaborate with other editors and agree to stop marking major edits as minor. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:45, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, sorry I didn't see the message and to this day I'm not sure where to reply. I hope I didn’t commit a major offense. I made visually minor changes, very rarely textual ones. --DerTorx (talk) 23:00, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

economy of Iran article vandalized repeatedly by IP editor showing multiple countries of origin

Seems like an troll farm. Please advise. IP editor was advised to take it to talk page to no avail. Edit-warring. Leave it at that for now. Thanks much. 99.203.24.155 (talk) 01:06, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Disruptive editing: repeated addition of badly sourced information by Devbali02

On the Toki Pona (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Wikipedia page, after informing them multiple times the sources they listed were not verifiable and the information was not notable, user Devbali02 (talk · contribs) has continued to readd information about themself and their personal work only providing their personal Google sites page as a reference.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=954211420&oldid=953241068&title=Toki_Pona - First addition of the information on May 1st, 2020
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Toki_Pona&diff=prev&oldid=955525508 - diff from May 8th, 2020 undoing a previous edition to bring back the badly sourced information despite the suggestion that the information is not notable
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=956573419&oldid=956023107&title=Toki_Pona - diff from May 14, 2020 undoing a previous edition again to bring back the information despite being warned again that it was not sourced well and not in accordance with Wikipedia's guidelines for reliable sources

LesVisages (talk) 04:07, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Possible Speedy Delete page:College Swim Team Rankings by College Swimming

College Swim Team Rankings by College Swimming looks like it may be one big copyvio based on the nomination comments at AfD. Could someone versed in that area have a look? It might be a speedy delete candidate. Gleeanon409 (talk) 07:24, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

To be honest, I do not see any copyrightable text in the current version of the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:38, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for checking!

Resolved

. Gleeanon409 (talk) 16:09, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by User:Pepsychola and User:Syrian Lion 99

Hello, I would like to report disruptive editing by User: Pepsychola and User:Syrian Lion 99 on the Assyrian people page.

The "population" section of the page had a been a disaster for some time, as it was not only continually referencing an unreliable source, Assyrian International News Agency (AINA), but also outdated information. I ended up finding new statistics by the 2018 U.S. State Department's International Religious Freedom Report, the most recent, and using this as a source for Iran, Iraq, and Turkey. There were also a few countries, such as Mexico and Italy, which do not have a significant Assyrian population, but were being cited as having in the high-thousands, according to the same unreliable and nationalistic source, AINA. These were removed, as this cannot be corroborated anywhere else. I did my best to use non-biased sources and updated them. In addition, I also added new countries, such as Britain, whose population was cited in an University of Oxford publication, and all of these edits are being reverted by these users. Please assist. Herengracht005 (talk) 17:04, 23 May 2020 (UTC)Herengracht005

Fiscus Brady!! – posting virtually nothing but massive Disney fancruft, despite warnings

Fiscus Brady!! (talk · contribs)

This user has been active for a little over two months, and he has caused a great deal of problems by posting vast amounts of Disney fancruft, posting vast uncited or poorly cited articles, uploading copyrighted images, and ignoring the myriad warnings on his talk page.
NOTE: El C has currently collapsed the user's talk page, so the 20 notices on it aren't visible unless you click "show".

Most of the articles he has created have been either AFDed or redirected. Nearly all of the images he has uploaded have been or are being deleted.

He has never responded to any of the warnings or friendly notices on his talk page, nor availed himself of the Teahouse as suggested. He is still sending his massive fancruft straight to article space rather than going through AFC or draft space (I just now had to draftify this and redirect this -- both created in the past 24 hours).

Due to the fact that his behavior has not changed at all, and he has refused to communicate, I think he needs one of those wake-up blocks until he communicates and acknowledges his behavior and mends his ways. Softlavender (talk) 03:40, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I blocked them from the mainspace for 24 hours so as to get their attention to this report. El_C 03:47, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

• Pinging Meters, Ssilvers, Sulfurboy, Buidhe, and Boleyn, who have also tried to deal with him. Softlavender (talk) 03:50, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

  Thanks for the ping. My interaction with the user seems relatively limited as they're no longer going through the AfC process. However, I would certainly second the concerns Softlavender.

  That being said, their ambition, no matter how misguided, is something we should encourage and try to shape instead of squash. Particularly, as I don't think COI or UPE concerns are driving their fury. Hopefully, this post will wake them up to the critical need for communication.

  Maybe a good solution would be to temporarily require them to run all articles through AfC? This way, they can garner a grasp of what we're looking for in new articles and our policies while presenting little disruption to mainspace. Sulfurboy (talk) 04:04, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

  I don't think the requirement for AFC should be temporary; it should be indefinite. And no more uploading images unless they receive permission from an administrator for the image in question. Softlavender (talk) 04:09, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

  I've been concerned about this Disney SPA user's edits since I first noticed them. Zero response to multiple attempts to engage user on his or her talk page, continuous creation of inappropriate articles, and multiple uploads of unlicensed images or images with incorrect claim of "own creation" (at least one of which was so blatantly a copyright violation that the image itself actually contained a Disney copyright notice). I agree with Softlavender, no unsupervised uploads either. Meters (talk) 04:27, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

• Everything I've seen from this editor has been a wall of uncited WP:OR. They do not want to collaborate and they have no concept of what is encyclopedic. I think they should be permanently banned, and all of the articles they created should be considered for deletion. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:04, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

  I actually agree with that, sadly. I don't think the editor is going to change, as they seem to have a one-track mind. So even imposing the AFC and image restrictions is not going to solve the ultimate problem and the resulting ultimate time-waste: inspecting all of their non-collaborative, unencyclopedic walls of uncited WP:OR. So I think an indefinite block is going to be the eventual longterm result here. Softlavender (talk) 05:12, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

  I think we should to give them a chance to respond here and to mend their ways after the block ends. I'm inclined to agree with the likely long-term result, but let's try. Meters (talk) 05:29, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

• "Persistent violators will be blocked from editing". Fiscus Brady!! received the first warning to that effect (re: uploading copyrighted images) on May 7 [145]. He ignored it completely and has since blithely uploaded 10+ more copyrighted images [146], [147], [148], [149], [150], [151], [152], [153], [154], [155]. Even with a strongly worded intervention-type warning from Meters on May 17 that he would be blocked [156] he still persisted. We've already given him dozens of chances and warnings about being blocked. Softlavender (talk) 09:18, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

• I'd like a week's mainspace block to see if they can be pushed into actually engaging. If they do that, then the AfC-only setup seems most suitable. If they don't, then we may just have to go CIR and indef block them, since what else can we do? We should specifically make it not a CBAN, as if they change their communicative position in the future, any admin should be able to make that call, with suitable safeguards. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:38, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

  I agree that a 24-hour mainspace block is not enough; he is on a break now between spurts and his last break was for more than four days. El_C, can you extend the mainspace block to at least a week? That way we don't have to keep checking his contribs. In fact, the mainspace block can be indef and this thread can be DNAUed if desired; that way we don't have to be vigilant. Softlavender (talk) 09:55, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

  A week does seem more appropriate and more likely to get a response too. Meters (talk) 10:01, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

• Hello everyone. I am very sorry about all of this that is going on. If you did not know, I am fourteen (almost fifteen) years old and was just looking for a fun activity to fill my time with. Unfortunately, I guess I did not realize how much damage can come from uploading an image without credit or creating an article with not reliable sources. In no way was I intending to hurt Wikipedia or any of its pre-existing articles. And if you would like an answer as to the changing of Disney articles, they all should say the parks are closed currently (except for Shanghai). But in my defense, I feel I have changed some articles that needed to be changed, specifically ones on music theatre. Again, I am very new to this and was just looking for a fun project to fill my spare time. I did not realize this many problems had backed up and I was not responsible about checking my notifications. If you would like for me to exit Wikipedia, I would not object, but I was just interested in talking specifically about what I need to do to change my editing style. Again, I am very sorry about not responding to these messages, I learned about this thread when El_C notified me. But I do appreciate what SulfurBoy said about my work. I, in the end, just want correct information to be spread so I try my best to do so. I also do realize that perhaps I am too young to truly understand what can be deemed as reliable information. Please respond in any way I can help my case and Wikipedia as a whole and I again sincerely apologize. Thank you all for notifying me about these issues. Fiscus Brady!! (talk) 11:43, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

  Hi there. Often a better way for new editors to get started, rather than creating new articles, is to make small changes to existing articles. Even there it can sometimes be a bit rocky because, as you mentioned it takes time to understand what counts as reliable. Keep at it, and ask for help when you don't understand why something you've done was reverted. You'll get it in time. EEng 20:28, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

---

Since the user has not responded, and due to multiple requests above, I have adjusted the duration of the mainspace block to indefinite. El_C 14:54, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

@El C: Brady responded directly above your comment... Argento Surfer (talk) 20:22, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I was just going to point out the same thing. What gives? EEng 20:28, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I just saw that. My mistake. Should I re-adjust the mainspace block again, and if so, to what duration? I'm open to suggestions. El_C 20:29, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

In the spirit of good will, I just unblocked entirely. El_C 20:31, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I would also like to apologize to Fiscus Brady!! for missing their comment directly above. I applaud their message and am hopeful that they are now on the road to productive editing. El_C 20:43, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

• El_C Thank you for your kind words. I really did mean what I put above. Fiscus Brady!! (Fiscus Brady!!) 02:02 22 May, 2020 (UTC) —Preceding undated comment added 21:01, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

whoa... this editor was not yet born when I started working on Wikipedia. On the one hand, that's cool - welcome aboard, Fiscus, it's going to be a much different trip for you than it was for me. But gosh I feel old. --Golbez (talk) 21:20, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Proposal: Fiscus Brady!! must send all new articles through AFC and may not upload any image without an adminstrator's permission

Proposal: Fiscus Brady!! is strongly discouraged against creating any more new articles, and any new ones must be submitted to WP:AFC rather than articlespace. He may not upload any image without an administrator's permission for each image. Softlavender (talk) 21:54, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support. Fiscus Brady!!, you must read, comprehend, and respond to notices on your talkpage. Also, Wikipedia is not a "fun activity" -- It is an encyclopedia. It is not a place to indulge your interests and hobbies and fandoms. You would be better off doing that on a blog, a fan site or forum, or a fan-wiki. Please step back from Wikipedia until you understand what constitutes encyclopedic content, what constitutes an independent reliable source, and what copyright violation is. Softlavender (talk) 21:54, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

  Well, wait a second. Fun is OK, just it better not be your primary purpose for being here. And Wikipedia is a good place to indulge your interests and hobbies if you learn to channel those interests into the forms of activity the project needs -- building articles. EEng 00:38, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

  @EEng#s, thank you but I do understand what Softlavender is getting at. While it can be fun, I will make sure to put in the time and effort it deserves. Fiscus Brady!! (Fiscus Brady!!) 4:47 23 May, 2020

  I just didn't want you to get discouraged. EEng 06:10, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

  Jeez, I’m so stunned by the revelation that editing Wikipedia is not meant to be fun or a hobby that I’m thinking of packing it in.P-K3 (talk) 23:25, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

  Softlavender, while I do agree with your proposal and promise to not upload any more images without permission and will stay away from creating any new articles, I feel that maybe I misworded my claim. You're right, Wikipedia is not a fun activity, but what I meant was that I use it as a way to spread correct information that may have been wrong. And I personally felt that I was not indulging in my interests, I feel that since I am not an employee, I will naturally edit pages of a certain genre. But I will definitely make sure to do correct research, submit photos for approval, and focus more on editing pages. Fiscus Brady!! (Fiscus Brady!!) 3:20 22 May, 2020 (UTC)

  @Fiscus Brady!!: Because it isn't always obvious to new users, not an employee refers to pretty much everybody who doesn't have (WMF) at the end of their username. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:19, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

  Ian.thomsom Oh, thank you! That was something I was wondering. User:Fiscus Brady!! (Fiscus Brady!!) 16:26 23 May, 2020 (UTC)

•  Comment: Just passing by based on the section title: @NKohli (WMF): example use case for phab:T6995 and phab:T199918 (with a per-namespace option) --DannyS712 (talk) 00:01, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

  @DannyS712: Thanks! This is helpful. -- NKohli (WMF) (talk) 00:06, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support - I don't mind any extra workload put on AfC if it means potentially help carve out a quality editor. Sulfurboy (talk) 03:32, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

  @Sulfurboy: I really appreciate that, and (if any) new articles will be sent through AFC. Though, I am going to take some time to truly understand what a new piece takes. Fiscus Brady!! (Fiscus Brady!!) 4:48 23 May, 2020

Fiscus Brady!!, some friendly advice: it might not be in your best interest to respond to every single comment in this section, as you appear to be doing thus far; see WP:BLUDGEON. Best, M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 05:15, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

It's like crash-landing on an another planet where they have all these social rules you have to learn. EEng 06:18, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm sure you remember the case not too long ago of the editor who was blocked for six months partly as a result of their bludgeoning an ANI thread about them. I certainly wouldn't want to see something similar here. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 08:11, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Okay, thank you all. This will be my last comment unless there are any further questions. Fiscus Brady!! (Fiscus Brady!!) 16:29 23 May, 2020 (UTC)

User:Rechtsstreitigkeiten disruptive editing

• User: Rechtsstreitigkeiten (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Page: Jesselyn Radack (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User:Rechtsstreitigkeiten is a WP:Single purpose account created four days ago. Earlier today, he was warned on his talk page over edit warring at Jesselyn Radack, but has continued edit warring in that article space. Moreover, his (now hidden) edit summary violated WP:BLP with grossly insulting, degrading, and offensive material. It is clear that Rechtsstreitigkeiten (which means "legal disputes" in German) is here to disrupt, not to help us build an encyclopedia. Please block or at least topic ban him from Jesselyn Radack. NedFausa (talk) 19:43, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

This is absolutely untrue and unfair. I'll start with one point. I don't dare edit this case in my real name and I'd be a fool to do it: journalists and others have been threatened over this case. So yes, this is a SPA (special purpose account) but it's that for my own protection. The Radack case has a protection order for witnesses in the case, because both Radack and her friends on twitter ( group of people) have threatened anyone who write about the case. Fitzgibbon has been threatened with having his jaw broken (I can't publish it on this page which doesn't take twitter links - but it's on twitter) by Radack's twitter supporters . That's just one example of a threat of violence (that person was reported to the Police). For this reason, Fitzgibbon requested a protection-order from the judge for the witness in the trial (the trial is in July). The protection order came in about two weeks ago, here: https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.vaed.445376/gov.uscourts.vaed.445376.79.0.pdf

Radack (who is very famous and able to communicate widely) has been vociferous in abusing anyone who writes any aspects of the facts of the case. She's done everything from random accusations to threats. She continued this kind of behavior in 2018-2019 and was cited for contempt of court for doing so by the judge, at the time of the settlement in April. She only got fined 500 dollars, but she could have gone to jail. One journalist who wrote about the case 2019 was told that some personal information about her was going to be published online ("doxxed"), if she wrote another article, and this was enough to silence her. Some of her twitter supporters have threatened violence, threatened hacking, threatened doxxing. So it's a very ugly situation. And it's why I'm using a SPA. And I have not at all been abusive in the slightest here. Rechtsstreitigkeiten (talk) 20:31, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Noted that progressive journalists are avoidant of the case because of the threats (to reputations, even of bodily harm) for writing the facts of the case. The actual settlement did not get press, because journalists who had been covering it, had been threatened. That's just a comment. Rechtsstreitigkeiten (talk) 20:42, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

What I'm in-trouble for here, is writing the facts of the original case, which was for malicious prosecution. I'm really sorry if they were too salacious for an edit summary, but they happened, and there is a text-message history to follow-up on it. Basically someone organized an "assignation" (look up the word if you don't know it) with a long paper-trail, including plans for what would happen, and where, etc. Then after the "assignation" made statements positive about said-assignation (some of them lurid and graphic). Then one month later, the person went to the D.C. Prosecutor and claimed they had been the object of first-degree sexual assault (rape). Prosecutors refused to press-charges, after they saw the message-trail. A civil suit was opened, not for defamation, but for malicious prosecutoin and defamation, during which time the media printed that the rape happened. It took sixteen months, and a pending jury trial for malicious prosecution (with evidence of perfidy) for her to withdraw the accusation and pay-out 110,000 dollars compensation, with a promise to no longer make the accusation. That was the settlement.

I am deeply sorry that this offends people, but it's the facts of the first case. They are in the court record. https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.vaed.386265/gov.uscourts.vaed.386265.10.0.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rechtsstreitigkeiten (talk • contribs) 20:48, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

That revdeleted edit summary is so beyond the pale, I have partially blocked the user from both Jesselyn Radack and Talk:Jesselyn Radack until such time that they can convincingly explain why they should still be allowed to edit that article. El_C 20:59, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

That's just a link to the complaint. El_C 21:04, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Dear ANI-committee, Thank you for giving me the opportunity to respond. I apologize I haven't done so earlier. I had things to do with work.

In the time since you partially blocked me NedFausa reviewed some of the documents I hung-up above, and he did an amazing job of re-editing the case, in a manner more compehensive than I had ever done. He went back and reviewed all the material, and re-drafted the paragraph in a concise manner. So in fact, you can leave my login blocked if you want, because I don't have anything more to add. You can also unblock me. Whatever you want. I truly apologize if I made an error, or was inappropriate in providing information in the edit summary. It's a weird set of information, to be sure. So thank you for your review, and you can do as you wish. Have a nice day. Rechtsstreitigkeiten (talk) 23:53, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

ps: On second thought, I'd appreciate being unblocked. I probably won't edit for a while, but you never know. For the moment, NedFausa did all the work, so nothing is needed. Thank you again. Rechtsstreitigkeiten (talk) 00:09, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

As the editor who filed this ANI reporting the single purpose account Rechtsstreitigkeiten for disruptive editing, I oppose unblocking him at this time. The blocking administrator made clear at the user's talk page that he is not blocked sitewide but rather only partially blocked from two pages. Yet in the four days following his block, the user made no edits apart from his own talk page and this ANI. I suggest we wait and see whether or not he is capable of, or even interested in, helping us build an encyclopedia with contributions to pages that do not involve the single purpose to which he has thus far been disruptively committed. NedFausa (talk) 16:36, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

As I said, this is a single-purpose account, a "SPA" in Wikipedia parlance. It was created to intentionally hide my identity, and that's within the Wikipedia rules. I won't confirm or deny if I edit Wikipedia regularly. What I can tell you is that edits usually/often reflect the interests of the editor, and from them you can often determine data-points about their identity. I gave good reason as to why I use a SPA here (, notably that Radack's twitter-friends have defamed and threatened violence (even murder "I will end you", after a threat to break jaw - and that went towards Fitzgibbon, and it was a repeating pattern for that person) of people who discuss facts about her case (in print and online), who write journalistic articles (journalists have been threatened). I don't want to get-into that, so I'll keep my SPA a SPA, thanks. To prove my point: you created the Cassandra Fairbanks and if my memory serves me (I looked-up your history a while ago) you were aware of Alexa O'Brien's studies. A few other edit-points (including your strong-reaction to my use of a German word that actually means "litigation", not "legal fights" as you stated) narrow the population of whom you might be (identity) based on editing as a possible indicator of your your personal area-of-interest, experience or your field of work. I also find it striking that none of the trolls constellating around Radack have attacked the paragraph you drafted: you described the facts in a neutral manner, and to do so is, in that group's "way of thinking", that's a high-crime. So you may be someone of distinction. I thank you for the opportunity to review my topic-ban. In general, I think that your word is law on my status. So there you have it. R.G. The purpose of a SPA is to protect one's identity. Rechtsstreitigkeiten (talk) 16:27, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Rechtsstreitigkeiten, If you are using an alternate account for privacy reasons you should notify a checkuser or the arbitration committee. You can contact them privately by email at this page. Alpha3031 (t • c) 02:19, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Possible sock farm?

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

---

I might be way off, but I've spotted a group of new editors, with accounts starting editing in the past few days, all doing textbook WP:OVERLINK to country names. Here are the ones I've seen just this morning:

• Australiainen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Freedomtrex (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• WikiIama (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'd like to WP:AGF, but this seems more than just a coincidence. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:19, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't be surprised if these were WP:UPE sleeper socks. MER-C 09:06, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

 Confirmed to each other:

• WikiIama (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Freedomtrex (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Australiainen (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Smarterster (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• FactLabs (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Interestingly, they've all made 100 edits. I don't think I've ever seen that before. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:10, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks both. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:00, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Hmm... Feels like a bot, from the nature of the edits and the exact edit count. I've seen spammers do that sort of thing on another site, to build sufficient rep to be able to post live links. Narky Blert (talk) 16:28, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Apologies. I did not know that sock farming was a thing. I will stop and will not use these accounts anymore. I was not doing this with malicious intent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiIama (talk • contribs) 16:36, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing at User talk:Hunan201p

Hunan201p (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

First some background. Hunan201p has been blocked for Disruptive editing [157] as a result of this ANI [158]. The first unblock request was declined by @Drmies:[159]. Then, an extensive unblock discussion ensued by editors opposed to unblocking early [160]. The unblock was declined a second time [161] with @Deepfriedokra:'s rationale "I see no consensus to unblock and opposition to unblocking, so I must maintain the status quo.. I'm afraid you will need to wait till the block expires or make another request. (Reviewing admin) -- there is extensive discussion on this page with issues not addressed in this request that were raised by those opposed to unblocking."

Hunan201p is now using his talk page to encourage 4 editors (by pinging them) to revert edits on Wikipedia articles to his preferred version [162], [163]. Please see the top of that section for the pings. How this is done is - the pings are in conjunction with some gibberish about another editor and some IPs engaged in sock behavior and/or meat behavior on certain named Wikipedia pages. Hunan201p is doing all this under the banner of pointing out sock disruption and meat disruption, when in reality, the edits he to which he points are in agreement with guidelines and policies.

This is a variation on the behaviors that resulted in the block. Hunan201p would revert the edits himself, engaging in slow motion edit warring (see link to ANI above). Then it emerged during the "Unblock discussion" that he was also attacking other editors via specious sock investigations and/or accusing them of being socks [164], [165]. He engaged in these behaviors while avoiding talk page discussions and building consensus, and so on. It seems to have been WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior that took place within a certain group of articles.

Anyway, I would like an admin to intervene to stop any possible disruption on the named pages and to stop any specious sock puppet investigations that might result from this highly irregular situation. Also, please take into consideration that in the final analysis, Hunan201p is NOTHERE. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:47, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Steve Quinn, TPA revoked until the end of the block. Guy (help!) 08:57, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

I would like to point out that that sort aforementioned gibberish is the reason for the block. He also requested to be unblocked on WP:SPI, talk pages, and noticeboards. That seemed a silly thing to do, and this gibberish spewing just confirms that perception. @Hunan201p: I would like to point out that continuing this behavior after the current block ends will certainly result in a longer block. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 13:19, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

I think entertaining any more from this editor is a complete waste of time. NOTHERE. Drmies (talk) 14:40, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

I posted using the shared IP 166.216.159.79 on 19 May 2020. That was the first day I had used that IP. From the sidelines, as somebody interested in many of these subjects, I did monitor Hunan201p's activities for months prior to making those constructive edits that restored Hunan201p's improperly deleted paragraphs. I declare that I am not a sockpuppet of any registered user at Wikipedia and have never been banned for any of my edits on any IP. Hunan201p has proven himself to be a disrupter rather than a contributor, more inclined to delete without consensus than to discuss or to add. His intolerance for different points of view and for others' desire to retain long-standing Wikipedia content repeatedly led him to falsely accuse many other nicks and other IPs, including myself, of being socks of banned personages. I have no connection to any of the nicknames that have been listed by Hunan201p. For the record, my temporary address today, 2600:387:0:80d::19, is an IPv6 equivalent of 166.216.159.2092600:387:0:80D:0:0:0:19 (talk) 04:31, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by I Mertex I

Over the past several weeks, I Mertex I has uploaded literally dozens of files to Commons and used them to replace longstanding images on various Wikipedia pages without consensus at corresponding talk pages. He has been warned about this on his user talk page, to no avail. Today, after I reverted two such substitutions, I Mertex I resorted to edit warring here and here to restore the disputed content. I believe his established pattern of disruptive editing merits a block. NedFausa (talk) 01:04, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Do I need consensus to change any photo? I thought it was not necessary. --I Mertex I (talk) 01:17, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I Mertex I, yes, if it’s challenged, or against general consensus per previous discussions. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 01:27, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

@I Mertex I: I recommend reading WP:BRD, which shows that you need to reach a consensus should someone reverts your edits. Bold, Revert, Discuss is one of the five pillars of a Wikipedia. INeedSupport ^😷 06:19, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I hate to be a contrarian, but it’s actually not one the pillars. The link you posted is a bit confusing, and so many people cite it, it’s easy to think it might be. It’s a supplement (not even a guideline), so far as I’m aware. A good supplement, and one that’s a boon in editing, but it’s never been raised to the level of a policy. Nor is it one of the pillars. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 06:33, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

General image and editing policies cover this. Plus, WP:CONSENSUS. If your edits are challenged, you need to reach a consensus. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 06:41, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Justice007 socking with IP and poisoning the well

User:Justice007 aka Ehsan Sehgal is currently attempting to rescue the article about himself at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ehsan Sehgal (4th nomination) by evading scrutiny with his IP address and alleging editors including me of engaging in WP:MEAT.[166] He has been canvassing as well.[167] While the SPI had been already opened nearly 2 weeks ago,[168] it seems that nothing is happening there. Orientls (talk) 17:24, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I think we cna just ignore the edits on the AFD for now. It's going to be deleted and I'll watchlist the page and salt it afterwards.--v/r - TP 17:34, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

@TParis: Don't you think his main account Justice007 should be indeffed too? He has been warned about socking before as well.[169] Orientls (talk) 13:11, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, page was deleted. I wonder if user names containing "justice" don't telegraph an need to right perceived wrongs on Wikipedia. I wonder if someone is offering a class somewhere on getting one's way on Wikipedia by bullying and casting aspersions and accusing others of doing what one his doing. It seems to happen. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 13:30, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I think user has edited constructively? Perhaps a firm warning and a TBAN on Ehsan Sehgal? --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 13:33, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Isn't sockpuppetry serious enough for initiating an indef block? I have notified his main account aka Justice007. Orientls (talk) 11:08, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

He's back. Special:Contributions/31.219.111.192. @JzG: You recently salted Ehsan Sehgal. May we know who tried re-creating the BLP? --Saqib (talk) 15:34, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

178.222.171.220

user:178.222.171.220 just deleted content without explanation after her final warning. CLCStudent (talk) 14:21, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 1 week @CLCStudent: Just asking but any reason you didn't post to AIV instead? --qedk (t 愛 c) 17:37, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I did not think it was obvious vandalism. CLCStudent (talk) 18:07, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Gbgbgbgbj

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

This case was, I thought, a little too complex for a normal AIV report, so I thought maybe a discussion here might help. Just a quick skim of this users contribs shows a history of adding unsourced theories to mainly movie related areas, but also some helpful edits, hence why I bring this here instead of AIV. A couple possibilities to solve the problem came to mind initially, but on further thought, none would work. (i.e. A topic ban would be essentially a block - the user only edits movie related articles) I'd appreciate some input on what to do - all the best to everyone. -- puddleglum^2.0 02:57, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Puddleglum2.0, I haven't been exhaustively through their contribs, but on the face of it I think I'm looking at a new user who doesn't really understand our sourcing policy, rather than a vandal. The edit that you reverted, which I assume triggered your interest, was understandable - the body of the text asserts that the third film was based on Rosencrantz and Guiderstern are dead, which is indeed a Stoppard play; Gbgbgbgbj changed the lead in an attempt to reflect that, perhaps without reading or understanding the next part of the sentence they edited. Are there particular diffs you think I should look at? GirthSummit _(blether) 12:09, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Girth Summit, what I see are 3 warnings from an extremely experienced user regarding adding unsourced content and multiple related messages from past months and years, with no attempt to engage and discuss on the part of Gbgbgbgbj. Invitations to discuss are included in most of the warnings and messages - I personally don't see how this can be a new user who misunderstands policy yet continues to do so - if it were such an editor i would assume they would reach out for help. I could be completely off though - thanks for looking into this. -- puddleglum^2.0 16:30, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Puddleglum that wasn't meant to be a criticism of you, sorry if that came across wrong. I see the warnings too, and I'm not saying that they're invalid, but consider this. The account is pretty new - they started editing in November of last year, but most of their edits have been in the last month or so. They are occasionally using edit summaries, but when they do so they seem to indicate a lack of understanding about what we mean by reliable sources (e.g. suggesting that fandom is an RS). Yes, they've been given a templated welcome and some templated warnings, but nobody has actually reached out and tried to have a chat with them. I would try that before blocking them - I intend to do it myself, but just wanted to check whether there were any diffs that show clear intent to vandalise rather than newb errors. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 16:43, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry - botched ping. Puddleglum2.0 GirthSummit _(blether) 16:45, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

,2,Gbgbgbgbj,46,4:Girth Summit, that makes sense. I can discuss it with the user; I feel bad using your time like that for my report. Either way, thanks and all the best. -- puddleglum^2.0 16:52, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Puddleglum2.0 Don't worry about using my time - we're all volunteers, I wouldn't do it if I didn't want to! It also might be easier for them to hear it from me than from you, given that you raised the report here, so if you don't mind I'll drop them a note (probably tomorrow, about to sign out). Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 17:48, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Girth Summit, sounds good, thanks! -- puddleglum^2.0 18:39, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

user:72.130.54.120 and user:2600:1013:B017:38A4:E467:608D:3B62:BD25 Blocked user? Sockpuppet?

• Far-left politics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

user:72.130.54.120 and user:2600:1013:B017:38A4:E467:608D:3B62:BD25 recently made all but identical POV edits to the Far-left politics article, stating that "I am well aware of Wikipedia rules" - despite only ever having made this one edit. Diffs:

• [170]
• [171]
• [172]

Smells fishy to me. Bacondrum (talk) 00:53, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Please don't report random IP editors to ANI just because they revert you. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:07, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate please don't imply that I'm being petty or acting in bad faith. None of my contributions were reverted, I don't understand what you are on about. Bacondrum (talk) 00:44, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Yeah but i think Bacondrum has a point, the IP is not providing any citation and is just spamming the same edit and saying its justified because he says so. The person is clearly WP:NOTGETTINGIT. Wikiman5676 (talk) 05:09, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't care about about being reverted, I just noticed the same edits were being made by two separate IP address' which seems odd... I also noticed that one of the IP's making near identical edits has only ever made two edits but claimed in an edit summary that they are "well aware of Wikipedia rules" which suggests to me a that these IP's may well be a blocked user evading a block or a sockpuppet? Bacondrum (talk) 22:50, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

They are almost definitely the same person, both geolocate to the same geographic location, Hawaii. Now whether they switched to a different IP to avoid scrutiny and violating 3RR or just happened to switch from say their work computer or laptop to their smartphone to check and see if their edit was still there is another story. And with only 3 total edits it would be even harder to prove they were a blocked user Ip socking. Heiro 23:01, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Heironymous Rowe, I wasn't sure what could be done, it just looked dubious to me - so I thought I should bring it to the attention of admins. Bacondrum (talk) 00:47, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

For future reference, if you scroll to the bottom of an IPs contribs page, you will see in the tool bar a link for "Geolocate" that will give you the rough (very rough) geographic location for the IP. It's good for when you are dealing with multiple IPs that you suspect are the same individual. Heiro 00:52, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Heironymous Rowe Thanks. Bacondrum (talk) 22:35, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I've semiprotected Far-left politics for one year. See the protection log for the past problems with this article. EdJohnston (talk) 23:17, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Coordinated edit on adding hoax to Dahua Technology

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

---

• Amigao (talk · contribs)
• Horse Eye Jack (talk · contribs)
• Dahua Technology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Ok, it is not a level of edit war but coordinated edit on adding hoax.

At first, this hoax/misinformation edit (Special:Diff/914162848)was added by User:Amigao , claiming Dahua Technology is "partial state ownership". However, his primary source already well indicated that the company is majority (30-ish%) owned by a couple called Fu and Chen. While the alleged Central Government ownership is 1% and not supported by any secondary source.

So, i removed it. But User:Horse Eye Jack insist to revert it twice by adding it back without provide secondary source for how notable a 1% Central Government ownership is. Special:Diff/958601047, Special:Diff/958602996.

User:Amigao never reply to his talk page. Instead Horse Eye Jack seem a spokesman for him User talk:Amigao#Removal of Citations on CGTN.

Matthew hk (talk) 18:37, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

• Comment I made a single revert as a result of Matthew hk’s incomplete/misleading edit summary [173]. They immediately placed a vandalism warning template on my talk page [174] and reverted the revert. I placed the ownership information in the section “Shareholders” [175] which had been created by Matthew hk subsequent to placing the warning on my talk page because thats what I thought was the plan given the section’s creation. Why this is on ANI is beyond me, this sort of escalation is unacceptable. Also no, I haven't coordinated my edits with Amigao in any way... What an absurd proposition. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:44, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Also just a technical note, the information which I moved from the lead to the “Shareholders” section is sourced to Dahua Technology’s corporate report which is an acceptable source to use on their own page. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:47, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

But without a secondary source to support to list this "notable" shareholder Google Search . At least the couple Fu/Chen has secondary source in Chinese, and even more interview articles for Fu, but no in-depth coverage for "government ownership of 1%" Matthew hk (talk) 18:51, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Is your argument about factuality or DUE? Generally for basic information about a company like their ownership or headquarters location the company itself is an acceptable source, especially their financial/corporate reports. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:56, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

For common sense it is not due . You can open a Rfc to openly shame yourself on this . Please find a reliable secondary source on reporting Dahua Technology as truly "partial-state ownership" or "partial-government ownership" . Or any company that have 1% government ownership is reporting in the media as "partial-state ownership" or "partial-government ownership" . Matthew hk (talk) 19:00, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Thats a completely different argument from the "hoax/misinformation” "false info” argument. If we’re having an argument about due weight that means we’ve accepted the legitimacy of the sourcing and the factuality of the statement. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:04, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I have no involvement in the content dispute and won't comment on the details for now, but, despite the benefit of doubt I have given HEJ in the last eight weeks, remarks such as these are not exactly promising. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 19:11, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

O well, Amigao resurface and claim it is "partially state-owned " and removed the 1% that actually stated in the primary source. "partially state-owned " is not stated in the source and it is a interpretation. (Special:Diff/958614971) Matthew hk (talk) 19:53, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Thats seems like an accurate summary of the source, we are not required to quote the source verbatim and are actually encouraged not to. Whatever else it may be its certainly not vandalism and thats what you warned Amigao over [176]. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:56, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

So, Since Cathay Pacific is owned by Air China and Qatar Airways, any sense to call it partially Chinese-Qatar governments owned but deliberately omitting the facts that Swire Pacific is a listed company that owned by a family AND Swire Pacific is the largest shareholder or Cathay. Your line of misinformation is.... Another example, Temasek own a lot of company and sometimes 5% or below. I don't saw any news article to report those 5% ownership as "partially state-owned" that imply notable or significant influence . Matthew hk (talk) 20:42, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Where is the vandalism? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 20:52, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE points: General pattern of disruptive behavior. Long-term agenda inconsistent with building an encyclopedia Expressing unpopular opinions – even extremely unpopular opinions – in a non-disruptive manner . Matthew hk (talk) 20:57, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Now you’re making a completely different allegation, a not here argument is independent from the specific allegation of vandalism and can't be made backwards, e.g. you still have to provide evidence for your allegations of vandalism... Also are you making this allegation about both of us or just one of us? I advise you to choose your words with the utmost care, you’re risking a WP:Boomerang for misusing warning templates. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 21:02, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

• Yet another evidence of Amigao is making misinformation. When there is China Securities Finance article already and clearly has a hatnote to say it is NOT China Securities aka CSC Financial, he still deliberately want to insert this in the article. Special:Diff/958614971. Matthew hk (talk) 20:54, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

@Matthew hk: I strongly recommend you remove this post. You have provided no evidence of "co-ordinated edit" or of "hoax" or of "misinformation". What you have shown, to my eyes at least, is an assumption of bad faith. Let's take the intensity down a few notches.Erasmus Sydney (talk) 22:02, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Comment moved to correct location. Enterprisey (talk!) 22:06, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Yup. If the news article is talk clearly George W. Bush the president. deliberately pipe to Another unrelated George Bush is NOT misinformation /sarcasm. Matthew hk (talk) 10:17, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Yup, using another example. Under people misinformation logic. I should change Bank of America into partial Norwegian owned and wipe any mention that Berkshire Hathaway actually owned 10% as well as not mention Norges Bank actually owned just 1.13% of shares. [177] Matthew hk (talk) 10:30, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Please review WP:AGF and WP:ASPERSIONS. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:51, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

• I can't tell what all Horse Eye Jack is being accused of here. Hoaxing? Coordinating to spread hoaxes and misinformation? And is that on- or off-wiki? Vandalism? Matthew hk's case, whatever it may be, is not proven, and parts of the complaint (for instance, the "O well, Amigao resurface..." bit) here are written up so poorly that I can't make sense of it. Matthew hk, if you are going to make such serious (vague, multiple, unfounded, unclear) accusations--no. Let me state that differently, not hypothetically. Do NOT come here making such serious, vague, unfounded, unclear accusations. Drmies (talk) 16:25, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

This is not my first time to complain Amigao in ANI. If admin think this kind of controversial unsourced adding political alignment Special:Diff/910259760 to article should assume good faith , fine. I made my point by already communicate with the user that such controversial content should have citation. Again, labelling a company Dahua Technology, as partial government owned and deliberately remove the percentage from the sentence (Special:Diff/958614971) is totally constructive. Then it is totally fine for me. Matthew hk (talk) 17:42, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I have only given cursory examination to Amigao's edits as they appear on my watchlist (e.g. ref fixing), but the diff above at Ming Pao is particularly egregious in its NPOV / WP:V violation given the lack of sourcing and the CUHK study listing it as the second most credible paid newspaper in the territory. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 20:07, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Matthew hk, I fail to see what that diff has to do with Horse Eye Jack or with your allegation about a conspiracy related to hoaxing in the Dahua technology article. I am going to close this right now, to prevent you from adding any more blather to this already pretty egregious violation of good faith, because if you do that I see no reason NOT to block you per BOOMERANG. Drmies (talk) 21:20, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

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

Change "edit summary" visibility

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

---

An IP user 42.106.15.151 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has made the last edit at Jadeja article with an offensive edit summary written in Hinglish language. So, their edit summary be deleted to prevent "personal attacks and harassment". TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 17:30, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Edit summary has been removed. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:43, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

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

User: ‎Faust-RSI and civility

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

---

‎Faust-RSI (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Could somebody please have a look at Talk:Turkmenistan and see whether further participation of this user in this discussion would be beneficial? I have warned then (for which they have responded by reporting me to AIV [178] - I believe this was the first ever time I have been reported to AIV), continued casting aspersions and assuming bad faith, and for me blocking them now would not be appropriate. Note that they showed up at the article immediately after unhelpful edits by User:91.198.17.202, two of which have been revision-deleted (not by me). --Ymblanter (talk) 18:57, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous. You was reported for abusing your admin rights and trying to prevent me from participating in editing of this page. And what is the meaning of you mentioning User:91.198.17.202? Yes, I joined after someone had reverted his/her edits, because they were RIGHT. All I did was the improving of the article (which has already happened, but not thanks to YOU) by removing FALSE information from it, all you did was preventing this by all means possible, including abusing of your admin rights.Faust-RSI (talk) 19:10, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

• Blocked for the personal attacks, and looking at the contributions I'd be quite inclined to look at a WP:NOTHERE block. Guy (help!) 19:48, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
• Annoyingly, Guy got his block placed just as I was writing up a block notice for PAs and edit warring. Grrrrr. WP:NOTHERE is certainly on the horizon, if not closer. Bishonen | tålk 20:05, 24 May 2020 (UTC).

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

Grand Mufti of India Problems

The issue which has been rumbling on for some time is the fact their there are two claimants for the title of Grand Mufti of India. The gist of the situation seems summarised here, [[179]] and I think I've seen this carried by sources which which would probably be better. Affected articles are:

• Grand Mufti of India
• Grand Mufti

Two the accounts, the the editors showing some good knowledge, have sought to impose their view on the articles. Discretionary sanctions were issued however move continued to edit over the top of a Template:In-use when I was trying to achieve at the minimum a claim from the not so long standing claim. I have correctly (or perhaps incorrectly) attempted to use Template:POV notice as a means of noting the alternative points of view for discussion.

• Ishraque Hussain edit warred through various block notices. I would expect to see a block imposed if I went to WP:AIV but the overall issue is bigger and hence here.
• The cool mew: By disrupting the editing while I have a good faith Template:In use and by removal of the POV notice at Grand Mufti of India [180] repeatedly [181].

There is no point me getting into an edit war: its time to ack off and let others handle it.

Proposed Actions.

• Investigate my actions on the matter and impose discretionary actions if necessary. Im pretty sure I've been trying to do the right thing here.
• I propose Ishraque Hussain is blocked with immediate effect for blatant violation of discretionary sanctions it any uninvolved administrator feels this is appropriate, and not to do so in this case would likely render such cautions meaningless.Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:09, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
• The case with the The cool mew is more subtle. They have won an edit war; albeit to a long standing status quo. They seem adept for a newbie user, but of course may have had experience as an IP editor. The removal of the POV for the second time with how discussion is crucial here. I have requested semi-protection but this will likely soon not apply to the The cool mew who has concerns my my edit count on my talk page. I am reasonably sure it is appropriate as a minimum from mentioning the alternative claim on the article but I feel I have been blocked from doing so. I would appreciate admins looking for a way forward, try not coming back to me because I've been exhausted by the edit conflicts. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:09, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Not this again. ECP'd both articles for 2 years (logged at WP:AEL this time). Warned both Ishraque Hussain and the The cool mew. Hopefully, that will be the end of the Grand Mufti of India rivalry on Wikipedia for a while, at least on the mainspace, as it has proven to be a huge timesink. El_C 22:52, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I blocked The cool mew as a sock of Easytostable, but I think there are probably more socks active here, potentially including some crossover with Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Khadim ahlesunnah waljamaah/Archive. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:05, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Has anyone done a check user to see whether Easytostable/Mariyaibrahim/The cool mew is a sock of Khadim ahlesunnah waljamaah?-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:36, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes...  Technically indistinguishable. I don't know how to behaviorally identify these socks, though. I dislike walking into complex sock puppetry cases without any background, and I often find cases that center on Asian topics confusing. The CU tool throws up mountains of useless information, and it all has to be analyzed by a human. If that human doesn't even know what a Mufti is, it's not so easy. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:49, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate, I had some interaction with Khadim ahlesunnah waljamaah. The behaviour generally involves pro-Barelvi, anti-Deobandi POV-pushing; in general, if you see any blatantly POV edits on topics relating to Islam in the Indian subcontinent, there is a good chance that this user is behind it. Pinging AaqibAnjum in case he has any further input. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 19:54, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I have presented behavioural evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Khadim ahlesunnah waljamaah.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:04, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Khadim ahlesunnah waljamaah mailed me a times and said he was sorry and was trying as if his anti-Deobandi bigotry was gone but he failed to convince me, because I told him to shed tears infront of WP admins and learn WP policies. I possibly thing this newbie user is his soft suck as Toddy1 has analysed. Best - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 20:28, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the meaning of Mufti, and I confess being no expert, to quote from [182] which also is an indictor of use of "mulfti" for a "dress-down" or "informal-dress" may become policially incorrect: "A Mufti is a respected Muslim cleric ... Mufti interpret Islamic law and then issue fatwa (legal opinion)." My understanding is this implies the Grand Mufti of XXX is the most senior person to interpret Islamic Law in XXX. In some countries this is built into the constitution, with India it may be less so; and some divisions of Islam may feel they are not represented by the Grand Mufti of India. It is also possible some may use the term "Grand Mufti" for a state of India such as Kerela. I'll also note I am concerned about Bareliv/Deobandi non-neutrality spilling to Wikipedia. Hope this helps and apologies if I've got something wrong.Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:13, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Djm-leighpark, good luck stopping the British Army from using "mufti" for civilian dress. They still refer to the Air Force as "crab air". Guy (help!) 09:00, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

You were right Djm-leighpark, Deobandi-Barelwi battle is here. Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 05:53, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Abusive Malaysian IP

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

---

2001:E68:5425:8D5C:D0C4:2FA:F364:3BF9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
60.50.200.241 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

General belligerence, removing citation, deleting/ignoring warning templates, persistent personal attacks[183][184][185][186] despite warning. A bad actor we would be better off without. —DIYeditor (talk) 11:06, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Followed up with removal of ANI notice and further personal attack. —DIYeditor (talk) 11:09, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Other possible IPs may call for subnet block:

2001:e68:5425:8d5c:5913:73d1:adc5:6464 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

2001:e68:5425:8d5c:e44c:894e:66e9:d6f7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

2001:e68:5425:8d5c:35b1:50cd:5e6d:ccf8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

2001:e68:5425:8d5c:b5af:d8e:45be:57bd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

—DIYeditor (talk) 11:14, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

@DIYeditor: All of the IPv6 addresses are the same /64 range (which means it is almost always the same user, with minimal risk of collateral damage). The range is 2001:e68:5425:8d5c::/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)). --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 14:24, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 60 hours Range-blocked. --qedk (t 愛 c) 17:44, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

User is back at new IP address

@QEDK: This individual is back at 2001:e68:5425:f9ef:d0c4:2fa:f364:3bf9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), an address slightly outside that range. I think their behavior is going to necessitate a more severe answer. If there are not other editors in 2001:e68:5425 can we get a longer term block? Their attitude is clear and extremely disruptive. —DIYeditor (talk) 09:11, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

@DIYeditor: There are good editors on the range unfortunately so can't extend the net as of now. I've blocked the IP for 72 hours. --qedk (t 愛 c) 12:07, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

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

Help me administration sir

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

---

I am being misbehaved. I am being mistaken. user:GPL93 member misbehave with me. I'm being threatened. Please help me Senior wikipedia & guide me. I am being threatened to block.

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kumarjatji (talk • contribs) 14:12, 25 May 2020 (UTC) 

No one has threatened you. You created a copyright violation and you were appropriately notified that it was being deleted and continued attempts to create copyright violations could result in a block. Being informed of policy is not a threat. Praxidicae (talk) 14:15, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

• Comment This is a WP:BOOMERANG situation. This editor is a sockpuppet of User:Pkschhonkar. The account only became active after Pkschhonkar was blocked, has only edited in the same areas that Pkschhonkar editied, has already recreated two of Pkschhonkar's articles (one of them still is a massive copyvio) and the editor's talk page shws the same choppy way of responding. It is about as blatant as it can be. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pkschhonkar for more details, another editor already added User:Kumarjatji. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:17, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

You have threatened to block me. Kumarjatji (talk) 14:20, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

You are connecting me with what I do not even know. Kumarjatji (talk) 14:21, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I cannot block other editors as I am not an admin. I reported you as a sockpuppet, which results in blocking and when you decided to spam my talk page I told you that you will likely be blocked as you are a sockpuppet and that any article that you try to create in evasion of you block qualifies for speedy deletion. I am not even the one that started your most recent SPI. GPL93 (talk) 14:23, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

You may be blocked if you continue to violate WP:COPYRIGHT. But don't worry! This is an opportunity. Read up on WP:COPYRIGHT and WP:FAIRUSE and don't violate those policies any more and you won't be blocked. You were given a warning about your violations so you could take this opportunity to learn about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Your actions (copying content and pasting it in to Wikipedia) were inappropriate. It was inappropriate of you to open this discussion. But it's not too late! You were given a warning so you could understand and learn. Please take this opportunity! (Note if you are indeed violating WP:SOCK as GPL93 suspects, none of this applies to you and you will be blocked shortly.) --Yamla (talk) 14:25, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't know Pkschhonkar member. I only do my work. Kumarjatji (talk) 14:25, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Why are you doing all this with me sir. What is my fault. Kumarjatji (talk) 14:28, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

• This is a sock of User:Sunny bharat.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 14:30, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Who is this suny bharat — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kumarjatji (talk • contribs) 14:36, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm just trying to contribute on my behalf, for English wikipedia. Kumarjatji (talk) 14:32, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Original poster is now checkuser-blocked. --Yamla (talk) 15:41, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

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

Addition of unverified information

SBS3800P (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has a record of adding unverified information on Wiki pages, as you can see from the talk logs and other related edits. I've had to correct several false facts presented in the articles. Left unchecked, the credibility of the articles could be called into question. Please do something. Thanks. TheGreatSG'rean (talk) 17:37, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Not familiar with the editor, but his edit count page is informative. 2 years here, and the only edits in any talk space consist of edits to headers. Pretty clear the editor needs to be shown discussion is required. This isn't even the first ANI report on him. I'd recommend an indeff with a good explanation about how to deal with others. He can indicate his understanding in an unblock request. John from Idegon (talk) 18:35, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi, any updates on this matter? Thanks. TheGreatSG'rean (talk) 17:23, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Is this name allowed here?

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

---

I just saw someone here with this name: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Bigbxxbs123. Is a name like that allowed here? Solace Chiere (talk) 06:39, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

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

• Someone want to clue me in? EEng 13:21, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

  Replace the x's with o's. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:28, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

  You'll have to excuse me. I'm gay, you see. EEng 14:43, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

  And the OP of this was blocked as a sock. Oh how the turn tables. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:23, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

  Bet that put a scratch in his LP. EEng 20:48, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Issues at autism

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

---

See:

• Talk:Autism [9]
• Dangibas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• User talk:Doc James [187]
• User talk:Dangibas [188]

Dangibas has continued adding uncited text (of an advocacy nature) to a Featured article after I notified them, and has also removed article talk messages. Notifying Doc James and Dangibas next. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:32, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

• I agree that this is disruptive and warrants admin intervention. Dangibas, I will place a partial block to prevent you from disrupting this FA if you continue these non-neutral edits. You may seek the talk page for consensus on your ideas and edits. Drmies (talk) 15:38, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

• Article talk disruption continues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:38, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

• I hope they stop doing that, because if they don't they'll get a double partial block, from the article and the talk page. Doc James, they've been emailing you? I believe you can block them individually from sending emails to you (what I mean is, you're not making an administrative action that way), but if there is harassment via email, toward you or maybe Sandy, I will not hesitate to deprive them of that functionality. Either way, do not respond to emails lest you give them your email address. Drmies (talk) 15:43, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

• The user in question has now requested that other people contact them by email rather than their user talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 16:07, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

• Is that reasonable? I'm not emailing re Wikipedia edits ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:21, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

• No I don't think it's reasonable. Emailling them, even through Wikipedia, is giving them your personal email address. Not something most people want to do. So no, it's not reasonable. Wikipedia provides a perfectly fine platform for on Wikipedia discussions about Wikipedia related topics. Anyway they haven't enabled email so it's irrelevant. Canterbury Tail talk 16:22, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

• User:Canterbury Tail et al, I'd like for someone to check whether the partial block I intended, from Autism and Talk:Autism, was placed correctly: the log does not inspire confidence. I had entered "Autism" and "Talk:Autism" but without the wiki brackets. Anyway, from Doc James's page I got the impression they'd already been emailing others. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:30, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

• Log for me just shows blocked for Specified non-editing actions. Nothing about what pages etc are present in the log. Not done a partial block yet, but I'd have expected it to show something. So I'd be uncertain alongside you on this one. Canterbury Tail talk 16:34, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
• Concur on what the log shows. I use a tool for blocks rather than the form, and I think it gives me a drop-down to select the pages in question as I start typing the page. @Drmies: Let us know if you don't think you get it fixed; I know I'll be glad to bang on the blocking tool with my mop handle until it works right. :) —C.Fred (talk) 16:43, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

This isn't working. Dangibas continues to alter article talk posts, not sign posts (after multiple explanations of how to do so), and not provide sources for requested changes. It no longer makes sense for me to try to respond to the mess on article talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:15, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

A minor inviting email contact is, methinks, not a good thing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:18, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't buy that they are 9 years old. I am sure there are nine years olds with such coherent grammar and spelling but it's improbable and this account was active nine years ago. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:34, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Well spotted, thanks - I've reblocked indef as a troll. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:41, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

The account was actually created in 2007. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:47, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

• Folks, I've changed it to a standard "blocked from everything" block, hope you don't mind Drmies. Partial blocks might be good for long-term exclusions from certain pages, but not for short-term blocks like this. I'm also disturbed by the young person/email thing, so I will redact that and will advise forthwith. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:32, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Boing!, sure thing--thanks. Drmies (talk) 20:48, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

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

Urgent! - TFA vandals

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

---

I'll be proactive on this: can somebody please protect this for the duration before the usual TFA vandal strikes again? See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Proposal:_Bot_for_the_current_main-page-related_vandalism if you're not aware of the situation. Much thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:56, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

FYI, the page is Hurricane Fred (2015). Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:56, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately there is currently no community consensus supporting preemptive protection of TFA pages. For now I have added the page to my watchlist and I will protect the page as soon as I see anything nefarious. Or you can ping me. I will be online for the next few hours. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:23, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

"TFA"? Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:48, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article Heiro 00:52, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Ah! Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:05, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

A first one - the edit summary has already been redacted. @Ad Orientem: Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:02, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

For reasons that I don't want to outline here per BEANS, I don't think protecting the page is a good idea. Feel free to ping me on IRC/Discord for the reasoning. Enterprisey (talk!) 01:10, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, I looked at what information is publicly available and this seems to be an obvious proxy so short of extremely quick reactions there's not much else that can be done... Anyway this discussion is now moot as the page has been protected by AO. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:30, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

• Semi-protected x 48 hours. This is a chronic problem and ignoring it will not make it go away. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:28, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Ad Orientem, it is high time that the WMF take more drastic action with this and other LTAs. Drmies (talk) 15:21, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Drmies I agree entirely. Unfortunately that is above my pay grade. For unknown reasons my application for the position of Imperator Wiki Omnia has not received a reply. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:26, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

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

@Drmies and Ad Orientem: What would this more drastic action look like? Would there be any real-world consequences? 71.93.105.175 (talk) 23:56, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I won't speculate on specifics, but the WMF has tools at its disposal that we mere mortals do not. They also have very deep pockets and a well staffed legal department. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:24, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken

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

---

This editor has reverted two editors, including an admin in a BLP article. I have raised concerns about the BLP tone and poor sources in the talk page. The editor keeps violating BLP by adding a the content again. BLP clearly says that any material whether it is positive or negative that is disputed should not be added or restored until there is consensus. The living person himself has cited concerns about his safety because of this article. It is written in a doxxing-like tone and it has some other issue. I would also note that using a photo of someone when this person has said he doesn't want his photo in the site is against the law.-SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 02:30, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

• Diffs would be beneficial, and maybe a mention of the actual article title. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 02:41, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
• Valid point that it's not clearly problematic, but it's also best to err on the side of caution. Thus far there's only been cross-talking on the talk page (both parties opening new sections). Drmies reverted again, so I suspect BMK will stop at this point, since that would bring him over 3RR. The specifics can be discussed on the talk page, and this should be closed as premature. If BMK reverts again, see WP:AN3. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:45, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I really don't care very much which way this goes, but from what I understand the subject has made certain comments on Ser Amantio's talk page, and they should be taken into consideration. The edit summaries in that revert war did not signal that much time was spent reading up on those comments. Drmies (talk) 02:47, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

• FWIW, I have been reading the requests on Ser Amantio's talk page since the issue first came up on AN a couple of days ago, and have been keeping current with them. The subject's requests do not provide any information we can work with, do not make a valid case for the information which SharabSalam is attempting to suppress to be deleted, and the material is not in any way a BLP violation. For crying out loud, it talks about his awards, and that he's been interviewed by the BBC and so on, it's all positive stuff. If the subject made a strong case for the information endangering him or his family, that would be one thing, but essentially all he says is just "This will endanger my family," with no other explanation. What are we supposed to do with that, allow all subjects of our articles to say "Please remove X, it will endanger my family"?
  In any case, as I said on my talk page, out of my personal respect for Drmies I am totally withdrawing from this. I've unwatched the article and the AfD, and other editors can decide if we're going to allow subjects to dictate to Wikipedia. In my opinion, that would stink, but it's out of my hands now. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:02, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

• Comment there is no issue anymore. Drmies has reverted Beyond My Ken. I somehow overreacted by not waiting longer period before reporting to the WP:ANI. This is probably because I also see a safety concern to expose such information about a living person who is relatively unknown. Especially exposing his photo after he requested it to be removed.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 03:07, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

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

• I'm still staying withdrawn from involvment, but I want to note for the record that I receive an e-mail from User:Nfornonthought, the account which claims to be the subject of the article. The e-mail was very polite, but provided no additional information about why the suppressed information would be dangerous to their family, just the claim that it would be. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:42, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks again for paying attention to this. The answer to the "why" is simple: insurgents google individuals, when they find someone, especially if an article is written about him/her on Wikipedia, they consider that person a big deal. They target their family, often they think the person must be linked to a foreign state that would pay them ransom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nfornonthought (talk • contribs) 19:03, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Relaxme69 self promotion

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

---

User talk:Relaxme69 is apparently already indefinitely blocked, but is now promoting their company in their user space. Can we block their talk page access? Randompointofview (talk) 18:48, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

•  Done. Black Kite (talk) 18:58, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

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

• Personally I don't see the problem. They're simply advertising their message service [189], which can be a really useful thing for busy people on the go who want to reach out and touch someone. EEng 07:16, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Serial Number 54521

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

---

Moved from Wikipedia:Teahouse § Serial Number 54521

Normally, User:Serial Number 54129 is a fairly decent editor, but they have vandalized List of My Hero Academia characters multiple times, starting from January 18, and just started again May 23. In most of the questionable edits, they claim that they are removing unsourced content and fancruft, but in reality are removing essentially the entire page, including sourced content, edit warring about the subject and refused to explain their actions when questioned at one point by closing the discussion instead of giving any answer. The most recent offense by Serial Number 54129 was undone by User:Exukvera. I haven't notified them about repeating the incident out of fear that they will keep removing essentially the entire page with poor explanations after being notified, as last time they edit warred after their notification. While this isn't a serious enough offense for the Incidents or Vandalism noticeboards due to them being a decent editor on any other page, I am wondering what can be done, as this situation is incredibly frustrating. 72.203.118.154 (talk) 12:47, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, I am reporting myself, I guess. But if the anon has a complaint, this is the place to make it. Of course, I suppose there's more chance of them being checkusered here rather than at the Teahouse, but them's the breaks. I'm sure not being able to treat a Wikipedia article like a fan club's scrapbook is "incredibly frustrating"; but I stand by my edit summary of:

Rm unsourced: WP:FANCRUFT ("Fan fiction, in whatever fictional realm, is rarely considered encyclopedic"), WP:INDISCRIMINATE (policy), WP:OR, WP:SYNTH.

Compare the verson as I first found it with how I left it, and consider that the same material has been removed by at least two other editors. The recent reversion by User:Exukvera was not only a wholesale restoration of the same cruft, etc., but was accompanied by the edit-summary Reverting vandalism (again); vandalism, of course, is tightly defined on the English Wikipedia, and the removal of unsourced cruft and OR will almost certainly never qualify, which makes unjustified accusations of vandalism an aspersion verging on a personal attack. On a lighter note, there's no need for anyone to notify me of this report... ——Serial ^# 13:31, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I have taken a look at the article and tend to agree that this is FANCRUFT. Short descriptions of what the character is can be justifiable, see example Star_Wars_(film)#Cast – unvariably a one-sentence description of the character, with the rest of the paragraph being details about which actor was chosen. However, this kind of WP:OR detail is excessive and of interest to only a small fraction of readers (fans of the series)... The few "sources" seem to be a pop culture magazine which is of dubious relevance to an encyclopedic article... Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:14, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I actually do agree that there was a ton of unnecessary fluff on the article, and I myself have removed fancruft at several points. My frustration stems from removing almost every single description, including several sourced ones, with the only explanation being "removed fancruft". Most other character lists have short descriptors after the voice actors, but in the reversions by Serial Number 54129, they were almost completely blank. I don't think Wikipedia should be treated like a fan blog, (Heck, I know of one article that is overly treated like one), but I also don't think the page should be completely blanked, as it was in Serial Number 54129's edits. In fact, I find it just as frustrating that they believe that that is the reason. My issue isn't with it not having enough for fans, it's that their persistent edits removed any sort of substance from the page when said substance is allowed on multiple other character lists. 72.203.118.154 (talk) 17:45, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Please do not misrepresent me. The article has not been blanked. It was a list of characters and remains a list of characters. As for other articles, I will be happy to decruftinate them also. ——Serial ^# 17:49, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Technically, yes, it remains a list of characters without the descriptions, but plot summaries in quite literally every page, including both character lists and pages for the media itself, tend to at least exist on pages, even if fairly short. Even when a character list is too short to receive its own page, there tends to be short descriptions. When I say "blanked", I mean that the page becomes nigh-unreadable if it's a list of characters with no context. Under an older IP, I actually did try to remove a few descriptions from another page that I can't remember currently, and the answer I was given is that these sorts of pages should at least have a little context, rather than none at all. I would prefer if you focused on removing only the actual fancruft instead of the entire descriptions. These two edits on the same page are actually fine by me, as they remove actual fancruft (i.e., saying how one character has a fear of insects for a majority of the description, or claiming that one character's antics annoy several others), but still keep small bits of the descriptions so that the page has just a little context. If your edits to this page were more like the two I just linked instead of the three from my initial report, I wouldn't have any problem. 72.203.118.154 (talk) 19:05, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

• This strikes me as a content dispute rather than a user conduct dispute. My recommendation would be to go to the talk page of the article and suggest additions to the character descriptions, citing sources where necessary, and then adding the suggested content if there are no objections (or if there is consensus despite objections). The process is unfortunately going to be slower than if you had just added the material in directly, but this is the normal collaborative process on Wikipedia, see also WP:BRD. On Wikipedia, the word "vandalism" has a very specific meaning: it specifically refers to cases where a user intended to harm Wikipedia. The key here is intention: even if an editor completely ruins an article in your view, they have not "vandalized" Wikipedia in our sense of the term unless they intended to ruin the article. In cases where there is doubt as to an editor's intentions, the guideline on Wikipedia is to assume good faith. Because Serial Number 54129 is clearly acting in good faith here, and because it does not look like Serial Number 54129 has violated any other user conduct policies (e.g. disruptive editing, edit warring, or civility), I'm not sure any administrative action is needed here. Respectfully, Mz7 (talk) 19:47, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
• Agree that this looks like a content dispute, and would also advise the OP to familiarize themselves with Wikipedia's definition of vandalism before making such accusations again. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:29, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
• While I agree with User:Mz7 that no admin action against 54129 is needed, I think that admin action of a formal warning to the IP for Yelling Vandalism is in order. At the same time, the commentary in this thread should be read as that formal warning to the IP. Yelling Vandalism in order to "win" a content dispute is too common, and must be called out. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:12, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree, accusing them of vandalizing was definitely not the right thing to do. While I still heavily disagree with some of their edits to the page, I was wrong to call it vandalism. I will accept this as my formal warning to not accuse edits I disagree with as vandalism. 72.203.118.154 (talk) 08:41, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

• Rather than micro-analyze SN's lack of conduct or non existent insivilitee [sic] and comparing it to any one of our flawed "policies", how about we apologise to SN for wasting his time, metaphorically clip the IP around the ear, and close this thread before the peanut gallery arrive and decide to air their historic dirty laundry in public? This shouldn't even be up for discussion. Cassianto^Talk 08:02, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

I apologize for wasting Serial Number's time and agree that this thread should be closed, but telling me to metaphorically clip around my ear is completely uncalled for and frankly inappropriate. 72.203.118.154 (talk) 08:41, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

What could be more inappropriate that posting a fraudulent report at ANI because you're not getting your own way in a content dispute? Cassianto^Talk 09:44, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

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

Broken CSS on the Main Page

Please see Talk:Main Page § TFP broken in new mobile view. —⁠andrybak (talk) 13:24, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Can an administrator please do something about an editor?

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

---

It is LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk · contribs) It mostly involves his editors and edit summaries at Pakistan International Airlines Flight 8303. He keeps trying to add a non notable person to the victims section of the article. Per here[190] here[191] and here[192] at least. His edit summaries include 'Go get whoever you want to European dog!', 'Censorship', an 'Revert censorship. Who are you foreigners to tell us what to do?'. He has also posted[193] a personal attack to my talk page....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:34, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm an administrator, and I did something. Clearly not here to work collaboratively, so I indeffed. Mjroots (talk) 14:45, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

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

Legal Threats

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

---

User in question: User:Pamelamuraca.
Article in question: Warner Williams (painter)

This user has been blanking the article Warner Williams (painter) since he/she claims that the article is stolen. Even though I warned the user not to blank the article again and inform about WP:AFD, the user began to make legal threats by saying that he/she will sue if the article is not deleted. I did tagged the article for AFD for different reasons though. @LuK3: warned the user about not making anymore legal threats, but one more legal threat was made afterward. INeedSupport ^😷 17:04, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

In addition to their talk page, they added legal threats to the article talk page after a COI discussion was started. See this edit. -- LuK3 (Talk) 17:07, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

She's not backing down at all and is increasing her threats tenfold. This is a clear-cut indefinite block, in my eyes. DÅRTHBØTTØ _(T•C) 17:27, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

They're already indefinitely blocked. In any case, the article will be deleted in less than a week—it hasn't got a chance, you heard it here first—and then, since they're also an SPA, they won't have anything else to do here. Or, they sock and keep recreating it until it gets salted G4, G5. It's an escalator, that one, with the inevitability that accompanies it. ——Serial ^# 17:30, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Their obscene ranting in the article mainspace should be revdeled before the end of the AfD though. P-K3 (talk) 17:56, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

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

WP:AIV appears to be asleep

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

---

Please block Special:Contributions/124.105.29.184. Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:59, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

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

Remove talk page access Suggestion

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

---

from User:Ash Salvatore --TheImaCow (talk) 16:09, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:16, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

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

revdel

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

---

@Admins, please delete this edit, and block the ip (WP:NONAZI). --TheImaCow (talk) 17:54, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

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

A Bug's Life featuring 87.11.133.242

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

---

There is serious edit warring going on here with a possibility that the IP address has failed to reach any form of consensus to what was put on Talk:A Bug's Life. Can someone make sure the edit warring can stop without certain users going past three reverts as one user has made three reverts already. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 17:15, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

YMBlanter has blocked the IP and I have full protected the page for four days, given that more than just the IP was reverting to the IP's version. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:48, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

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

Realphilswift

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

---

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

Please see contribs. I can't see even a single constructive edit. Multiple "lol" comments on discussion pages and drive-by unconstructive article edits. Anyone for a WP:NOTHERE block? SD0001 (talk) 15:02, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

All taken care of. Definitely meets NOTHERE. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:40, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

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

Disruptive Edits by autoconfirmed users and IPs. Block edit privileges

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

---

• NightmareInAsia (talk · contribs)
• Tokyomendes123 (talk · contribs)
• 2001:4454:6AC:A800:B400:45C7:5731:E8B9 (talk · contribs)
• 119.94.104.43 (talk · contribs)

Autoconfirmed and unregistered users continuous disruptive editing of List of awards and nominations received by Sarah Geronimo, making unsourced changes in awards count and reverts following clean-up post AfD discussion. Request made for temporary semi-protection (pending). Itssheenabautista (talk) 12:05, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

There's a request for semi-protection out there, but this edit-war is pretty ridiculous. I think Itssheenabautista is on the right side of where the article should and is facing fans who don't get Wikipedia's notability standards but this is getting crazy. Ravensfire (talk) 14:15, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

@Ravensfire: Got your message and will await results of the requests I raised. Thanks for the heads up! Itssheenabautista (talk) 14:20, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

• Both accounts indeffed as NOTHERE (they're presumably the same editor anyway), article semi-protected and reverted to last good version. @Itssheenabautista: - it's always better if you report this type of thing here (or at WP:AN3) before you break 3RR yourself, even if you are doing it with the best of intentions! Black Kite (talk) 14:56, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

@Black Kite: fully noted (it was a real test of patience), thank you both for intervening! Much appreciate your help. Itssheenabautista (talk) 15:10, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

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

I am the racist white guy that kills blacks and asians on fly wheels (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

---

Need I say more?Slatersteven (talk) 12:04, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Nope. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:07, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

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

Proposed six-month U.S. politics topic ban for User:MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken

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

---

User:MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken has demonstrated a lack of the maturity needed to participate in the already-delicate subject area of U.S. politics.

They also exhibit the editing pattern of previously discovered sockpuppets editing in that area (first edit made on 20 October 2019, displaying a remarkable facility for a newcomer in using reference templates, and then after less than two dozen edits over a six week period, sufficient to get auto-confirmed, began editing on political topics).

He was warned on his talk page by User:Bishonen for this edit including the assertion, "Of course I'm expressing anti-Democrat sentiment so I'm sure I'll be raising the alarm bells of the other editors as I haven't expressed more "sensible" opinions such as suggesting Trump won't be reelected via weasel words", but this is not his first contentious behavior in this area. My first encounter with this editor was when he reverted my addition of footnotes to a fairly obscure series of articles that I created years ago on U.S. presidential elections by state, asserting that "I sincerely doubt anybody adding this is doing so to inform someone George Bush lost the 2000 popular vote out of educational purposes, but rather to make the presidential winner look bad". User:Doug Weller has also noted the editor's assertion at Talk:Obamagate that Its funny Wikipedia doesn't count votes, until situations like this occur and then they gladly will. If this editor has a genuine interest in generally improving Wikipedia, they can demonstrate this in areas where they are able to behave less caustically, and come back to politics at a less tumultuous point. BD2412 T 20:33, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

• Oh, I'm glad you changed the weeks to months, BD2412! I agree with this, and you put it very well. But you are probably aware that post-1932 American politics is under ArbCom discretionary sanctions, to which the user has been alerted. So you can do it at your own admin discretion if you want to, you don't have to wait for a community sanction decided at ANI. Bishonen | tålk 20:47, 28 May 2020 (UTC).
  • I was wavering between 24 weeks and six months, but months is cleaner. I am avoiding taking administrative action in articles in this area, as I have edited substantively in the area, as was raised in a previous discussion here. BD2412 T 20:50, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
• Exactly what policy has User:MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken violated? WP:NOTAFORUM? But that policy gets violated all the time in these discussions, I can't recall anyone being sanctioned over it. I don't see any foul language or direct personal attacks here. The comments are rather mild.--Rusf10 (talk) 21:15, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
  • @Rusf10: Would you agree that the editing pattern of this account matches up with that of identified sockpuppets focusing on the same topic? BD2412 T 21:19, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
    • If you have a serious belief that this is a sockpuppet then open an WP:SPI. I haven't looked into it, but if there's evidence that this is a sockpuppet of another account, present the evidence.--Rusf10 (talk) 21:28, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
      • I was in the process of opening the SPI when I saw this, in fact. BD2412 T 21:48, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
        • Then wait for the results instead of casting aspersions here. Cjhard (talk) 04:30, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

This should be filed at WP:AE rather than discussed here. Threads on American Politics at ANI tend not to go well. Galobtter (pingó mió) 21:25, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

• @Galobtter: That is sound advice - I will wait for the outcome of the SPI, which may render all of this moot. BD2412 T 22:31, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

• For your information, I have prior experience with Wikipedia as I previously edited under the account User:Bold and Brash, however, I stopped using the account in January 2019 as I forgot the password and I didn't have an email with it. You can tell as we both have a similar passion with Red Dwarf and articles related to it. Besides that, I edited under an IP for some time until late 2019 and that was only because I wanted to edit minor, non-political articles just to fix something or add a bit of trivia and didn't log-in for whatever reason.

I have a track record of being "contentious" as I believe most editors on Wikipedia hold grudges, ulterior motives, and other agendas they wish not to reveal. I've noticed, though, most editors just don't care anymore and edit how they please. They can make whatever disparaging remarks they want and they get away with it. It's a toxic environment, and however this verdict goes I can't see myself maintaining a "general interest" in the on-goings of this place any further. From my eyes, it's a breeding ground for the vindictive, the vengeful, and the dubious. That's all I have to say on the matter. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 22:55, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I note that this editor's claimed previous account, User:Bold and Brash, was alerted to discretionary sanctions in the area of U.S. politics in February 2018. BD2412 T 23:14, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Okay. Cjhard (talk) 04:32, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

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

Problems with Bon Secours Sisters

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

---

This page has been the subject of controversy for quite some time. Essentially, a historical abuse scandal at one institution in Ireland, which was exposed in 2014, has overwhelmed the article since then. The page is intended to address almost 200 years of the organisation's history, but this isolated topic currently takes up 20% of the content and 60% of the references. WP already has extensive articles on this scandal here, here, and here, among others. Clearly a case of WP:NOTEBOMB, WP:UNDUE, and WP:RSUW. Ongoing attempts to address this imbalance have escalated recently into extended arguments on the Talk page. Perhaps someone with an interest in contemporaty Irish history might be able to help resolve this issue. jxm (talk) 16:55, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

The coverage of the abuse scandal seems to me to be proportionate. jxm claims that the abuse takes up 20% of the article ... but for a scandal which involves bodies of up to 796 children being buried in a sewage tank at just one of the Bon Secours sites (with many more deaths elsewhere), 20% seems modest.

As to complaining about it being 60% of the references .. are you serious? You object that contentious material is too well-sourced? Really?

If the genuinely believes that there is an imbalance, and that 796 babies in a sewage tank deserves even less prominence, then open an RFC. But there is no ANI issue here. And a complaint that mass-death is too well-referenced is ... well, I will be very gentle and just say that it's as bizarre as they get.

Thankfully, en.wp does not have a policy of WP:Bury796FoolishEditorsInTheSewageTank ... so I recommend a WP:TROUT instead. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:10, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. To be clear, these is no dispute about the importance of the scandal per se. It's simply discussed in too much distracting detail on the Bon Secours page. As I said, we already have three other articles that extensively cover the scandal itself. As an example of proportionate coverage, there about fifty paragraphs in the body of the World Trade Center article, but only four of them discuss the September 11 attacks. jxm (talk) 01:44, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

@jxm, see the very top of this page. It says

This page is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

Nothing in your report falls within that scope, so this issue has no place at ANI.

This report is just a matter of your view on how to apply to apply WP:UNDUE, and in particular your view that 796 babies in a sewage tank is "discussed in too much distracting detail" ... especially your strange attempt to compare apples and oranges

1. 9/11, which was an externally-induced one-day incident
2. Bon Secours as an organisation supposedly providing care, but presiding over decades mass death ... and Bon Secours covering up those deaths for decades

I find your view very strange, and close to whitewashing, but you are entitled to hold strange views. However, your case needs to be made a WP:RFC. This page WP:ANI is for editor misconduct, which you do not allege. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:00, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Maybe it's just me, but claiming something which apparently happened over at least 35 years i.e. ~18% of this 196 year history is an isolated topic, or complaining that it takes up 20% of the article; is a bit rich. Nil Einne (talk) 07:34, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I guess since technically you are complaining about too many references and undue coverage, rather than my restoring that content when it's been removed without consensus, then technically you didn't have to inform me, I guess? But it would have been nice as a courtesy. It's not like you didn't contact other individuals about the issue. /eyeroll Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:45, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

The basic point which is being ignored is that the subject is already covered in some depth in its own article and again in at least two others. Those interested in the subject are encouraged to read the Commission report rather than the early media coverage, and the lengthy discussion on the Talk page. It was determined that the remains were deposited onsite no earlier than 1937 and continued into the mid-50s. As disturbing as it is, that is at best 20 to 25 yrs. and therefore 12.5% of their history. Fifteen percent directed to Tuam would be adequate. No one is suggesting that it shouldn't be mentioned, but a brief summary with link to Main should be sufficient. This is a discussion of WP:BALASP and WP:PROPORTION specific to this article, and has apparently been going on since 2017. Coverage of Tuam in the Bon Secours article is simplistic at best, and disallows any material regarding context. And the place to discuss the accuracy of information regarding the subject is at Bon Secours Mother and Baby Home, not on a generic page about the congregation. Manannan67 (talk) 18:26, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

It does however appear to be the single most notable thing about the organization... We don’t restrict information about an organization to a proportional representation of the organization’s history defined by time, that would be a WP:False balance and should be avoided at all costs. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:51, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

If you reside anywhere in Ireland or the mid-US (from NY to Ohio) and require acute care, there is an excellent chance that you will wind up at one of their forty plus hospitals or healthcare facilities. They sponsor a significant part of one of the largest healthcare systems with over several million patients, for whom the subject of the Tuam Childrens' Home sixty yrs. ago is not a major interest. Hospitals/Healthcare is that for which they have always been primarily known. Manannan67 (talk) 19:25, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Thats very interesting, but it seems to acknowledge that for the 99% of the english speaking world that inhabits neither Ireland or the mid-US the most notable thing about the organization is the crimes we speak of today. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:27, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Once you're coming to ANI and arguing that an article should only have 15% of it's content covering an issue but it actually has 20%, it's highly likely that you're just wasting our time. Even if there is an issue, it's clearly not an issue for ANI. And I stand by my main point which is that your initial statement seem to imply this was just some minor foot note in their history when in reality it covers a substantial part of it. I'm not even certain you're right about how long this went on for, it sounds like there's still uncertainty over whether all bodies have been discovered or whether they may be more elsewhere; since the death rate covered a longer period. Still that isn't an argument for ANI. Of course the other reason why your complaint falls apart is that while the article is somewhat well developed, it's likely it could be developed further. For example, there seems to be a lot of info on real early history and on the present day, but far less on what happened in between. And I have no idea why Bon Secours Health System and Bon Secours Health System (USA) are in WP:see alsos at the end. Info on them should be sufficiently integrated that there's zero need for see alsos at the end on them. If you added more properly sourced information on the organisation's history and it was reverted, you'd have a far greater chance of demonstrating a problem. And once the article is better developed, if it's starting to be too long, it would be easier to cast a critical eye over the various sections and see whether any of them should be trimmed with information kept in sub-articles. But that doesn't seem to be what you're doing. In other words, the first solution to your complaint, as it often is when an article seems unbalanced because it covers one issue a lot, is not to delete information on that issue. It's to cover other things better so that section is now a smaller portion. Nil Einne (talk) 20:19, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

The subject of the so-called "crimes" is already covered in its own article plus two more. This is just redundant. Manannan67 (talk) 23:15, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I still have no idea why this is at ANI. But no that's how Wikipedia works. We are not paper, and don't have to worry about space limits. Frankly your reply is even more perplexing. If this was 2002 I could understand why you may feel that way. I'm surprised in this day and age you're still thinking of what may happen in a paper encyclopaedia. Instead what we worry about is developing great articles which sufficiently cover the important details required for a reader's understanding of the topic, in this case Bon Secours Sisters such that the reader will properly understand the basics of the topic without needing to read other article, yet without the article being too long to be unwieldy. This would general include significant coverage of major parts of their history like the scandal we're referring to here, especially when that scandal has receive a lot of ongoing attention. If there is additional information that is significant and relates to a notable topic, we may write an additional article to cover those details which would overwhelm the main article, but that doesn't mean we exclude important information in the main article. If there isn't a reason for those other articles, then they should be deleted or turned into redirects rather than excluding important information from the main article. That is how we write all articles. For example pretty much everything in the COVID-19 pandemic is covered in additional articles. Indeed, a lot of it is covered in multiple articles. Donald Trump or Joe Biden covers a lot of details which are also in or more other articles. We must have a lot of articles surrounding World War II, yet we don't exclude important information from the main article because it's in other articles. I emphasise again that there is a chance that there is too much information in the article of concern, but you've failed to demonstrate it since the reasons you've given have been flawed. You implied it was just a minor footnote, despite by your own admission it covering at least 12.5% of their history, and so possibly meriting 15% coverage and at the moment it was 20%. You suggest that we should exclude important details just because they are covered elsewhere when that's never how things work on Wikipedia. As said, if you expand the article with other important details, as supported by reliable secondary sources, and the article seems to be getting too long then it will be easier to assess whether the coverage should be parred down as you allege. Nil Einne (talk) 06:58, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

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

Edits by Jorge1777

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

---

Jorge1777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I have no idea how to describe this user's edits, other than they're frustrating. Jorge1777 has not been editing in a way that's contributing to Wikipedia. See previous report on ANI here and additional points by Snooganssnoogans's interaction with Jorge1777 here. Most recently, an edit of mine was reverted by Jorge1777 here with poor explanation why, in frustration I participated in an edit war but once again they have violated WP:3RR. As mentioned previously, the editor has failed to keep civility as seen on my talk page here and here. At this reversion the editor violated WP:1RR. comrade waddie96 (talk) 15:16, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Well firstly, I have not broken 3RR, that's simply not true (at least as far as I'm aware). Secondly in the past I have done things such as violate civility but that has already been dealt with in a past ANI. I have retracted the comments/actions and moved on. Thirdly, I was not aware of a 1RR on that article but Snooganssnoogans has since informed me such a 1RR is in place. Needless to say I have not repeated such behaviour since becoming aware of this information. I don't think much else is needed to be said. Jorge1777 (talk) 15:34, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Stalking, and accusation of stalking, are both lame. You guys should try talking instead. Dicklyon (talk) 02:52, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

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

Proposal for Trump/Biden articles

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

---

Unfortunately, we are officially well into the silly season of American politics, and this has manifested in an upwelling of disruptive, uncivil, and unconstructive behavior, which is, of course, focused on articles having to do with Donald Trump and Joe Biden. I also note that there has been a fairly substantial surge in obvious sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry with respect to these articles, with new accounts perhaps making a small number of edits in other areas for a few weeks or months, and then aggressively diving into arguing over topics on pages relating to these politicians. Note that I am not accusing User:Kolya Butternut of any involvement in the latter problem, but the point remains that we will have our hands full, and we really need a zero-tolerance policy for these matters.

Since the election is about six months away, and will undoubtedly be the focus of continuing and increasing efforts along these lines until it reaches its crescendo, I propose a straightforward response:

An automatic 6-month topic ban on topics relating to

Donald Trump and Joe Biden, broadly construed, for
any editor who is unable to maintain civility or abide by
consensus, or who appears to be engaging in sockpuppetry

or similar efforts to game the system to score political points.

This may be rough on a handful of innocent new editors whose editing pattern only coincidentally tracks that of recently identified sockpuppets or meatpuppets, but those who are sincerely here out of interest in building an encyclopedia can easily find a few million other articles, spread across thousands of topic areas, that are direly in need of assistance; those editors can wait the six months before they get into contentious topics of American politics, which are best left to more cool-headed and experienced editors under these circumstances. BD2412 T 18:59, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I 1,000,000% support a proposal that topic bans anyone getting inappropriate, broadly construed, on Biden and Trump related pages. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:32, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

• Strong support, even more so if you add in "engages in edit-warring on those articles". Schazjmd (talk) 19:53, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I would consider edit warring to be a form of incivility and consensus-avoidance. BD2412 T 20:36, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
• Is this a guideline suggestion for all countries 6 months prior to an election, because the same editing patterns happen all over the world or just for the USA? Govindaharihari (talk) 19:58, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
  • This is intended as an immediate response to the problems arising with respect these specific articles in the immediate situation. BD2412 T 20:37, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
• Shouldn't this be a separate section from the one about me? And I am not seeing anyone discuss the actual claims about my conduct. Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:01, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support – But only 99.9%. As bad as the situation is now, it’s likely to get worse over the next six months. And, I’m not convinced the problem won’t continue after November. (Not retroactive to Kolya, albeit the result may be the same.) O3000 (talk) 20:09, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. We already have discretionary sanctions that can deal with this - we don't need a second, parallel, sanctions regime. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:22, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per Boing! said Zebedee, and because this new sanction has arisen out of what I feel is a baseless accusation, so no new sanction has been shown to be needed. Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:11, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
• Sympathize with the reasoning but oppose as redundant. I have no objections to admins using their discretion to impose such topic-bans, and even agree with BD2412 that topic-bans that last beyond the Nov. election (Jan inauguration?) are likely to become increasingly warranted, but admins already have the needed tools under WP:ARBAP2 and WP:ARBBLP. I also have specific objections to "automatic" and "6 month" (which won't make sense to a topic-ban applied in, say, Sep 2020) in the proposed wording but those bits can easily be addressed, if needed. Abecedare (talk) 21:17, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose. I understand the reasoning behind this, and it's well meaning, but I have three significant issues with it.
  Firstly, as pointed out by Boing already, the DS regime exists for this already. It's worked in the past, and it works now. It's unclear to me why we would need this rather than DS.
  The second significant issue I have with this is that it seems like quite significant American exceptionalism bias to suggest that this sort of a sanctions regime should apply only to the American presidential election, unlike discretionary sanctions which can be applied to any topic area in theory. If there was genuinely good reason to use this, it would surely apply for all sorts of seriously-contested election cycles - we get vandalism on British politician pages regularly too. In my view, we should not be setting up a different standard specifically in this way.
  The third issue is procedural, but important nonetheless: I am very strongly opposed to this being introduced following solely a conversation on ANI. I would suggest this needs to be brought to VPP at the very least, to make sure there is a genuine community consensus around it, if that's the way that it goes. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 21:28, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
• Comment - With the potential for things to further heat up on those 2 bio articles over the next few months, such a 'new' rule, would see a possible huge number of editors blocked. GoodDay (talk) 21:41, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
  • It's not actually a "blocking" rule; it's a T-ban rule. It would potentially see a large number of editors topic-banned for a period of months, but the articles and topics to which the ban would apply still only make up perhaps .1% of the encyclopedia. BD2412 T 21:44, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
    • Such growing passions then, would leave many editors topic-banned. GoodDay (talk) 21:46, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
      • Exactly. Leave the editing to those who are able to address the topics dispassionately, without feeling like they need to score points for "their" candidate. BD2412 T 21:48, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
      • I have to say I do not see an issue with that. PackMecEng (talk) 21:55, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
• Existing DS already allow this. WP:AE is ready and waiting. I support keeping the highest standards on these articles: we should also TBAN people who use crappy sources on those articles. We can also use ECP if there are repeated problems. Guy (help!) 22:32, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose we have WP:AC/DS, and if anything should merit an automatic topic ban it should be using or advocating for the use or poor-quality sources, or a general disregard for WP:NPOV and our content policies - of course, adjudicating that is much more difficult, but necessary if you don't want the only editors left to be WP:CPUSHers. Galobtter (pingó mió) 23:23, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
• Comment I think the important element of this proposal is the "automatic" part. What this looks like is an attempt to lower the bar for admins disciplining unruly editors without having to prepare a case to present at Arbitration Enforcement which can be time-consuming, both to gather the evidence and waiting for feedback from the group of editors who frequent that area. Is that the thinking behind this proposal, simplifying imposing discretionary sanction topic bans so they can be imposed more swiftly? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:34, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Something like that, with the understanding that I'm not looking to have bad actors blocked or otherwise sanctioned, just restricted from this topic area, and that the pivotal event ending the TBAN would be the election itself (which is what is driving some people to edit these articles tendentiously or through sockpuppetry). I am actual more concerned about the rather blatant sockpuppetry going on in numerous discussions, with pattern-following accounts that have clearly been created for no purpose other than to push specific views into these articles. BD2412 T 03:01, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

    BD2412, and who will police the new powers and make sure there is no bias? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 04:15, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

    • Since we are talking about a topic-ban rather than a block here, any person proposed to be subject to one will be able to come right here to contest it. BD2412 T 04:29, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

  Uninvolved dmins don't have to present a case at WP:AE to hand down sanctions under WP:AC/DS. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:35, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose I dont see any disruption in Joe Biden-related articles. Also, I note that the OP made unsubstantiated sockuppetery claim without any evidences.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 03:07, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I can name three off the top of my head - User:SeriousIndividuals (with whom you associated yourself in the past), User:JungerMan Chips Ahoy!, and User:FollowTheSources. All three are blocked, two as identified sockpuppets, and one as WP:NOTHERE (though sockpuppetry was likely); aggressively pushing varying anti-Biden or pro-Biden positions in discussions. BD2412 T 03:36, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
    • "associated"? What "associated"? Are you implying that I am a sockpuppet? I never associated myself with anyone. I only saw you making many SPA tags for a single editor in a single talk page and opposed that. The way I opposed your tags was a little bit overreactive and I have apologized for that. Whether "SeriousIndividuals" was a sockpuppet or not your SPA tags were wrong because they were too much. It has nothing to with with "SeriousIndividuals" himself. In any case, there has been much more sockpuppets in the past and in other articles than those, I dont see "fairly substantial surge". I wonder why would this be relevant to User:Kolya Butternut? I have never seen any disruptions from him. I believe that his comments in Dounld Trump article were all made in good-faith. Even if they were against consensus that doesnt mean a topic ban is warranted.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 04:04, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
    • I would also note that this is a wrong venue to propose such proposal. You can propose in WP:AN, WP:VPP or WP:VPR.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 04:10, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose admins currently have authority under AC/DS and can also being cases to AE, etc. Nothing "automatic" is good. I also worry about bias, and I also worry about scope creep. Further, ANI is not the place to discuss this and granting more authority to admins in this area should come from ARBCOM perhaps. In any event, I don't believe this is necessary. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 04:18, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose We have controls in place for disruption. Additionally Wikipedia is not an exclusive operation where only seasoned pros can edit. We encourage everyone to edit. If they prove disruptive or vandalize we have effective systems in place. Wm335td (talk)<
• Oppose - WP:AE and WP:AC/DS already exist. This, as proposed, would almost certainly be ripe for bias and abuse. - DoubleCross (‡) 16:18, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per Naypta, Sir Joseph, and DoubleCross. This seems especially knee-jerk (it did, after all, begin as a proposal within a different AN/I discussion) and Americentric, with little extraordinary evidence provided for the proposal. --Pinchme123 (talk) 23:48, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose, WP:AC/DS will handle it nicely, and "automatic" is way too gameable. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:03, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

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

Bludgeoning by Kolya Butternut

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

---

On May 18, User:Kolya Butternut made a bold edit to Donald Trump, creating a section called Personal Image and saying that "Trump's temperament and mental status has been a regular topic of public discussion." Her edit summary was Personal image: Temperament and mental status is a noteworthy subject in the media. BOLD edit to current consensus item 39. [194] It was reverted as violating Consensus #39, which states “Do not include any paragraph regarding Trump's mental health.” After a brief discussion at her talk page, [195] she started a discussion at the article talk page. [196]. She proposed a change to Consensus item #39 and offered her proposed new wording. She argued that her proposal does not violate the consensus because it does not actually characterize his mental health, only states that it has been widely discussed. One IP favored her proposal; four people including myself opposed it. (A fifth oppose has since been added.)

She then pinged CaptainEek, who had closed the July 2019 RFC that led to consensus #39, and asked for their opinion of whether her proposed language would be allowed by their closure. CaptainEek had written a long and thoughtful explanation of their reasoning at the time they closed it, but they gave Kolya a detailed reply, saying "my close summarized that folks felt we could not create a neutral, BLP conforming paragraph given the sources available" and "I find little substantial difference between this version and previous versions," but "my viewpoint should not be the overriding factor here." Kolya proceeded to argue and ask for clarification five times, while CaptainEek replied courteously. I later learned that Kolya also posted on CaptainEek’s talk page, asking them to edit/reword their closure of the July 2019 RfC to support Kolya’s position, and suggesting she might take the request to AN if they do not.[197] After her fifth reply to CaptainEek at Talk:Donald Trump, I posted a note (specifying that I was speaking as an involved editor, not an admin), telling Kolya to stop badgering CaptainEek and accept the four- (or five-) to-one opinion against her proposal. Kolya rejected my advice (pointing out, quite correctly, that I was one of the four now five who had opposed her addition), and repeated/expanded her question to CaptainEek. Since CaptainEek had referred to part of the proposed wording as WP:GOSSIP, Kolya also went to BLPN WT:BLP and posted a question asking for a clarification of what gossip is.[198] And if she does not get her way she has threatened to take her request to AN or a new RfC.

(Recent history: she received two AE blocks this month,[199] [200] but both were controversial[201] and one was overturned at AN. [202] )

In my opinion this behavior amounts to 1) harassing and bludgeoning of CaptainEek, and 2) refusal to drop the stick on a proposal that has not gained any traction at the article talk page. IMO she should be given at least a formal warning against bludgeoning of discussions and harassment of other participants. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:20, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Kolya Butternut also approached BD2412 stating that MelanieN was threatening her in the Talk:Donald Trump discussion. Reading the Trump talk page discussion, I think Kolya might do well to study WP:SEALION and reconsider her approach in discussions. Schazjmd (talk) 18:35, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support a 1-year topic ban from Donald Trump--v/r - TP 18:49, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
  • The election is in six months, after which enthusiasm for these topics will drop off mightily. I think six months is enough, and have made a proposal to that effect below. BD2412 T 19:02, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
    • @BD2412: You're tempting fate, you know - it depends on the election result :-( Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:40, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
      • Yes, but in my experience (having been through three U.S. presidential elections here), there is a sharp dropoff in the will to be contentious over these matters once the election has taken place. BD2412 T 19:50, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

• Broader proposal for Trump/Biden articles in general is just muddy here and has nothing to do with the raised concern, if anyone wants this sort of editing condition, I don't think this is the place to discuss that. Govindaharihari (talk) 19:21, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

• This feels really uncalled for. This is a good-faith challenge to a complicated and long-discussed subject. I particularly take issue with the suggestion that I somehow threatened to go to WP:AN, when I was simply asking if that was the protocol. (And it was CaptainEek who brought up the idea of a new RfC.)[203] I was trying to adhere to WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. Like I said at Talk:Donald Trump, I thought I read somewhere that that is the appropriate step to take before challenging an RfC close at WP:AN.[204] Yes, I asked for clarification several times (I haven't counted), because I still felt left with questions, and I felt like I was still receiving new information. Melanie has worked hard to remove mental health information from similar articles,[205] and I am concerned that her complaint against me is influenced by her desire to not see a precedent set by having anything about Trump's mental health added to his bio. I am perplexed by this characterization that I am threatening to escalate if I "do not get my way". I feel like I have questions and I am seeking answers, and up am discussing the appropriate next steps to take if I feel like something is still not addressed. I'll have to read the BLUDGEONING policy to see if I'm missing something, but CaptainEek didn't say anything about my questions having already been answered. How can this be SEALIONing? It was Melanie herself who said she was going to "step in" to the conversation and warn me.[206] And Melanie was the one who suggested I make the bold edit to the article, which I reference on my talk page discussion with she links to. Also, she was ok with the exact same text that I suggested for Donald Trump to be in the article for A Very Stable Genius and similar text at Stable Genius Act, so how can it be a BLP violation? Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:09, 25 May 2020 (UTC) Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:02, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Melanie's narrative just does not present things accurately. The only thing I can be accused of is asking CaptainEek too many questions. First I asked Melanie about adding something about Trump's mental health to his bio, and she said "You are free to suggest it, of course, or even to boldly insert it into the article and see if anyone reverts it."[207] and "I'm not advising you to add it anywhere. You know how I feel about this kind of speculation/information, or references to such, in BLPs. As I said, if you want to boldly add it, you are free to do so, and see how it goes."[208] I took this as a suggested course of action, and when I came back to this about a month later I made the bold edit. It was reverted with the edit summary "items under consensus require prior new consensus to change."[209] After responding to some confusion at my talk page, I started a new talk page discussion at Donald Trump. After receiving no support for my suggestion, I asked CaptainEek for clarification of their close. I then made a new suggestion, "In response to questions raised about his temperament and mental status, Trump has described himself as a 'very stable genius'.", at CaptainEek's talk page,[210] and asked them if they were able to make changes to their old close to provide clarification, because I felt like the last line of the close which could be interpreted to bar any mention at all about Trump's mental health seemed overly broad, and I had thought my newest proposal was not actually inconsistent with their close. I was asking if they were not able to change their RfC if the next step would be to go to WP:AN. They responded back at Talk:Donald Trump, where I still felt unsure of the precise interpretation of their close. The last response CaptainEek gave to me was completely new information to me, that my last proposed sentence was WP:BLPGOSSIP,[211] so their RfC close apparently did indeed bar any mention at all of Trump's mental health (unless new sources are available? Honestly I'm still confused and will have to reread everything again.) I feel like this shows that I wasn't bludgeoning, because this was a constructive discussion where new information was coming still coming through. Then Melanie warned me which I felt was uncalled for, and I proceeded to ask CaptainEek why it would be BLPGOSSIP when I felt it would pass WP:NFRINGE and WP:WELLKNOWN,[212] and I commented that we already have almost the exact same text at A Very Stable Genius and Stable Genius Act[213] So now I'm left with many more questions and feel I need more community input. I would have proceeded to ask CaptainEek if they were done with the discussion, and if so I would have taken the question to AN. Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:50, 25 May 2020 (UTC)  

And I did not go to BLPN; the link Melanie provided goes to the BLP talk page where I ask for an edit to the policy to make it more clear. Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:39, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

RE: Melanie was the one who suggested I make the bold edit to the article, That is a mischaracterization - one she has made before. In April 2018 2020 (don't know what I was thinking) she posted at my talk page to ask my opinion on her proposed new approach.[214] I told her repeatedly that she could boldly try this if she wanted - that I couldn't stop her - but that I did not encourage it and I doubted if it would pass muster. (examples: "Your draft paragraph looks very much like the previous proposals and is based on the same material as the others were, so I doubt if it would fly. Not to say you can't try it, but you asked my opinion." "I do not encourage you to do it, and I doubt if others would allow it to stay in the article.") -- MelanieN (talk) 19:23, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I am sorry if you feel I am mischaracterizing your comments, but that is how I took them. That discussion occurred April 2020, not April 2018. You didn't even pick out an example where you used the word BOLD! Yes I understood you didn't think it would work, but I took it to be a suggestion for what I could do. Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:39, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

• All my blocks were overturned except a controversial one week block for violating 1RR. Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:13, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Oh, this is very called for. Not because of you, specifically, but because people in general lose their minds over this specific topic, and that is already leading to all sorts of conflict and bad outcomes. Let me put it this way: you'll be a lot happier if you put the thought of editing articles in these areas out of your mind for half a year. BD2412 T 19:14, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

But everything I was dealing with at Joe Biden has been settled, and I do not understand why this is considered bludgeoning; how else would I deal with these questions? When is it appropriate to take an RfC close to AN? Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:18, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Six months from now, I will have these same unanswered questions, which I am being told that I am not handling appropriately, so what can I do different in six months than what I am doing now? Literally the only line I am asking for is "In response to questions raised about his temperament and mental status, Trump has described himself as a 'very stable genius'." I still don't see how it can be a BLP violation to have the same text in A Very Stable Genius and not Donald Trump, and I don't understand why Melanie would take me to ANI over text which she herself ostensibly approved as can be seen at Talk:A Very Stable Genius when she proposed a DYK[215]. Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:28, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

If you have the same questions in six months, then you can ask them in six months without invoking the drama of editors who believe that the outcome of the election will turn on the contents of these Wikipedia articles. BD2412 T 19:31, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

That doesn't speak to me doing anything wrong here. Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:40, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

This thread prompted me to look back at Kolya's prior blocks, which led me to these three threads on Wugapodes's talk page (in chronological order): User talk:Wugapodes#Interaction ban, User talk:Wugapodes#Evidence, and User talk:Wugapodes#WP:INVOLVED. While the interaction ban that was the the topic of these conversations was overturned at AN, Kolya's bludgeoning toward Wugapodes throughout these conversations was problematic, especially after Wugapodes advised Kolya multiple times to drop the matter at Wugapodes's talk page and instead take the matter to AN or AE. Even after closing the thread, Kolya just opened up a new thread further down on the page. There seems to be pattern of bludgeoning with this user, so I would therefore support a six-month topic ban as proposed above, but agree with MelanieN that at the very least, a formal warning should be issued. Aoi (青い) (talk) 21:57, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Aoi, Please look at both sides of the dispute. I was dealing with an inappropriate block and a pattern of evasiveness. My blocks were overturned by editors who found Wugapodes' actions to be inappropriate.[216] So far I haven't seen anyone discuss the actual complaint that brought me hear. Why would me allegedly bludgeoning Wugapodes on their talk page result in a topic ban from Donald Trump? I feel like I would have to get into a long discussion about that previous improper block and the discussions around it and the context for why I opened up a new discussion on Wugapodes' page, but the bottom line is it was overturned, and I would like someone to discuss what happened here. When you strip away all the mischaracterizations by Melanie, what's left is that she accuses me of asking five questions, which she feels were unnecessary. I do not feel they were unnecessary. More questions remain, such as, why is Melanie bringing me to ANI for asking the question: How can text that Melanie is ok with at A Very Stable Genius now be a BLP violation when I suggest adding it to Donald Trump? Am I bludgeoning or are others shutting things down? Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:53, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

• Aoi pinged me in discussing my talk page posts, and I agree with their characterization of those discussions. As I said in my most recent response there, Kolya has an issue with tendentious editing but I have neither the time nor energy to pursue it. I would encourage the community to take steps to resolve this issue because the problems extend beyond Donald Trump or even the American Politics topic area. I previously noted concerns about her long term tendentious behavior in this AN post which includes links to previous problem interactions that exemplify this pattern: "At User_talk:Kolya_Butternut#Personal_attacks SchroCat advised her to not insult other editors, and to report concerns at the appropriate venue; she doubled down and made clear she was trying to carry on a personal rather than content dispute with Betty Logan. At User_talk:Kolya_Butternut#WP:HOUND Flyer22 Reborn raised concerns with multiple diffs that Kolya was wikihounding them, to which Cullen328 said I advise you to take that editor's talk page off your watchlist. That would be to your benefit, in my opinion, since you are clearly displaying some hounding tendencies. This is not a new pattern....Concerns about this pattern of behavior have been raised multiple times, by multiple editors, and about multiple targets". So I'd support Melanie's proposal as a reasonable first step at resolving this. — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:04, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

  Seeing myself name-checked here I will just flesh out a few details. I was involved in a toxic dispute with Kolya Butternut at the Millenials article. KB was attempting to overturn the result of a long-running dispute that had recently been settled in an RFC, and another editor, DynaGirl, took exception to that. Their dispute became fractious and I later became involved as I was unhappy with how KB addressed a hard-working editor in good standing (for the record DynaGirl did not have a history of disruptive behavior). DynaGirl stopped editing for good within a week of that dispute. She may have stopped editing for non-Wiki reasons—I don't know the reason—but given the proximity to the dispute at the time I believed it to be a factor. During the dispute at the article I was bizarrely reported by KB for not talking to them on my talk page (see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1016#Incivility). To be fair to Kolya Butternut my interactions with them are limited to that one and only article and the dispute has not extended beyond it, so it does not amount to a behavioral pattern, but the refusal to accept an RFC result seems to be a common factor here. Betty Logan (talk) 01:17, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: Here are a couple of talk page discussions that have been referenced here, and might help to cast light on the subject’s pattern of editing on talk pages: Muboshgu, April 29-30 and BD2412, current and ongoing. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:37, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

31 hour block

Unless there is a substantial objection, I'd like to put a 31-hour block on Kolya Butternut so I can have some peace on my talk page (and so their conduct does not just pick up one someone else's). Please note that when I say "substantial objection", I don't mean Kolya Butternut objecting, which I would take as a given. BD2412 T 01:48, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

You can just ask me; it's punitive to block me without just having a conversation. Just ask me for what you want and I'll do it. Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:52, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Asking isn't the point. My expectation is that you will merely engage in the same conduct elsewhere. BD2412 T 01:55, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Then I won't. I'll just not edit anything for three days unless someone specifically speaks to me. Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:57, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

A 31-hour block would actually just be a day-and-a-half. Come back Wednesday. BD2412 T 02:02, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Just adding but your behaviour at User talk:Wugapodes is far below subpar and highlights the crux of your issues, you engage in absolute WP:IDHT picking up strawman arguments to further your point (and before you say it: no, because the block was overturned does not mean your behaviour was OK). I had assumed that was a one-off incident and not intervened but you seem to lack the intention to understand or listen to people who try to help you out. You should know that any further bludgeoning will lead to blocks. Best, qedk (t 愛 c) 06:48, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

BD2412, Wikipedia:Administrators#Accountability it seems Kolya was questioning your actions. I took a look at your page. Why not just ask Kolya to stop posting on your page? To block someone for this,to me seems really, really bad. Especially when we're discussing how to admin in a biased environment. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 02:09, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

The point now appears moot, but their talk page conduct is a continuation of the conduct that led to this discussion in the first place. I intended a short block as an instructive measure for the editor. Please note that they solicited my participation in this conflict out of the blue in the first place. BD2412 T 02:17, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

I think you’re too involved in the Biden page and discussions to be taking action yourself. Didn’t we discuss that a few weeks ago after you full protected the articles? Mr Ernie (talk) 12:34, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

@Mr Ernie: This involves an unsolicited effort by the editor in question to draw me into a dispute where they sought to add controversial material to the Donald Trump article, regarding Trump's mental health, and not to any Joe Biden article. The ANI report to which this relates was opened by MelanieN, not by me. I have been pulled into it against my will. BD2412 T 16:36, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I have not asked for a block here and I have no recommendation. What I WOULD like is for you, Kolya, to recognize that your behavior is very argumentative; that you don’t listen to others and often indulge in WP:IDHT (while accusing others of it); that you are very reluctant to accept WP:Consensus (which is the necessary basis of how Wikipedia operates); and that you sometimes carry this to disruptive levels. If some action here can be taken that will get you to recognize the problem and reform, I will be satisfied. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:27, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

The behavior by Kolya Butternut that MelanieN has objected to at Talk:Donald Trump is very similar to the experience I have had at Talk:Joe Biden. Multiple, relentless responses to every single opposing view in an RfC, for example. It's exhausting. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:19, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Like all great adventures, this one has an origin story. KB had been one of the most active editors at Joe Biden and the related "allegations" article in supporting various statements unfavorable to Biden. Then, in mid-April, KB came to the Joe Biden talk page advocating for a section on Biden's possible "Mental decline", see here. There was little support and much concern about BLP issues. Next, KB went to BLPN to pursue the matter, see here. That didn't pan out. In the course of these discussions, KB raised the possiblilty that discussion related issues with respect to Donald Trump might somehow set a precedent that would authorize the creation of the mental health section in Biden's article. It was at that point that KB went to MelanieN's talk page and ultimately to the section MelanieN referenced at Donald Trump talk. So for whatever reason, this has been quite an epic quest. Any TBAN would have to be fairly broad. Possibly just the standard AP2 TBAN. SPECIFICO talk 16:52, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

This is absolutely not true.  I am not trying to get mental health information into Joe Biden's article.   I had fought against being silenced from even talking about Biden's mental health in the talk page.  It would probably be WP:UNDUE to actually add it to his article.  But I had assumed that Trump's article wasn't censored, but it is.  I don't really care about Joe Biden; I care about Tara Reade not being silenced.  I have experienced abuse and growing up with my reality completely ignored.  I have experienced sexual assault.   Yes, I understand I don't know when to stop arguing, but I don't lie.  I do not act in bad faith or make intentional strawmen.  It's unfortunate for everyone that the case that initiated this intervention is not an example of my failings.  I can see that I already repeated myself more times in this discussion than I realized.  I still feel like no one is listening to me about the Trump discussion, but I have to remember that trying to  explain myself better isn't going to help anyone. Kolya Butternut (talk) 13:30, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@Kolya Butternut: So you are saying you have been such a strong advocate for Tara Reade and you have demanded she not be "silenced" because her alleged experience uncomfortably reminds you of your own experience? While I have the utmost sympathy for you, this is a BAD reason to be editing the article of a presidential candidate. We want reliably sourced accuracy, not emotionally motivated advocacy. That sense you are repeating yourself? Your fellow editors are experiencing it in your unrelenting, unyielding, uncompromising arguing of every comment that opposes your view. Attempts to compromise with your position have initially been successful, but then been scuppered when you pushed to hard. When given an inch, you always take a mile. I would prefer not to see you blocked or topic banned, but I do think you need to modify your behavior. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:56, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, how she has been treated is personally triggering. No, I have not let that get in the way of adhering to content policy. I fought for what is now the current consensus. This is very close to my final proposal at BLPN. The truth of what the RS actually say is important to me; I don't want us to violate our own policies to silence the story. I haven't lost objectivity. I'm not invested in editing Joe Biden anymore; my only objection is the section header, but everything's already been said.  I validate that I am unrelenting, but every dispute has two sides, so it's hard to get into the particulars with you.  Not listening begets not listening.  I'm not assigning blame.  You're welcome to discuss the details of your experience on my talk page. Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:45, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

You say, "I fought for what is now the current consensus." but nothing could be farther from the truth. All the cited links and talk page threads show you insisting on views that were rejected by the editors on all those article and noticeboard talk pages. You say, "I don't really care about Joe Biden", but our BLP policy establishes the standard of care all editors must follow for all people. So we all must care. And that includes Joe Biden, Donald Trump, and Michael Bloomberg and other BLPs that you say are "personally triggering" for you.

It sounds as if you have arrived at the point where you are ready to step away from involvement with this kind of content. The simplest solution would be a TBAN from BLP and AP2. But if there is a more limited restriction that you can propose, I think this would be the time to give it some thought and make that suggestion here, so that you can continue to work in other content areas. SPECIFICO talk 16:13, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

It is very clear that you are gunning for me to be blocked from Joe Biden. Firstly, blocking me from an article that I am saying I would voluntarily step away from is punitive. I refuse to get drawn into an argument with you here when you repeatedly demonstrate an unwillingness to AGF for anything. At Joe Biden I fought for adherence to WP:BLPBALANCE for Tara Reade, either by inclusion of more information from RS showing her credibility, or through edits or removal of text which gave more credibility to Biden than the RS do. The current consensus is the balance I fought for, which is very close to one of my proposals. Since that time, more reporting has come out which casts doubt on Reade's allegations, so editors may consider whether to add this. Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:00, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

• I have no comment at this time on the larger issue that was brought up in this thread. However, I would strongly oppose blocking someone just because they posted on your talk page. That's purely punitive and serves no purpose. If you don't want someone on your talk page, then simply tell them not to post on your talk page.--Rusf10 (talk) 21:59, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose blocks are useful for stopping disruption in the encyclopedia. Posting on a talk page is not really disruptive to the project. WP:BLOCK Lightburst (talk) 15:42, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
  • There is nothing left to oppose, the situation has already been resolved. BD2412 T 16:20, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. just a thought, if it has been resolved you should close it or make the result clear.Lightburst (talk) 20:01, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I am fine with closing this proposal for a 31-hour block as no action, or rather "resolved/moot". But I am not fine if that is the only result of the initial discussion above - if we just drop the larger issue of her argumentative and bludgeoning behavior, of which her comments at BD's talk page were one example. Other examples have been given in the main section above. I am hoping to see some kind of recognition of the problem - not a block, not necessarily a topic ban, but at least a community warning so there is something on the record if the behavior continues. But again, I am an involved editor in this discussion, not an admin, so that is not an admin recommendation. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:09, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

P.S. Just to show that uninvolved admins have spoken to her about this kind of behavior, and that it is a long-term problem: In connection with a September 2019 complaint about hounding, she was given advice by three uninvolved admins - Cullen328, JBW, and Johnuniq - here; she rejected it all. Last month she was involved in a contentious discusstion with Muboshgu, and when uninvolved admin El C jumped in with advice, she rejected it. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:38, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support A logged warning. If a next time support minimum six month AP02 topic ban.--MONGO (talk) 21:18, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

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

IP-hopping genre vandal on Anathema (band) and Katatonia pages, #2804

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

---

An IP range starting with 2804 has, for months over four years, bothered pages related to, for example, Anathema (band), Katatonia, Opeth, and Paradise Lost (band). Here is a typical edit, and another. They are a persistent genre warrior; apparently from Mato Grosso do Sul, Brazil; who has never discussed their genre edits on relevant talk pages, and has been active since at least January 2016.

This person does not exclusively do genre edit, but can also edit band's line-up timelines. (Example 1, and the most recent edits on this IP. However, despite occasional positive contributions to pages, this person has shown far more interest in tweaking and meddling with genre descriptions of band and album pages. This is not the only IP range that disrupts these pages, but it is the one I am focusing on right now. (I am also suspicious of a 2601 IP range from Waltham Forest, UK, and a 2a02 IP range from Achaea, Greece. Those are maybe reports for another day.)

As a direct result of his/her actions, as well as those of other anonymous genre vandals, the pages Night Is the New Day (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and The Great Cold Distance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) have both been semi-protected for two months, expiring on July 17.

He/she has, through years of commitment, shown a full-blown contempt and malicious indifference for Wikipedia's music pages, Wikipedia's editing principles, and the editors who maintain them. The only way they are going to be stopped is if someone of something other than his or herself forces them to do so. Out of all the editing activity I have seen from these IPs, and this is possibly not even almost a complete list, I have seen no evidence of them actively seeking to communicate and collaborate with editors (other than a minimal amount of use of edit summaries from years past). By posting this here, I am hoping that this person's obfuscation of Wikipedia and evasion of consequence/responsibility can finally end.

A chronological list of relevant IPs:

• 2804:14C:7588:2C4:6D5E:DF04:C409:5806 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (25 January 2016)
• 2804:14C:7588:2C4:A1BC:E04A:222B:2704 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (2–3 April 2016)
• 2804:14C:7588:2C4:F89F:F4A4:E7A0:FDC5 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (21 April–11 May 2016)
• 2804:14C:7588:2C4:F0FD:4C3A:1185:1B5D (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (28 April 2016)
• 2804:14C:7588:2C4:11B5:DBB6:517C:11D2 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (29 April 2016)
• 2804:14C:7588:2C4:E98B:AD4A:5FC6:72D2 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (3– 4 May 2016)
• 2804:14C:7588:2C4:70FB:ED23:FB89:659B (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (13 May 2016)
• 804:14C:7588:2C4:ECC2:5ABC:1CE8:1043 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (20 May 2016)
• 2804:14C:7588:2C4:ED48:D677:EC64:D9BA (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (28 May 2016)
• 2804:14C:7588:2C4:C82B:3BC2:E2A4:56C8 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (19–20 June 2016)
• 2804:14C:7588:2C4:B974:C2BB:FFCD:4E78 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (20 June 2016)
• 2804:14C:7588:2C4:C97B:B92D:9759:8011 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (28 June 2016)
• 2804:14C:7588:2C4:714B:5007:67A2:BC24 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (28 July 2016)
• 2804:14C:7588:2C4:E57E:121F:BF09:E4C3 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (2 November 2016)
• 2804:14C:7588:2C4:C402:C172:A1DF:3FFF (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (4 November 2016)
• 2804:14C:7588:2C4:C0AE:995C:959B:CEA2 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (21 November 2016)
• 2804:14C:7588:2C4:ACFE:583F:3468:A9B8 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (29 December 2016)
• 2804:14C:7588:2C4:C985:2553:C7C1:4931 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (6 April 2017)
• 2804:7F2:2180:BDBA:20D9:8DCC:84C0:9E29 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (10 June 2017)
• 2804:7F2:2180:3B0B:DCEE:EA96:3B77:AF74 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (24 June 2017)
• 2804:7F3:4C80:1649:2CD0:B707:5854:8B6 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (4 May 2019)
• 2804:7F3:4980:AA12:EDC2:EAAC:4978:3327 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (4–5 February 2020)
• 2804:7F3:4980:AA12:5C2F:7B6:CB1D:4B7E (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (4–5 February 2020)
• 2804:7F3:4980:2300:A9C5:B16:A070:E20F (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (20–21 February 2020)
• 2804:7F3:4980:30C2:145F:63AC:92C3:4683 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (15 April 2020)
• 2804:7F3:4880:6E3B:5163:26F1:B42F:56D (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (12 May 2020)
• 2804:7F3:4880:6E3B:847F:25F1:53B3:BC8D (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (13 May 2020)
• 2804:7F3:4880:B511:ECEF:BB02:1501:C9B2 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (16 May 2020)
• 2804:7F3:4C81:B4B0:5410:3CAF:FEEC:59EA (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (16–17 May 2020)
• 2804:7F3:4880:F4C7:858D:242C:F7B8:95EA (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (24 May 2020)

Mungo Kitsch (talk) 06:52, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I calculated the overall IP range for the IP's you listed active in the last month - Special:Contributions/2804:7f3:4800::/37 - , expecting it to be a dynamic range with lots of users on it, but the overall activity in that range is ludicrously skewed towards miscellaneous no-edit-summary genre fiddling. Does it look like most or all of those contributions are the individual we're concerned about here? A rangeblock is looking more sensible than I expected if we want to get their attention. ~ mazca ^talk 11:12, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Fully support a range block. (I’d do it myself, but I’ve never quite gotten the hang of them.) Sergecross73 msg me 13:07, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Blocked the range for three months. Drmies (talk) 13:19, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Haven't done many IPv6 rangeblocks and thought I'd check I wasn't blocking half of Brazil! ~ mazca ^talk 13:26, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the rangeblock. I've been cleaning up after this person for quite a long time, despairing of a long-term fix. Note that they are also interested in Japanese bands, anime and manga in the Japanese language, which helps to identify the activity. Binksternet (talk) 16:09, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I've looked at Night Is the New Day and the genres mentioned in the discussion on Talk:Night Is the New Day, and there are three genres in the infobox, but completely different genres mentioned on the talk page, which seems to be the only discussion of this. No references for the genres in the article, so it isn't obvious whose edits are vandalism (if any of them are). Would it be better to just remove the genres, or even remove the infobox? Peter James (talk) 16:54, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Peter James, infoboxes are plenty problematic. As for genres, I propose we limit ourselves to blues, rock, jazz, classical, electronic body music, and of course metal--meaning Alternative metal, Avant-garde metal, Biker metal, Black metal, Blackened death metal, Blackgaze, Celtic metal, Christian metal, Crossover thrash, Crust punk, Deathgrind, Death metal, Death 'n' roll, Deathcore, Death-doom, Djent, Doom metal, Drone metal, Extreme metal, Folk metal, Funk metal, Glam metal, Goregrind, Gothic metal, Grindcore, Grunge, Groove metal, Heavy metal, Industrial metal, Kawaii metal, Latin metal, Mathcore, Medieval metal, Melodic death metal, Melodic metalcore, Metalcore, Neoclassical metal, Neue Deutsche Härte, Nu metal, Nu metalcore, Pagan metal, Pirate metal, Pornogrind, Post-metal, Power metal, Progressive metal, Progressive metalcore, Rap metal, Sludge metal, Speed metal, Stoner rock, Symphonic black metal, Symphonic metal, Technical death metal, Thrash metal, and Viking metal. OK "Pirate metal" is stupid, and mathcore sucks, but still. Drmies (talk) 01:21, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Technical progressive stoner trap christian nu metal is my favorite genre Moneytrees🌴^{Talk🌲Help out at CCI!} 14:37, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I rewrote the Katatonia article 4 years ago, and have maintained it ever since. In that time, I’ve learned that they are one of those bands where fans/people squabble and argue over their genre endlessly. It doesn’t matter if it’s a cleaned up article, or a mess like most of their album articles, which I didn’t get around to cleaning up - people genre war endlessly. Obviously, source genre, and remove ones you can’t find sources for. But it’ll require constant maintenance either way. Sergecross73 msg me 01:32, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Most of the 2804 IPs that you see on English Wikipedia are Vivo in Brazil. Their IP ranges are often incredibly wide, but it's rare to find collateral damage. I would venture a guess that there isn't a lot of interest in editing English-language encyclopedia articles in Brazil. I'm not saying that you should just go around doing long range blocks on /36s and /48s just because they're in Brazil, but it's generally as much of a big deal as you might expect to do range blocks on Vivo IP ranges when they become disruptive. There are a few persistent socks who use Vivo, so I've gotten half-decent at dealing with users on this ISP. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:40, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

@Peter James: Good idea. While it would not be necessary to remove the infobox due to the important and topical information that it has at a glance, removing the genres therein is something I independently thought could be a feasible aim; this method has worked in the past. I have therefore removed the genres from both the protected pages, and replaced them with an editor's message.

@Drmies: Thanks a lot! I hope this 3-month range-block is enough to deter the person forever. Mungo Kitsch (talk) 01:11, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

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

Rich Farmbrough's editing restrictions, again

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

---

Rich Farmbrough (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This user has been restricted multiple times form making mass changes of various sorts, with the issue going all the way to arbcom in the past. The most recent restriction was placed in January:

Rich Farmbrough is not permitted to make any mass changes to articles, broadly construed, and regardless of editing method, cosmetic or not, without a demonstrable consensus from the community that he is explicitly permitted to do so. Further, he is entirely prohibited from using Auto Wiki Browser or directly making any edits to Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Template redirects or any other page related to the governance and use of automated or semi-automated tools. Any such changes desired must be proposed on the appropriate talk page, and may only be enacted by other parties. This sanction does not replace or nullify other pre-existing sanctions on this user, and may be appealed no sooner than one year from the date it was approved by the community.

This is pretty clear, no mass changes without consensus. This was enacted four months ago and duly logged at WP:RESTRICT. Note that there is no mention of what the edits actually do, it simply says he cannot do mass changes of any kind. Now have a look at this [217]. Rich is making upwards of 18 changes a minute to articles on places in the United States, an impossibly fast rate, no way there is any quality control on the edits, and again seemingly deciding he knows how every single article in a very broad topic area should say certain things and is making mass changes to his preferred language. Whether his preferred language is better or worse isn't even relevant, he was topic-banned form doing exactly this sort of thing and is well aware of that fact, and is just doing it anyway. Frankly this is just sad. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:07, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

My bot edits slower than this. --qedk (t 愛 c) 18:12, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

• Just noting in case Beeblebrox missed it that after his last block for this I gave Rich a final warning saying that the next time it happened he could be indef’d. I’m not going to do it since I made the last two blocks, but it’s worth noting that he has been warned and blocked for this very recently. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:14, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
• Well them's mass changes, no bones about it. Assuming this is just high-powered search & replace rather than semi-automation, this as per the letter of the law would be okay if there is demonstrable consensus. Is there? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:15, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

• Presumably any such discussion would've taken place on a talk page or somewhere in project space, I did not see any recent edits that seemed to be any such discussion. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:25, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

• Firstly I have told Beeblebrox before that he should discuss matters with users before raising them here. He's not just an admin but an arb, and should behave better than this. And should know better than this without instruction.

An editor alleging misconduct by another editor is responsible for providing clear evidence of the alleged misconduct. An editor who is unable or unwilling to support such an accusation should refrain from making it at all. A claim of misconduct should be raised directly with the other user himself or herself in the first instance, unless there are compelling reasons for not doing so. If direct discussion does not resolve the issue, it should be raised in the appropriate forum for reporting or discussing such conduct, and should not generally be spread across multiple forums. Claims of misconduct should be made with the goal of resolving the problem, not of impugning another editor's reputation.

— The Arbcom...

Secondly yes, of course there is consensus, even though the restriction is ludicrous, and one of the people who supported it is since banned, I am following it. I'm so glad to see that doing so has earned me the respect of Balloni and Beeblebrox.

Perhaps the word "collegial" is unknown to them.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 18:31, 24 May 2020 (UTC).

This old lame excuse. This is by no means "the first instance" rather I suspect we may be at least at the final straw instead. Previous discssion with you has never yielded the slightest understanding of the clear and obvious fact that the community does not want you making mass edits so yeah, just like last time we did this, I din't go ask you to please stop first because I knew it was pointless from previous experience. That would be my compelling reason not to do so, so this is satisfied. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:29, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Please don't fuck with my edits. Calling me "lame" in the edit summary does not help matters. All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 18:31, 24 May 2020 (UTC).

To the point, what you want is not the same as what the community wants. I have had hundreds of thanks for edits which you would not want, that is the community, not the few people who frequent this page. All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 18:34, 24 May 2020 (UTC).

@Rich Farmbrough: Since you say "of course there is consensus", could you link to the discussion where you got the "demonstrable consensus from the community that he is explicitly permitted to do so." Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:35, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Certainly: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities#US Cities - Census info. All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 18:44, 24 May 2020 (UTC).

• To put some numbers to this, in just under 48 hours (starting 23:16, 22 May 2020 and ending 19:03, 24 May 2020) Rich has made over 8000 edits to the article space, about 4400 of which were edits and 3900 were fixing errors introduced by those edits. Even if there was consensus for this edit somewhere (which no one can seem to findwhich seems to be here) that is a massive error rate. If there wasn't a prior discussion and/or consensus for this edit then in my mind it very much breaks the latest imposed restrictions. Primefac (talk) 18:32, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

  The fact that he is once again trying to make this about me and not addressing the actual issue even a little bit makes it pretty clear he's not holding that consensus in his back pocket. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:36, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

• Richard, this has gone on for years. It's time to resolve it. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:38, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
• Rich has made no edits outside the mainspace to any discussion that indicates a consensus for the edits in question. From what I can see, if there is a consensus, he himself did not participate in it. --Izno (talk) 18:45, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

  I'm interested to know how you reached that conclusion. All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 18:48, 24 May 2020 (UTC).
  

  One might be forgiven since you hadn't provided that yourself until a minute before I left my comment. Scanning back multiple months to identify mass edits made today is a bit obscene; perhaps you should have included a link to the consensus while making your edits, or performed a BRFA to ensure that your edits could be made without apparently disturbing 8000 pages of watchlists. --Izno (talk) 18:54, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

  The linked discussion is also hardly a demonstrable consensus from the community. It was a low attended discussion on a wikiproject talk page from months ago. I don't think it fits within what the sanction was intending. If that was the case Rich could justify any edit by making a post somewhere where there would be sympathizers. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:57, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

  If you look at the timestamps you can see that that discussion started n the very same day the tban was put into place. Yet it does not seem to mention that what he is asking for is an exemption to a tban to make mass edits. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:00, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

  Nor should it. It's an unbelievably onerous restriction as it is. All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 19:24, 24 May 2020 (UTC).
  

  TonyBallioni Like this thread is posted where there are sympathizers? All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 19:28, 24 May 2020 (UTC).
  

  Izno You are forgiven. If you look at just the Wikipedia talk space you will find it soon enough. All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 19:26, 24 May 2020 (UTC).
  

I think this discussion is ripe for closing, to the extent that I do not that further discussion will yield any change in the ultimate outcome. Cheers! BD2412 T 00:36, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Summary

Beeeblebrox breaks the Arbcom rule, once then a second time. Calls me (or Arbcom) "Lame" in an edit summary. Accuses me of breaking an edit restriction without asking me first. Decides that he is the community. Says he didn't ask me to "stop" because he thought it would be waste of time. Previously accuses me of "delaying tactics", when I actually stopped what I was doing while discussion took place. Generally behaves in a combative way, and refuses to ever engage in substantive detail. This should boomerang. All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 18:40, 24 May 2020 (UTC).

Rich Farmbrough, I'm having a hard time believing that no one has ever discussed your bot-like editing on your talk page before. The "in the first instance" clause has surely been satisfied. – bradv🍁 18:43, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it is. There is never a time to stop being collegial. All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 18:47, 24 May 2020 (UTC).

Rich Farmbrough, sure it's always important to be collegial, but the Arbcom principle is satisfied here. Unless you are claiming you were unaware of these restrictions. – bradv🍁 18:55, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm "claiming" that I didn't break it, and that it would have saved a lot of trouble if Beeblebrox has spoken to me first. All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 18:59, 24 May 2020 (UTC).

Rich Farmbrough, before you made 8000 edits on 4000 pages? Because that was the actual disruption, not this ANI thread. If another admin had seen it you could have easily been mistaken for a bot. We don't typically ask unapproved bots questions before blocking them. – bradv🍁 19:04, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

The claim was that I broke an editing restriction imposed by Beeblebrox. That claim is false. All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 19:09, 24 May 2020 (UTC).

You are incorrect. The restriction was proposed by Beeblebrox and then imposed by the community -- you were the only oppose vote in that discussion. The community's decision was then put into effect by another admin (can't remember who at this moment), not Beeblebrox. You are not violating Beeblebrox's restriction, you are violating a community sanction. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:45, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

The fact that this has to be explained is troubling. Praxidicae (talk) 19:51, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Proposed site ban of Rich Farmbrough

Since there's agreement that this has gone on forever, there's no apparent consensus for his actions which makes it a clear violation of his ban, and he's ignored the warning from last time that future violations may result in an indefinite block, and is personalizing the dispute above, I'm proposing the following:

Rich Farmbrough is indefinitely site banned from the English Wikipedia by the community. This ban may be appealed no earlier than one year after it is imposed.

• Support as proposer TonyBallioni (talk) 18:48, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

  This is why you and Beeblebrox need to slow down. A lot. I have given a link to the consensus above, in reply to the first person who actually asked for it, rather than just assuming that I was making it up. All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 18:51, 24 May 2020 (UTC).
  

As I replied above, the linked discussion was hardly a demonstrable consensus from the community. It was a low attended discussion on a wikiproject talk page from months ago. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:57, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

It was the appropriate forum. It was supported by a similar number that supported the editing restriction. All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 19:04, 24 May 2020 (UTC).

• Support If an editor who has an editing restriction and two blocks for violating it still needs a warning to stop doing the already restricted thing, it seems to me we're past the stage of discussing the restriction and should be discussing whether they're competent enough to edit at all...Praxidicae (talk) 18:50, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

  This is why you and Tony and Beeblebrox need to slow down. A lot. I have given a link to the consensus above, in reply to the first person who actually asked for it, rather than just assuming that I was making it up. All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 18:51, 24 May 2020 (UTC).
  

• Support As I said above this is really just sad, but Rich is making it clear, right in this discussion, that he will determine for himself, using his own methods, what he is and is not to be doing here, and if he gets a couple "thanks" every 10,000 edits or so that makes literally anything he does ok. That's just not an attitude that is compatible with a collaborative project, and there have been far too many second chances already. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:55, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

So you made up an editing restriction, and when I comply with it you double down and support a site ban? Nice. All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 18:57, 24 May 2020 (UTC).

I'll admit that we didn't make it clear in the restriction exactly how you were to ask for permission to make mass edits. I think that is probably because we all knew that you knew perfectly well where to ask, having run automated processes for most of your wiki-career, but I accept my share of the blame for not recognizing the obvious, that you would try and end-run it and wikilawyer around it as you always do. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:26, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support - The community has been through this time and time again. It's a never-ending circle of sanctions, forgiveness, misdeeds, and sanctions again. It's well past time for the circus to stop. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:57, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

  There is consensus for these changes: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities#US Cities - Census info. All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 19:01, 24 May 2020 (UTC).
  

  WP:CONLEVEL applies. Asking on a WikiProject talk page, without going through the normal processes for mass edit requests and without mentioning that you are subject to not one but three pre-existing editing restrictions and are in essence requesting an exemption to some of them doesn't cut it. You kow this, but you play your little "aw shucks I thought I did it right routine every single time this comes up. It's arrogant beyond belief. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:45, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support - It's about time someone put an end to this merry go-round, We're long past forgiveness & sanctions at this point, If you're told to not do something then you don't do it, It's that simple, Anyway Rich isn't going to stop any time soon and I think at this point the communities patience has run out. –Davey2010^Talk 19:02, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I specifically did not do what is being alleged here. All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 19:16, 24 May 2020 (UTC).

• Regretful Support. Unfortunately these issues around automated and semi-automated edits are becoming a time sink. While I think Rich has been a decent editor I do think that this may be the wake up call they need to realize they need to stop digging and just avoid semi-automated & automated editing. Additionally the violation of the editing restriction is very problematic. Respectfully, --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 19:03, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't think a site ban is a "wake up call" - thanks for bringing a smile to my face though. There was no violation of the editing restriction. All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 19:13, 24 May 2020 (UTC).

• 'Oppose There was consensus to make these changes, as requested. All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 19:11, 24 May 2020 (UTC).
  
• Support – Rich has made it abundantly clear that he is not interested in non-automated editing, and the community has made it abundantly clear that they don't want Rich doing automated editing. We are therefore at an impasse, and this is the only way to resolve it. – bradv🍁 19:15, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

People could try being nice. All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 19:17, 24 May 2020 (UTC).

Why would anybody want to be nice. Fuck that. Nick (talk) 19:19, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I know.... All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 19:21, 24 May 2020 (UTC).

Excellent points. But I don't see how being nice would fix the problem at hand. – bradv🍁 19:23, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, perhaps someone could say what they don't like about the improved layout of the demographics section, and why, and those of us who discussed it would try to reach consensus incorporating that feedback. All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 19:32, 24 May 2020 (UTC).

So you could make 8000 more automated edits? No thanks. The only possible alternative to a site ban is a complete ban from automated editing, period. Are you at all interested in that? – bradv🍁 19:38, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

"Interested" is hardly the word I would use, but it is bearable. All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 19:55, 24 May 2020 (UTC).

• Support I appreciate it can be a difficult situation where you start a discussion in an appropriate place and try to ping editors you think may be interested but receive limited feedback with no clear opposes. However there were still options, like an RfC or at least a clearer "I am about to make mass changes in 4 weeks" which could have been tried. And in any case, I think any editor should understand that if they're making mass changes to a lot of articles, relying on this is probably not sufficient to indicate consensus, however you go about getting more feedback. And that's an ordinary editor. I think any editor who has been repeatedly got into trouble for mass changes, to the extent they are under an active sanction because of it, and are even on their final warning should be doubly aware that discussion isn't sufficient. Yet even with all this background, I might have opposed a site ban if Rich Farmbrough had shown any inkling they understood they badly erred yet again. But I see none of that in their replies. Their replies started off bad and haven't really improved. An obvious example is how long it took them to link to what they felt was consensus for their edits. This is not an editor who's showing any real self-awareness or likelihood of improving in the next few weeks. Nil Einne (talk) 19:29, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
• Strong oppose - I came here after seeing these very changes light up my watchlist over the past day (I have hundreds of US community articles watchlisted), and then seeing this proposed siteban pop up on my watchlist not long afterward. I fully agree that Rich shouldn't be making mass edits without consensus behind them. However, I agree with Rich that he was editing based on consensus in this case. At the discussion he linked to, I don't see anyone objecting to his proposed edits. What I see is the five other editors in the discussion broadly agreeing with his proposed edits, and making suggestions about the details of those edits, which he engaged with and mostly incorporated. To me that qualifies as a rough consensus (as opposed to a formal one only because it wasn't in RfC format), but a strong rough consensus as everyone appeared to be mostly or entirely in support. I've read over the details of Rich's editing restrictions and I have to say I don't see a violation here.
  These clunky, autogenerated demographics data dumps were mass inserted by a bot all the way back in 2002, when Wikipedia had less than 100,000 articles and the number of active editors was presumably much smaller, along with Wikipedia's norms and policies being much less well-developed. I don't know what the process for consensus was back then, or if consensus was even sought before running Rambot, but it seems facile to me to insist on a status quo from 2002 against more recent consensus that may have been informal but seems pretty clear from reading the discussion.
  However, if this ban proposal fails and Rich continues editing, I'd advise him to treat this incident as a shot across the bow, and always proceed with an abundance of caution, by notifying all involved editors before running (semi-)automated edits, under any circumstance, and waiting to see if the consensus still holds before proceeding. CJK09 (talk) 19:39, 24 May 2020 (UTC) changed to support, see below CJK09 (talk) 19:47, 24 May 2020 (UTC) Back to oppose upon further reflection and per CaradhrasAiguo below. CJK09 (talk) 20:50, 24 May 2020 (UTC) Upgraded from oppose to strong oppose upon further consideration, after more examination of the discussion at WT:CITIES and looking at this from a more objective angle. CJK09 (talk) 23:34, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

  Furthermore, some sort of boomerang may be appropriate here. CJK09 (talk) 23:39, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

• CJK09, sorry, to be clear, you're suggesting a boomerang on...Beeblebrox? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:20, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

• Premeditated chaos No, Beeblebrox did nothing wrong in filing the ANI report after failing to find the consensus. What concerns me is Tony presenting a ban proposal after Rich has already provided a link to where the consensus was formed; or, if Tony had not yet seen that comment at the time of his ban proposal, striking and withdrawing the proposal after being informed of it. This rigamarole should have ended when Rich posted the link to the discussion where the consensus formed. A boomerang doesn't have to be a block or sanction; it can take the form of a big wet trout. CJK09 (talk) 05:28, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

• Trying again with the ping: Premeditated Chaos. CJK09 (talk) 05:30, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

• Yeah, no. Local consensus several months ago at a WikiProject that those changes should be made in general does not equate to explicit community consensus for Rich to mass-edit to make the changes today. Any of the other participants without editing restrictions could have used AWB to make those changes, but Rich took it upon himself to do so even knowing he had restrictions from mass editing. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:42, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support : Rich knew there was a prohibition on him making mass edits and carried on regardless despite it being obvious how the community would react - and even now he is trying to wikilawyer his way out of any responsibility for his edits, blaming everything on TonyBalloni and Beeblebrox, and browbeating everybody who !votes support. He is treating the community with contempt and effectively is asking for severe actions to be taken.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:35, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support Unfortunately, his signature summarizes his attitude towards what the community wants. --Rschen7754 19:37, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

That I wish you the best? Or that I am "apparently calm and reasonable" - the latter is Beeblebrox's spin on - I guess, calm and reasonable. All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 19:48, 24 May 2020 (UTC).

• Support. It has been going on for too long. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:43, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support - enough is enough. I'd also support the alternative of a complete ban on automated editing. stwalkerster (talk) 19:45, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support - after reading Rich's bullheaded responses above, I can no longer oppose. This has been going on forever and even if he was technically correct in this case, he doesn't seem to understand the fact that the community by and large does not want him making mass edits. CJK09 (talk) 19:47, 24 May 2020 (UTC) Back to oppose upon further reflection and per CaradhrasAiguo below. CJK09 (talk) 20:50, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support A sparsely attended WikiProject page in which he canvassed the participants by pinging them is not the “demonstrable consensus of the community that he is explicitly permitted” to make mass changes that the editing restriction demands. Rich Farmbrough has never accepted his restriction and has no intention of abiding by it. He has no interest in editing Wikipedia outside of making mass minor changes to articles. Time-limited blocks have proven ineffective, therefore a site ban is the only solution. P-K3 (talk) 19:49, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

• I do not see evidence RF canvassed the participants here, and in any case, 1) the changes proposed match those seen in the latest actual edits 2) the users pinged such as Alansohn have voluminous respectable work in that WikiProject. 3) Using one's own definition of demonstrable consensus of the community that he is explicitly permitted appears to be regrettable "moving the goal posts", especially if there is no linkage to RF's prior unblock discussions that informal WikiProject discussions do not constitute "community consensus". As I understand, WP:CONLEVEL applies to cases where WikiProjects intend to override community-accepted policies or guidelines. That is nowhere near the case here. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 20:25, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I don’t see “explicit permission” in that discussion. His topic ban is not even mentioned. P-K3 (talk) 22:20, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support I respect the work Rich has done with the project over time. However, he has been told numerous times, including by the community, to stop. Enough is enough. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:50, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support - Game over. The block log also shows that the editor had received more than enough chances to change. Rich continues to play the misunderstood victim. While his block log and comments above and below points to a repeat offender without insight into his own behaviour. BabbaQ (talk) 20:07, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support. This is the only way for Rich to be calm and reasonable. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:41, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support The community has made it crystal clear several times that we do not want Rich Farmbrough carrying out rapid-fire bot-like edits and yet he continues in defiance of community consensus. The passive-aggessive "nice guy" wikilawyering in this discussion convinced me to support this site ban instead of another editing restriction. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:53, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support We were just here in April over this same sort of thing. And it's repeating the same process ... over and over... --Ealdgyth (talk) 20:58, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
• Not that it will make much difference, but I oppose a siteban in favor of a community-wide prohibition against any and all mass edits. Numerous editors have said that the community doesn't want Rich to make mass edits, but so far he has only been prohibited from doing so in cases where he has no consensus for his edits. It's borderline, but one could plausibly argue that he had consensus for these edits. However, he carried these edits into effect very clumsily, thus demonstrating that a full restriction is probably necessary. I agree that Rich's behavior in this thread has left much to be desired, but I suspect few of us would react with maximum grace if we were about to be site banned. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:03, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose considering that there was a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cities#US_Cities_-_Census_info. Whether that is a consensus or not may be up for debate, considering the project talk page the discussion was on is an appropriate place to have the discussion, but I don't think it's fair to say that Rich just did these mass edits out of the blue. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:11, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

• Actually, under his current sanction, there must be a "demonstrable consensus" that he be "explicitly" allowed to make the edits. In other words, the onus is on Rich to show that consensus is valid, it's not on the community to do so. Rich made no such effort -- even here, he barely deigned to show that there was a discussion about it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:17, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support. The edits are clearly in violation of the spirit of the restriction in the first place, and we've been here way too many times. At some point it's either a competence issue, or a willful disregard for anyone else's concerns. Neither is compatible with continued editing after all these attempts to ameliorate it have failed. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 21:18, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support This has been going on for years. Rich earns a ban through WP:CONSENSUS. Time passes and then RF goes right back to the editing behavior that brought about the previous bans. Enough in this instance is far far more than enough. MarnetteD|Talk 21:21, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose not sure if I can vote here but this caught my eye as I've seen Rich work in the past. Per arbcom ruling:Rich Farmbrough is not permitted to make any mass changes to articles (...) without a demonstrable consensus from the community that he is explicitly permitted to do so.. He demonstrably A. made mass changes and B. had the required consensus here. Site banning a user against such demonstrably false grounds seems madness to me. Banned for following the ruling against him?! Am I missing something here? -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 21:36, 24 May 2020 (UTC) p.s. agree with CaradhrasAiguo's comment above. Although I don't see his oppose vote. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 21:41, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
• Weak oppose per Lepricavark. A case could be made that he sought, and received, consensus on the WikiProject Cities talk page. (Is it common sense that a mass editing campaign of this magnitude should receive consensus at a highly-visible noticeboard, not just a WikiProject talk page? ...Probably, but we didn't mention it in the restriction.) We should really just restrict all mass editing, without any exceptions. Enterprisey (talk!) 21:42, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose, as by my reading on it he had a "demonstrable consensus". The overall discussion at WikiProject Cities is constructive and positive about the plan. If we don't want Rich Farmbrough doing mass edits, we should explicitly ban him from performing all mass edits, without any wiggle room - the rather cumbersomely-worded restriction that was actually enacted gives him a clear gap to obtain consensus for mass edits. If people think his skirting of the restriction is itself evidence of bad faith and worthy of a site ban, so be it - but I do not think this is a technical breach of the restriction. "Demonstrable consensus" is not an onerous bar to cross, there's clearly a comfortable local consensus, and it clearly can be "demonstrated". I think the edits at their core were helpful. ~ mazca ^talk 21:55, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per Mazca and my comment above. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 22:09, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support This has gone on long enough. Every single time this discussion takes place, it's always everyone other than Rich who are in the wrong. If he doesn't want to hold himself accountable, then the community should step in and do it for him. It is obvious, as well, that he is using some form of assisted software, which is likely an "unofficial" version of AWB. This also violates his editing restriction. Nihlus 22:17, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose The discussion at WP:CITIES, which was engaged in before these edits, convinces me that this was good work, achieved with collegiality, in-line with the restriction. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:24, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per Mazca and Gtoffoletto above. I oppose because he was complying with his editing restriction as he had sought consensus for his mass edits first which is required by his editing restriction, he has literally done nothing wrong.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:31, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose, I think he genuinely believed that he was complying with his editing restrictions. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:36, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support I appreciate the effort below with Enterprisey trying to find an alternative way to keep Rich around but eliminate the primary issue that has us here today, unfortunately I do not believe Rich is capable of the necessary restraint needed to comply with binding editing restriction designed to eliminate automated editing. I fully expect if a binding editing restriction on automated editing was to pass in preference to a site ban, we will be back at ANI in a matter of days debating what constitutes an automated edit, with Rich arguing that him using an electric motor to turn a prosthetic finger to press Enter on a keyboard doesn't constitute automated editing, or something equally tenuous. The real reason we are here today isn't strictly to do with automated editing, it's about Rich's lack of respect for the community, it's about him thinking that rules don't apply to him, it's about him finding ways to lawyer around existing community sanctions. It's a respect issue. We're here because Rich doesn't respect other editors. He doesn't respect our right to be able to edit with out poorly written scripts messing up pages. He doesn't respect our right to be able to edit without watchlists being flooded with thousands of small edits. He doesn't respect what the community tells him to do and what not to do. He doesn't even respect the community enough to avoid canvassing over at WT:CITIES. And I genuinely believe he will not respect any further editing restriction. The only option we have, given the exceptional lack of respect Rich has shown us, is to ban Rich. I therefore sadly and reluctantly endorse the motion to ban Rich. Nick (talk) 22:38, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. The discussion at WT:CITIES was, in my opinion, them complying with the editing restrictions. I do not want to support a site ban for an editor which tried to follow their edit restrictions. I instead support the proposed editing restriction as it keeps them away from mass edits and allows constructive contributions. If the proposed editing restriction is implemented and they also break it, I would encourage and support a siteban. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 23:09, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. Limitations on editing are one thing, but a site ban is uncalled for here. BD2412 T 23:22, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per Dreamy Jazz above. Rich Farmbrough has explained why they in their opinion the edits were not in breach of the restriction, and the discussion at CITIES bears that out. Clarifying the restriction as per below is the way to go, and I'm saddened that experienced admins like Tony and Beeblebrox are not assuming good faith here when a valid explanation has been offered. I hope they will reconsider, and instead support the motion below. Of course, at that point if repeat violations take place after the clarification then a ban would be justified.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:26, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per Mazca, DJ, Amakuru and others above. The discussion at WT:Cities looks to me like Rich complying with his restriction. I understand there was a problem before that led to that restriction, but I don't see how these edits are problematic. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 23:31, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per Gtoffoletto. Carrite (talk) 23:35, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per Lepricavark and many others. I don't think this requires a site ban. Natureium (talk) 23:37, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - Overkill, and it's not even clear Rich violated any restriction here. Given all of the various trips to noticeboards, arbcom, etc., however, I don't know why he's still making semi-automated edits at all. I certainly wouldn't be. But I don't see anything for a siteban here. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:51, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support - Rich clearly lacks the competence required to use the AWB tools, let alone contribute to the site constructively or to follow community sanctions. MiasmaEternal^TALK 00:14, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose While I admit I’m not familiar with RF’s previous issues that required his restrictions, I do believe he had sufficient consensus to make these changes to census information in US cities. Reywas92^Talk 00:18, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - There is sufficient evidence that a consensus was obtained, and so the restrictions were adhered to. The shifting goal posts are disappointing: "You didn't have consensus" -> *points at consensus* -> "That consensus doesn't count because I don't approve of the forum/you violated the spirit of the restriction/you violated a restriction that you're not actually under". Mr rnddude (talk) 00:27, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - Rich sought consensus and obtained it, which is specifically allowed by the ArbCom ruling. I find the Wikihounding that Rich is enduring to be a far greater concern. Nobody deserves that sort of treatment.--MarshalN20 ^✉🕊 01:59, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose overly draconian solution. Ideally I'd put a governor on the edit rate of his main account but unfortunately that isn't yet part of the partial-block toolkit. The governor would be lifted after test runs are reviewed and approved – isn't that what WP:BRFA is for? wbm1058 (talk) 02:32, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
• Strong oppose per Mr rnddude. This proposal is absurd. Cjhard (talk) 02:35, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose This is a process violation opposed by our bureaucracy class. No arguments are presented as to why the edits were bad or if they are being reverted. It just appears as if a group wants to enforce bureaucratic restrictions rather than improve the encyclopedia. WP is not a bureaucracy and absent abuse presented in the form of diffs of problematic edits, this is an improper remedy. It is not okay to just oppose how an edit was done. There has been no evidence that the content of these edits were improper. ConstantPlancks (talk) 02:39, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per IAR and BTW and per Constant Plancks comment just above. That said, I'd strongly advise Rich to find something else to do or appeal his restriction, because even if this time he is not blocked, I doubt he will be lucky again and again. English Wikipedia community likes its rules and hates those who violate them, even if they do it for a good reason. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:09, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Having reviewed the facts, I believe a sufficient consensus was obtained, and that no breach occurred. SportingFlyer T·C 05:16, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose as there was consensus for the changes. Peter James (talk) 09:12, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose a site ban is our most draconian resort which should be reserved the the deliberate, malice-aforethought vandals and trolls or those that have demonstrated such unconscionable incompetence that their very presence damages the encyclopedia. RF, however, falls into neither category: if there was clear-cut evidence that he was making these edits without consensus, then he'd fall into the former. But since it is clear that there was some form of of community consensus—maybe a small and poorly formed one, but still a consensus—then he has broken it seems, neither the letter nor the spirit of his restrictions. If the consensus the community originally wanted him to edit by was a 50-strong, 24-hour WP:AN thread for every edit run, then it should have been explicit about that at the time; but complaining after the event that the consensus he edited by was, actually, not good enough in retrospect, is mealymouthed to say the least.
  Having said that; Rich Farmbrough, how about taking six months away from mass-editing, consensus or no consensus, for the good of your health...might be safer that way. ——Serial ^# 11:42, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose there's a million people that warrant a site ban, Rich is not one of them. There's a zillion other alternatives to that outcome. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:28, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. (Disclosure: My actions, in part, resulted in RF's last block) The sanction prohibited editing without "a demonstrable consensus from the community that he is explicitly permitted to do so". It is my opinion that the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cities#US_Cities_-_Census_info does not contain a consensus with explicit permission (indeed, I don't see explicit support of making mass changes from any participant (but please point it out to me if I missed something)). Additionally, I believe RF's editing violated the bot policy. Nevertheless, I believe an indefinite site-ban is not warranted -- it simply does not fit the "crime" (or, more accurately, the series thereof).

Rich: I would like to offer a counterfactual. Suppose that, on March 7th, instead of starting right away, you instead filed a BRFA. You would have complied with the relevant policy and your editing restriction. I know that Wikipedia is not (supposed to be) a bureaucracy, but 1) it is, and 2) even if it wasn't, more CYA wouldn't hurt.

Best, --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 14:57, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose per Serial Number 54129; there might have been a poor quality consensus, but I have no reason to doubt that they percieved there to be a consenus in good faith. ~~ Alex Noble/1-2/TRB 17:52, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose: The project page discussion showed appropriate consensus being sought and formed for this set of changes, which negates the rationale offered for this ban proposal. AllyD (talk) 20:30, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose: Per above. There was consensus for the changes. I agree that it would have been good to have more formal consensus, but there was consensus. A site ban would be very heavy handed in this case, which clarification on what constitutes consensus is what is really needed. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:23, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose: The formal proposal which is refered to at the beginning of this section appears ambiguous or in conflict with itself. Firstly, it states Rich Farmbrough is not permitted to make any mass changes to articles, broadly construed, and regardless of editing method, cosmetic or not, without a demonstrable consensus from the community that he is explicitly permitted to do so. Then it continues Further, he is entirely prohibited from using Auto Wiki Browser or directly making any edits to Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Template redirects or any other page related to the governance and use of automated or semi-automated tools. Any such changes desired must be proposed on the appropriate talk page, and may only be enacted by other parties. The first sentence appears to give Rich Farmbrough the freedom of mass edits, provided he obtained consensus. The next sentences appear to contradict this by not permitting any mass changes even if consensus is obtained. Consensus has been obtained through a proposal which was posted on 11 January 2020 and which found until today no opposition. The mass edits in question appear to follow this proposal. While it may be risky or unwise to test out ambiguous restrictions given the long history including the arbcom decision from 2012 and all the f'ups, it does not seem justified to base a permanent ban on such a self-contradicting restriction. --AFBorchert (talk) 06:33, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose, as RF sought consensus at a relevant WikiProject page.--Eostrix (talk) 09:09, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose: When I look at the block log I see how close a siteban may be (how else to stop someone who won't)? On the other hand I did read the discussion at the WikiProject page and it seems that the proposed changes were debated with compromises and no obvious opposition. Moreover, mass editing in relation to this project stopped whenever a complaint was issued. —PaleoNeonate – 20:55, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose: It's Draconian, I agree with Serial# and wbm1058. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 04:29, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. Seems we all have a part to play in this dramatic sequel to RF's past editorial flights. I see nothing here to warrant such harsh treatment of an awesome Wikipedian. I do see, understand and respect the arguments of those who want the site ban, and yet I must continue to back RF while questionable wording of guides and restrictions continues to be the norm. Can't help thinking that RF brings this down upon himself either consciously or unconsciously in an effort to actually improve things 'round here. Hope that's not a "spoiler"!>) P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 04:57, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose: RF was told not to make bulk edits without consensus so he sought and obtained agreement at the relevant wikiproject. Not a reason to ban him. PamD 06:26, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose The poorly worded editing restriction seems to leave enough leeway, that a reasonable person would think that Rich met the requirements in the restriction. The real issue is that restriction is horrifically worded. Why not have one with about 10 words that says "banned from mass editing". I'll leave it to others to decide if there should be a change to the restriction. Nfitz (talk) 06:53, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Proposed editing restriction on Rich Farmbrough

As an alternative to the above, I propose:

Rich Farmbrough is indefinitely banned from making mass changes or automated edits to any page, with no exceptions.

Enterprisey (talk!) 21:53, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support this is the fairest outcome. Rich was arguably within the bounds of his prior sanctions, so banning him seems too harsh. But by strengthening the restriction, we leave no doubt for next time. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:13, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support – It doesn't appear that Rich has much interest in doing non-automated editing (per my conversation with him above). I also don't trust his judgement when it comes to automated editing, but it is worth acknowledging that he has some skill in this area. I would therefore support this, as well as an additional clause allowing him to make automated or mass edits through an bot account approved at WP:BRFA, which would ensure appropriate supervision of his edits. – bradv🍁 22:26, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support, this way there can be no ambiguity over whether he has obtained consensus for his changes. If he wants to make a mass change, he should propose it and have someone else do it. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:36, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support as a second choice. And with the requirement that enforcement of this editing restriction is only an indefinite block and mandatory discussion at ANI. There should be no short blocks or administrator discretion. This is an alternative to a site ban. It is a step away from a site ban. If Rich is sanctioned under this, it should be obvious we reconvene here and formalise the indefinite block into a site ban. Nick (talk) 22:41, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support - I'm not someone who is likely to have to deal with these mass edits, nor have I participated in the previous discussions that led to the restrictions, so my opinion should have little weight here. However, I feel that Rich can be credited with good faith if not abundant clue in "seeking consensus" in this instance; the edits in question are actually useful (at least I haven't seen anyone claim otherwise yet); and while he may have a blind spot when it comes to realizing that people just don't want him to do mass edits, he clearly has the benefits of the encyclopedia at heart. Put a firm ban on mass edits and let him contribute further. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:44, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support, but NOT as an alternative - I do not support this as an alternative to a site ban, but as a sanction to have in place if the site ban passes, Rich appeals, and the appeal is granted. Also, on the off chance that the site ban does not pass (crazier things have happened) it's better to have this then to have nothing at all. Still, if the site ban doesn't pass, Rich needs to be blocked for some period of time for violating the current sanction. To make it abundantly clear, Rich does not deserve to be given any more rope, nercy, or other considerations, given his past history of violating sanction after sanction, showing his disdain for the community. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:50, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support per my comment above. stwalkerster (talk) 22:57, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Support. I don't love the bot exemption that Bradv suggested - unless someone will devote time to making sure that "Rich Farmbot" actually stays within the letter and spirit of its BRFAs I fully expect it to be gamed eventually - but my support would stand if that exemption were added to the proposal. creffett (talk) 23:02, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

• Reluctant support only if the site ban proposal fails, as I can see wikilawyering over what an automated edit is and what a mass change is. P-K3 (talk) 23:05, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

  That could be potentially be handled by defining clear bright lines in the editing restriction. For example: any edits performed at a rate of more than 5 per minute (or whatever rate makes sense to use) are automatically considered automated edits. And any set of edits to multiple pages making the same systematic changes counts as "mass edits". CJK09 (talk) 23:11, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

• Really? The lines in this restriction are pretty damn bright and clear, but Rich managed to violate it:

Rich Farmbrough is not permitted to make any mass changes to articles, broadly construed, and regardless of editing method, cosmetic or not, without a demonstrable consensus from the community that he is explicitly permitted to do so. Further, he is entirely prohibited from using Auto Wiki Browser or directly making any edits to Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Template redirects or any other page related to the governance and use of automated or semi-automated tools. Any such changes desired must be proposed on the appropriate talk page, and may only be enacted by other parties. This sanction does not replace or nullify other pre-existing sanctions on this user, and may be appealed no sooner than one year from the date it was approved by the community.

It is not possible to craft an editing restriction in such a way that someone who wants to violate it, or has no respect for the authority which placed it (i.e. the community) cannot break it. The only way to do that is with an indef block or a site ban. Ultimately, lesser sanctions rely on the desire of the editor to work within the system, they count on it because we cannot possibly monitor every sanction placed on every editor 24/7. We AGF that they're going to follow it, and hope for the best. Rich has disappointed us time and time again in that respect. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:20, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

"Demonstrable consensus" may seem like a bright line, but clearly not, given that Rich is now being unfairly raked over the coals for achieving consensus at the "wrong forum" and "too long ago". Clearly that doesn't work, because threads like this will pop up regardless. The nice thing about numerically based restrictions is you can't argue them. Five edits with the same hh:mm timestamp, you're blocked. The same edit made to multiple pages, blocked. Easy peasy.

To be clear, I oppose this editing restriction, because it would be punishing Rich for following his already existing restrictions. But if one does go into effect, quantitative limits are better than qualitative limits. CJK09 (talk) 23:42, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

CJK09, whether or not he followed the existing restriction, it's clear from this discussion that the restriction is not sufficient. That's why a clearer solution is being proposed. – bradv🍁 23:44, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support. I like and admire Rich, but he has been drinking in the last chance saloon for a long time on this. Guy (help!) 23:07, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose WP:ROPE consistently proves itself to be the best friend of disruptive editors who use it to justify wasting more of the community’s time. If this passes it will be another three violations until he’s indef’d, and how much community time will be wasted between now and then. No, he canvassed to attempt to avoid a site ban and wikilawyered and bludgeoned everyone above. This is not someone we want here. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:11, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: Could you clear up the reasoning why you think he should be indef'd at all? You said: Since there's agreement that this has gone on forever, there's no apparent consensus for his actions which makes it a clear violation of his ban, and he's ignored the warning from last time that future violations may result in an indefinite block, and is personalizing the dispute above, I'm proposing the following: Consensus has been brought forth and it is clearly demonstrable that there was no violation here. I don't think you have made the case against Rich at all. Especially for an indefinite site ban. He should not be punished at all unless it is clear what he is being punished for. What are we voting here? If we like Rich or not? -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 23:28, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Until he canvassed support, no, it has not been proven. Also, I would rather the current restriction exist if the site ban fails than pass a half-measure. The biggest problem the English Wikipedia has is that we insist on giving people who are incompatible with a collaborative project every chance to prove that. I'd rather not give Rich yet more chances to prove that by passing this alternative. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:43, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: I'm sorry but I have no idea of the history of Rick's behaviour. So I am judging this purely on what I see here. There is substantial discussion and consensus here: [218] so no apparent violation of his restriction. Are you contesting the edits that have been made? Or the consensus? It seems like he pinged some users involved with those topics (and even admins). The discussion started on the 11th of January so it's been there a while. Doesn't seem like much of a reckless behaviour here. On the contrary. He even posted a couple of test edits on the 7 March 2020. Could you explain your view more clearly? I still fail to see a problem here. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 23:57, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Gtoffoletto, Beeblebrox pointed this out earlier, but basically Rich has a long history of Wikilawyering in order to treat Wikipedia as a laboratory for bots. The discussion you link to was on a relatively obscure page, and he made no mention of the fact that he was being sanctioned in a way that would have prevented the edits at the same time. Basically he picked a page that he could point to if this ever came up to do a mass bot run without there being an actual community consensus. Beeblebrox is likely more aware of the history here than I am (also, sorry Beebs for calling out the ROPE essay above... but I figured you already know I'm not a fan ) TonyBallioni (talk) 00:02, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: I understand there is some history here. But in this case, that was not an "obscure page". It was a very relevant project page where several editors participated. He made some test edits and nobody complained. And the discussion went on for months. He used some software to help him out? Good on him. Why should we waste his time in doing some useful work he has consensus for? I think your proposal is not clear on what Rich's wrongdoing was and therefore voting is not very relevant/valid. The case against him has not been made. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 00:23, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I consider Wikiproject talk pages to generally be obscure: they're echo chambers and not many people watch them. I don't think he has consensus for those changes: this discussion shows that at the very least, and if he were to make them going forward, it certainly would be a violation then since the larger community doesn't approve of them. I also don't think a wikiproject can authorize him to go around larger community consensus. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:26, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I would add, as I mentioned above, that he opened that discussion on the very day the tban was put into place, but failed to mention that he was asking for an exemption to a topic ban. While the ban did not specify that he absolutely had to note this, it seems pretty bad-faith/sneaky to not even mention it. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:19, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I think we are moving the goal posts significantly here. Which is very unfair. See my general comment below. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 11:53, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support per my comments in my oppose to the site ban and that this resolves ambiguity for both the community and Rich. I am neutral over allowing Rich to run BRFA approved tasks, as this proposed editing restriction in the end is to remove ambiguity, but BRFA is structured and has BAG members to ensure that the task is fine. Therefore, I support this proposed restriction whether or not it allows BRFA tasks. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 23:20, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

  To expand why I support this proposed editing restriction is the large error rate (see Primefac's comment for the statistics). Around 47% of all edits made in this mass editing run (22nd May to 24th May) were fixing errors introduced by previous edits in the mass editing run. BRFA (from experience as a bot operator) helps you find issues with a bot through trial runs and comments from others. In this case, a BRFA before Rich can make these mass edits will help to find issues in proposed edits before they occur. The structured nature of BRFA will ensure that proposed mass edits are properly reviewed first. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 23:58, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose Demonstrable consensus means there was no violation here. No violation means there is no case for any punishment. Or is there? Are the edits problematic? Nobody seems to object to them and there was consensus. Why should Rick be sanctioned at all then? -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 23:28, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

  Gtoffoletto, he is not supposed to be using software to make edits, yet he is, whether he admits to it or not. Nihlus 23:30, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

  @Nihlus: That's not what the arbcom decision states though: [219] -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 23:40, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

  Gtoffoletto, Yes, it does: ...he is entirely prohibited from using Auto Wiki Browser... He is essentially using the AWB software but it's not labeling the edits as such. Regardless of what you call it, he is banned from using it. Nihlus 00:04, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

  Nihlus it does not state that he is not supposed to be using software to make edits. He can't use that specific software, which by the way doesn't make any sense. That restriction is poorly worded. If he is not restricted from doing automated edits if he has consensus. Why should he be prohibited from using that specific software? In any case, he is using something else so no problems here as well. No violation. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 00:17, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

  Gtoffoletto, I'm sorry if you fail to see that the semantics don't matter. Nihlus 00:38, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

  Nihlus one sentence says he can make automated edits with consensus. The next one that he should not use AWB. If you take the second sentence to mean "all software" how is he supposed to make automated edits then? Using an army of slaves? Hamsters spinning wheels that press buttons? :-) The restriction is just poorly worded. But that's not Rich's fault. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 11:22, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

  The point is that he cannot be trusted to interpret consensus, and making changes to thousands of pages requires more than the lightly attended discussion on that WikiProject. Note that I opposed a siteban above because I don't think he willfully violated the restriction, he thought he had a consensus when he really didn't. Because he isn't capable of judging consensus reliably, we need to refine the editing restriction in a way that removes discretion from his hands. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:18, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

• Leaning oppose. The unpleasant fact of the matter is that there are some tasks which require mass editing, which can not be done by a bot because some measure of judgment is required, and which editors who focus on content creation would not be interested in carrying out. In short, we need editors who are willing to do these kinds of tasks when they need to be done. I would not support an absolute blanket ban on one such editor. I believe that we can effectively craft a set of restrictions that would prevent the undertaking of controversial tasks involving disruptive edits (e.g., requiring a consensus-based discussion closed by an uninvolved third party resulting in agreement that a task is to be undertaken within specified parameters). BD2412 T 23:29, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

  BD2412, that was my reason for proposing the BRFA exemption. If using a bot account to make these automated mass edits is not a workable solution, perhaps they should be done by someone else instead. – bradv🍁 23:31, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

  Well, sure, it sounds good to say "they should be done by someone else", but by who? We don't assign work to anyone, and I see few editors clamoring to undertake manual repairs on this large a scale. BD2412 T 00:42, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

  BD2412, WP:BOTREQ and WP:AWBREQ work just fine. Also, notice how a certain individual is offering to help at the AWB requests page. Nihlus 00:58, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose per Gtoffoletto. Rich is being raked over the coals despite the fact that he clearly followed his editing restrictions in this case. However, I suggest that going forward Rich should only make mass edits based on formal consensus (such as an RfC) and not on informal consensus, to avoid more brouhahas like this. And if a restriction does go into effect, I suggest it include bright lines like the ones I defined in a reply above. CJK09 (talk) 23:32, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose firstly I am against anything that has zero exceptions. Also, if Rich participated in a discussion at the cities project and got consensus there why should he then be sanctioned considering he didn't do anything wrong? He wasn't to make mass edits without consensus, he sought consensus and made edits. He was then brought here and now he's being sanctioned?? That doesn't seem right. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 23:33, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - In the last discussion, I expressed concerns about Rich's editing. But I look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities#US Cities - Census info and see Rich complying with his editing restrictions. That thread shows me that the current editing restrictions work. I don't see cause to expand them. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 23:36, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per Gtoffoletto. Carrite (talk) 23:36, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support. This seems like a more reasonable measure that's appropriate to disruption that has occured in the past. Natureium (talk) 23:37, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. There is no evidence that he did anything wrong, he complied with his editing restriction so since he did nothing wrong it makes little sense to punish him for complying with his restrictions. If anything he deserves recognition and encouragement to keep up the good work in complying with his restrictions. Seems some editors misunderstood his restrictions and piled on.... Rich deserves an apology after all of this.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:48, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - I see Rich is subject to a restriction, and it's not clear that he has even violated that restriction. I certainly think that Rich should voluntarily just stop trying to make semi-automated edits given all of the -- no, run away and not look back from -- semi-automated edits, given how frequently problematic it's been for him. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:54, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Rhododendrite, while I'm opposing this for the opposite reason than you (I think a new sanction would just reset the clock so site ban or nothing is better). It's not true that he's never violated the sanction. I blocked him for two weeks in April for violations of it. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:56, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
    • Hmm. Wasn't talking about ever, but here. This section was started concerning a batch of edits that he did look to have consensus for. It's not so typical that we see proposals for sanctions (and even a siteban!) based on "yeah, well, he's done stuff in the past, even if this time it wasn't actually a violation". — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:01, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose I could see if someone wanted to propose notice provisions on the User for discussions where the editing consensus is being discussed (like, 'also put a neutral notice on VPP') but that's not this. We know we have things like demographic tables that need to be fixed across, limited, but important, parts of the project -- and for those familiar with the U.S. decennial census, we know we have to get those parts of the house, in order, now, and not wait. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:05, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
• Weak oppose There was clear support for RF’s changes to city census info so I don’t think this violated his sanctions, but perhaps RF should seek third-party discussion closure in the future to ensure the intended edits are consistent with them. Reywas92^Talk 00:28, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support regardless of whether the full ban passes. If he is banned, he should not be allowed to just come back and start doing the same stuff that wasted so much of the community's time. The wikilawyering is extremely tiresome and this leaves no loopholes to be exploited. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:16, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support. As a bot operator, the first thing that should have crossed his mind, especially given the multitudes of restrictions and complaints made in the past, was to set this project up as a BRFA and gotten his bot to run it. A BRFA would demonstrate that there is consensus and gives accountability for the edits, as well as a trial period that would have caught the errors made before it was 400 pages into the run. There is zero reason for him to have made this series (or any of the most recent series) of edits from his main account. I don't know yet how I feel about the indef proposal, but if it does fail this is the only way forward that makes any sense. Note that in deference to some of the above objections to this proposal, I am coming at this mainly from a BAG perspective, and the fact that Rich has a track record of running a bot and can avoid these sorts of issues by using it instead of mass-editing (some would even say MEATBOT) with his primary account. Primefac (talk) 02:17, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support, not as an alternative to the proposed site ban but as a supplement to it. It seems that quite a few editors here are not familiar with Rich's very long history of disruption related to bot edits and bot-like edits, and his many blocks for variations of the same behavior. I have been editing for almost 11 years and this has come up over and over and over again. That lack of familiarity with the history results in a lenient attitude from those editors that I do not believe is justified in this case.Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:30, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose This is a process violation opposed by our bureaucracy class. No arguments are presented as to why the edits were bad or if they are being reverted. It just appears as if a group wants to enforce bureaucratic restrictions rather than improve the encyclopedia. WP is not a bureaucracy and absent abuse presented in the form of diffs of problematic edits, this is an improper remedy. It is not okay to just oppose how an edit was done. There has been no evidence that the content of these edits were improper. RF should avail himself of the resources and review of the bot community but restrictions for the sake of restrictions is unneeded bureaucracy. ConstantPlancks (talk) 02:41, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose overly draconian solution. I would support a restriction on the editing rate of his main account with escalating blocks for violations. Bot-like tasks should be run only after WP:BRFA approval which would temporarily lift the editing-rate restriction only for the duration of the approved semi-automated task. wbm1058 (talk) 02:57, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose I also think this is a bit too draconian. There's a problem, but it could either be solved by an edit rate restriction, or by clarifying that they may only make changes after an RfC has been specifically closed. Dial it back and I'll support. SportingFlyer T·C 05:18, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support whatever happens with the site ban, largely per my (continued) support of the site ban. I think there's no realistic chance for Rich Farmbrough to continue to make mass edits, since they apparently even after all this time don't understand that such mass editing tends to be more problematic in numerous ways than making singular edits so the sort of discussions which may demonstrate consensus for one or a few edits are probably insufficient if you're planning to make thousands of edits. If they aren't site banned, this is therefore the best path forward. If they are site banned, while we could just make it part of the appeal it would be better to make it clear now so any plan they make for return is with this understanding. Nil Einne (talk) 05:19, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support - Since the community seems willing to give the editor a 20th chance I think the strongest possible restriction is in order. BabbaQ (talk) 08:51, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose The discussion that led to the restriction was about edits that were seen as unnecessary; there was no similar concern when this was discussed. There were errors in some of the edits, not the first time this has happened but the typo was in the first edits linked at WT:CITIES before mass editing started and not noticed; the other error seems to have not happened consistently and could only have been prevented with a more detailed description of the proposed changes. I wouldn't oppose a modification of the restriction to require WP:BRFA or similar approval. Peter James (talk) 09:55, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support restrictions on WP:MEATBOT mass changes, but Oppose all automated editing. If they run an approved bot with the corresponding BRFA, that's fine. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:33, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. (see my disclosure above). I would rewrite and add exceptions, see below. --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 15:36, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support per Primefac and others above. Rich's mass editing has to stop, otherwise we will be here at ANI again in near future.--Darwinek (talk) 22:46, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose: I would support having a higher bar before making mass edits, or having restrictions on the overall edit rate, but I don't think we need to ban mass edits entirely. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:26, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

  Plastikspork, would a requirement to use their bot for mass edits (I interpret "no mass edits" only applying to his primary account) be reasonable? Primefac (talk) 01:12, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

  Primefac, that seems reasonable. I didn't think that Rich was still operating any bots, but the only one I was aware of was User:SmackBot aka User:Helpful Pixie Bot which hasn't been active since 2017. If he is still operating two accounts with AWB, the outcome is probably similar, although the bot would require a BRFA, which would be more formal. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:53, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support this restriction, precisely because it has zero exceptions. I am undecided as to the ban, but it is clear that Rich, unlike many editors, cannot be trusted to request permission to do mass editing. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:42, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose as making mass changes or automated edits to any page has no clear definition. If something is to be learnt from this old conflict is that definitions are required that can be easily verified. We have no definition for mass changes nor is it always clear what constitutes an automatic edit. A definition or restriction could possibly restrict the editing rate (how many edits per minute) and/or the maximal number of articles which are subject to a series of similar edits within some time frame. And there should be a solution for cases where a consensus has been found and where WP:BOTREQ (or similar) does not provide help. --AFBorchert (talk) 07:04, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support - Better definitions were necessary in the original restriction, but it is also clear that Rich is trying to wikilawyer and game the system. The results of his actions are detrimental to the project. --WMSR (talk) 01:15, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppoze. No, not good enough. There just isn't a substantial enough argument to warrant even this harsh a treatment of an awesome Wikipedian. I'd move to strike this entire discussion from the face of this page if I didn't think it will probably lead to strong and subtle improvements in the way we do things to handle such issues. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 05:03, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

OK I am leaving this discussion with shocked sadness

I have always respected the different opinions of Wikipedian, even when they have resulted in things I considered undesirable.

I am amazed and disappointed that there seems to be unanimity against the facts.

I request that whoever implements the block does me the courtesy of allowing me to archive my talk page first.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 19:52, 24 May 2020 (UTC).

Very nice of you to canvass the board you claimed gave you consensus for this. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:18, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

It's hardly canvassing to inform a WikiProject that you'll be stopping to work on a task. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:37, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Subsection moved to bottom, to make the two voting sections adjacent. Enterprisey (talk!) 22:07, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I'd just like to add this: What does it say when a user, upon having a third editing restriction added, (after many previous restrictions from the community and the ArbCom for the exact same thing) has as their very first thought upin being restriced yet again "how do I get around this?" and is so arrogant that they see the evidence that they immediately tried to find ways out of the ban as evidence that they were right to do so several months later, without going through the normal community processes for automated mass editing that they were already provably very aware of? Beeblebrox (talk) 05:40, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

WP:BRFA is specifically for bots, not for all mass editing. For changes such as these, it mentions "WP:Village pump (proposals) and the talk pages of the relevant policies, guidelines, templates, and/or WikiProjects" as where to seek consensus before making a bot request. If consensus is required for mass editing without a bot request, and no process is specified in the restriction, this is probably the closest we have to advice on where it can be achieved. There is no Wikipedia:Mass changes or Wikipedia:Mass editing guideline, and the community noticeboard was closed in 2007. Peter James (talk) 09:09, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

@Peter James: I have made a rough start at Wikipedia:Mass editing. A guideline is clearly needed. BD2412 T 04:58, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Defining consensus required

The disconnect that I read above seem to be between those who feel that Rich is attempting to game the restrictions and for whom the large number of edits that needed to be corrected is disruptive and those who feel he attempted to abide by his restrictions in this instance. I think we can solve at least part of this by defining what kind of consensus is required. I propose we add to his editing restriction, in order to setup clear community expectations of him: When doing any kind of mass change Rich must seek consensus either from WP:BRFA or from an RfC that attracts at least 10 non-canvassed supporters and is formally closed (should one method not work he may still seek approval from the other method)

• Support as proposer. Barkeep49 (talk) 13:57, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I was not aware of this proposal at the time of writing my own below. If this proposal gains traction, then it supersedes mine which can be closed as such. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:38, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
• I support this. That said, I am partial to the "make-a-BAG-member-approve-it" method -- RfCs aren't cheap. I suppose that means it's my second choice after WP:ANI#Yet another proposal (which, full disclosure, is mine). --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 15:54, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

  BRFA is a community process for a reason. We don't normally let BAG members approve changes - which might or might not have community support - on their own outside the process (which any interested party can watch and give input on). I agree RfCs aren't cheap but neither is the disruption of hundreds of watchpages, twice in this instance because the first time wasn't done correctly. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:37, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

  @Barkeep49: Sorry, I wasn't clear. I meant to say that that should be in addition to the consensus. That is, the BAG member would make sure that the consensus already achieved actually supports the proposed edits (and that the proposed edits fall within a WP:BOTPOL exception). Mdaniels5757 (talk) 03:08, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support: I see a need to either support the complete automated edit ban or this, because of the extended block log and past history. This would give another chance while preventing system gaming. —PaleoNeonate – 21:09, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support, exactly as proposed. BD2412 T 04:33, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia's handling of user disputes must be overhauled

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

---

I think Wikipedia's handling of sanctions is completely off whack. The current process is unfair and suffers from huge biases. This is a major problem for Wikipedia that should be addressed. This way of handling problems is not a fair process and can be easily manipulated. We are discussing here of banning indefinitely an editor that has contributed with the "dirty" work for over 15 years. This is how we want to handle such matters? With no clear voting and goal posts that move every 10 minutes? This is the level of superficiality with which he will be judged?

No wonder the accused lashed out. It must feel as a huge betrayal after all the time volunteered to the project. I only recently discovered this "dark side of Wikipedia". But no wonder Wikipedia's editor count keeps declining. This process is a case study in how not to handle justice. Those problems have been solved by the Roman judicial system over 2500 years ago. Currently Wikipedia is at the "public stoning" level of justice. It's time for Wikipedia to make a big evolutionary step forward here. This is wholly inadeguate.

I propose a discussion should be opened in an appropriate forum (which one?) to propose big changes on how disputes are handled. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 11:56, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

• For the context of the above: User talk:Gtoffoletto/Archive 1#Blocked and User talk:Bishonen#AN/I discussion archived: I'm not so sure this comment has to do with Rich Farmbrough's proposed ban so much as Gtoffoletto's actual block. ——Serial ^# 12:00, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

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

Discussion moved here: [220] Sorry this was not the right place but I think input from regular watchers of this page would be helpful to understand if there is consensus to do this. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 12:46, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Proposal: Reword the current sanction

I've been looking over the sanction, and each time I do, I find new issues with it. I am not proposing a new sanction, only fixing its convoluted faux-legalese wording. As there are two different restrictions and both are overwrought, I'll address them separately.

Sanction 1: Rich Farmbrough is not permitted to make any mass changes to articles, broadly construed, and regardless of editing method, cosmetic or not, without a demonstrable consensus from the community that he is explicitly permitted to do so. Consider the clause order: ... and regardless of editing method, cosmetic or not .... There are cosmetic methods of editing? Well, no, the fourth clause is supposed to follow the first clause such that it reads: ... any mass changes to articles, cosmetic or not .... However, the clause is unnecessary as cosmetic edits fall under any edits. I won't dissect the whole thing, but my proposed rewrite for concision and clarity is:

Rich Farmbrough is prohibited from making any mass changes to articles, without first obtaining consensus for those changes, broadly construed.

Sanction 2: I propose reducing: Further, he is entirely prohibited from using Auto Wiki Browser or directly making any edits to Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Template redirects or any other page related to the governance and use of automated or semi-automated tools. Any such changes desired must be proposed on the appropriate talk page, and may only be enacted by other parties to:

Further, he is prohibited from using Auto Wiki Browser, and prohibited from editing any page relating to the governance or use of automated or semi-automated tools, broadly construed. He may edit the related talk pages to propose desired changes, to be enacted only by other parties.

The named page in the original wording falls into the category of "related to governance/use of AWB" so does not need to be named explicitly. These changes, I think, cut out superfluous material that does not affect intent. The last sentence is retained. In full:

Richard Farmbrough is prohibited from making any mass changes to articles, without first obtaining consensus for those changes, broadly construed. Further, he is prohibited from using Auto Wiki Browser, and prohibited from editing any page relating to the governance or use of automated or semi-automated tools, broadly construed. He may edit the related talk pages to propose desired changes, only to be enacted by other parties. This sanction does not replace or nullify pre-existing sanctions, and may be appealed no sooner than one year from the date it was approved by the community.

Note, the clock is not reset, because this is not a new sanction. The earliest appeal remains: 12 January 2021. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:32, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

My problem with this is that "[Rich] Farmbrough is prohibited from making any mass changes to articles, without first obtaining consensus for those changes, broadly construed." would give rise to the same potential for misunderstanding as the current sanction. --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 15:26, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I've struck the "ard" that I put in the proposal, I reflexively completed "Rich" to "Richard", my bad. Barkeep is attempting to outline a strict definition for "consensus" in this case, which I'm neutral on because I don't really see that there has been a misunderstanding here, and that's not what I'm attempting to address. These editors know what "consensus" is, they've been editing with that policy for years to over a decade in some cases. You can see the goalpost shifting on, for example, Beeblebrox's behalf between their first and third comments: 1) This is pretty clear, no mass changes without consensus to 2) ... the community does not want you making mass edits ... (emphases in original). Soon as the consensus is pointed out, Beeblebrox stops talking about it. That's an indicator to me of bad motive, not misunderstanding. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:51, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

The issue here is WP:CONLEVEL and I'm perfectly willing to discuss it. Rich knows where on is supposed to ask about mass edits, but I admit we did not specify this in the original restriction, and he predictably didn't go ask for permission at the relevant AWB or bot forums, but asked on a wikiproject talk page, without mentioning in any way that he was asking for an exemption to a topic ban, an then sat on that for months before launching his operation. This was a plan to end run the tban, and then to play his "I didn't know any better" card like he does every single time his poor automated edits cause issues

I'd also like to highlight the excellent point made above by @Primefac:: *To put some numbers to this, in just under 48 hours (starting 23:16, 22 May 2020 and ending 19:03, 24 May 2020) Rich has made over 8000 edits to the article space, about 4400 of which were edits and 3900 were fixing errors introduced by those edits. Even if there was consensus for this edit somewhere (which no one can seem to find which seems to be here) that is a massive error rate... He didn't even do a good job, consensus or no. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:56, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I think this point by Beeblebrox (and primefac and QEDK) has been under appreciated. Regardless of whether there was consensus or not Rich was acting like a WP:MEATBOT. Regardless of whether there was consensus or not we have processes in place to ensure that errors are not perpetuated so widely and need to be fixed causing a second round of edits. It seems to me like many of those opposing sanction on Rich have not grappled with this set of facts. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:48, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

It's perhaps under-appreciated, because it is not the reason this was brought here, nor is it mentioned more than once in the discussion from any side (I failed to find where QEDK mentioned anything of the sort). Regarding CONLEVEL, if there was supposed to be a specific forum to ask for an exception, having it stated in the restriction would be useful. I don't see why Rich would go to the AWB forums though, unless he intends to use AWB, which is explicitly prohibited. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:31, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

The issues with the current sanction appear to be (a) whether he met the consensus requirement, and (b) what constitutes violation of the mass changes provision. Why not address these directly, with something along the lines of " may not make similar edits to more than five articles without first obtaining consensus and having that consensus validated by at least two admins, of which he has explicitly made aware of this sanction," and "may not, under any circumstances, make more than two edits in any ten minute period." BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 21:51, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Those would be needlessly prohibitive. It takes seconds to fix a typographical error and there are thousands of articles replete with those kinds of errors. It takes seconds to revert vandalism, and there are dozens of vandalistic edits made every minute. There are also actions that require more than 2 edits to complete (such as opening an AfD - refer to your own edits on 13:02, 15 May 2020 for example). In each case, either or both of your suggested restrictions pose problems. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:31, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Yet another proposal

Enterprisey's sanction above would prohibit bot operation after a BRFA, which I see as unneeded (and a bad idea) I would rewrite Enterprisey's above sanction as follows (I know this is very wikilawyer-y, but I think it's warranted for the avoidance of doubt):

1) Except as set forth below, Rich Farmbrough is indefinitely banned from making mass changes or automated edits (including creations) to any page or set of pages in any way whatsoever.

2) Notwithstanding section (1), if Rich Farmbrough believes a bot task would qualify as an EXEMPTBOT task, he may contact any WP:BAG member, informing them of his request and this sanction. If they find that the task would be exempt and that there is consensus to perform the task, they may so state (on-wiki), and approve RF to perform that task. For the purposes of this section, approval to perform a task is only effective if the template {{BotApproved}} is used by the approving BAG member.

3) Notwithstanding section (1), if Rich Farmbrough starts a BRFA for a task, and the task is approved (either as a trial, or fully approved), RF may cause a bot to perform that task. In the BRFA, before approval, Rich Farmbrough must note the existence of this sanction. For the purposes of this section, approval to perform a task is only effective if one of the following templates are used by a BAG member: {{BotTrial}}, {{BotExtendedTrial}}, {{BotSpeedy}}, or {{BotApproved}}.

4) This editing restriction supersedes the restrictions imposed on Rich Farmbrough in January 2020, but the restrictions imposed in in October 2010 are not superseded, and remain in effect.

Thoughts? --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 15:24, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

• The "no cosmetic edits" restriction shouldn't be superseded, since it's unrelated. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:01, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support with language about cosmetic edits restored. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:42, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
• Comment might it be better to add a requirement that for 2 (and might as well 3), Rich Farmbrough must include notice of this restriction? While arguably this should not matter, Rich Farmbrough's judgment in these areas has been shown to problematic in the view of the community. I fear with 2 there is a risk that some member of the BAG may see what seems to be a simple question by an experienced editor of the community who also seems to have experience with mass edits and not give it sufficient scrutiny and thought. We'd then have the situation where some more member of the BAG finds themselves in a shitstorm when they were likely just doing what is common. I don't know if there is actually any member of the BAG who won't know Rich Farmbrough's history but I wouldn't rule it out especially since we don't know how long these restrictions will be needed. Some may fear mention of the restriction may mean people would be afraid to approve something they should approve, but frankly I mostly trust the BAG to make the right decisions despite politics whereas as said, I think human nature means it's fairly common that there could easily be less scrutiny if you falsely assume this person knows what they're doing. And I'd note that if most BAG already know about the history then that's already often going to be happening anyway we're just avoid the odd hiccup including ensuring that there can be no suggestion Rich Farmbrough intentionally used someone who didn't know the history yet didn't tell them. Nil Einne (talk) 05:40, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
• Note Per Pppery and Nil Einne, I've made changes to the italicized sections (diff). Pings: @Nil Einne, Pppery, and King of Hearts. --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 16:59, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support, with the caveat proposed by King of Hearts. BD2412 T 04:34, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

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

Disruption by new editor User:MistyGraceWhite

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

---

I share the believe that most new editors would become valuable Wikipedia editors, if we nurture and make them feel welcome. But how do we nurture a new editor who isn't ready to learn or listen to established editors?

User:MistyGraceWhite is a new editor who joined Wikipedia in May 2019 but began editing in January 2020, barely 4 months ago and has since made about 2000 edits with more than 70% to user talk pages and AfD in a bizarre and clearly disruptive manner.

I didn't notice the behaviour of this user until they nominated three of my articles for deletion within seconds. In one of their nomination statement they claimed that the article failed WP:MEDIC, a disclaimer that Wikipedia does not offer medical advice. I found it extremely strange that a disclaimer was cited as official notability guideline. Two established editors shared an opposing view with MistyGraceWhite but this user responded with aggressive nomination of their articles for deletion including this nonsensical nomination in retaliation.

This led me to review their edit history to determine the level of damage and disruption this user must have caused in the project in the last 4 months.

Looking at some of their closed AfDs at random, I found this one, two, three, & four. The subject of the above AfDs were nominated for deletion in aberrant disregard for WP:BEFORE. In this strange nomination User:Ingratis wrote this AfD nomination took place less than an hour after the article was created - which scarcely allows for an adequate WP:BEFORE, given the language considerations and quoting User:Sulfurboy's closing remark in another disruptive AfD, they wrote "Lack of WP:BEFORE. Clear pass of WP:JUDGE". We also have the same concern of lack of WP:BEFORE here. Another disruptive one was speedy keep with same concern. This disruption continues. It's tiring and we have more than enough sources here and here. In another disruptive nomination, this user claimed that Ghana Music Awards, the major and the biggest music award in Ghana (won by the musician 3 times) isn't notable because it not a Grammy and that it must be a Grammy per WP:MUSICBIO. There is also this reckless nomination described as " spamming by at least two established editors. I am not able to look at all their closed AfDs because they were so enormous. See also this bizarre misuse of CSD:A10 here and this hasty CSD nomination to mention a few. I'd like to acknowledge that some of their nominations resulted in deletion partly because nobody care to add more sources or the page creators who are mostly new editors aren't aware that their pages were being nominated for deletion minutes after creation.

This editing pattern by a new editor is toxic, worrisome and concerning. It looks like this new editor is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. Several damages have been done already and something needs to be done to immediately put a stop to this ongoing disruption. Regards. Kaizenify (talk) 08:51, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm really concerned that they are actually a WP:UPE that is trying to infiltrate new page patrol. See Special:Undelete/Draft:Nabeel Ahmad (entrepreneur). There are other signs which I won't go into detail publicly. MER-C 09:19, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

The Teri Mitti one in particular was bizarre. The sources as they existed on the page before the nom clearly demonstrated notability. So much so that I questioned my own keep vote and went back and check it again, this time actually googling it instead of just reviewing the sources on the page. There were so many sources showing depth of coverage, the song had been nominated for multiple important awards and was heavily featured in a notable film. The user tried to tell me I had the wrong song. I didn't. The information I added to the article also demonstrated that.

They either didn't search the article before and then didn't read any of my additions (which is really bad) or some ulterior motive is at play here (worse). Sulfurboy (talk) 10:17, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

"new editor who joined Wikipedia in May 2019 but began editing in January 2020, barely 4 months ago" who prefers referring older and apparently more experienced editors as "new accounts".[221] See their disruptive attitude on these AfDs too which were otherwise WP:SNOW:[222][223] I agree that this user is a case of WP:NOTHERE. Harmanprtjhj (talk) 10:52, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Something is smelling fishy. So, whatever is needed to be done. I support it. Clearly the AfD process is misused here. Time to stop it.BabbaQ (talk) 13:03, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I counted over 120 AFD nominations since May 1. I'm really wondering how anyone could keep up that pace and still be looking at the material seriously, and doing a WP:BEFORE. I am usually on WP looking at artist biographies. I see one or two good candidates for AfD a week. Not 40.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:57, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

@ User:ThatMontrealIP. The AFD stats from the time period you gave also show that Without considering "No Consensus" results, 88.3% of AfD's were matches and 11.7% of AfD's were not. I am not a robot, and I do make trout worthy mistakes, but a ban or block with these AFD stats? You are concerned about BEFORE. I am very meticulous in creating AFD debates and I keep written files of all sources evaluated. The files are available for anyone who wants via email. I will post one evaluation here as an example for an ongoing debate.

 Freeman Osonuga (Google: About 19,400 results (0.37 seconds) News: 19 results (0.13 seconds) No Scholar. No Newspaper)

Rationale: GNG Medical GNG (MEDIC?) (Fails GNG on his other works as well, Delivery company etc. Notability not Inherited)
Sources concern (Debatable)

• Multiple. RS. Independent. SIGCOVE. COREDEPTH. Third Party. NOTNEWS. Doctors guideline (Defunct? MEDIC?) (Note: should be a guideline contact village pump after AFD) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(doctors)
• Sources concern (serious) (Speedy Hoax?)

Misrepresentation of Time Award. Awarded to Ebola fighters. (Are Ebola fighters named? Is there a leadership award? Is there a leader of Ebola Fighters? Is he featured on Time? Does Time mention him as the sole representative of Ebola Fighters?)
Non existent Meritorious award. List does not show him (https://politicosl.com/articles/sierra-leone-presidential-honours-2014) Possible mistake on part of Author? Or UPE?

Sources in Article (8)

1. "Unfair Attitudes to Children with Cerebral Palsy in Nigeria". THISDAYLIVE. 2017-09-28. Retrieved 2020-05-17. Trivial Mention
2. "Why We Chose the Ebola Fighters as Person of the Year 2014". TIME.com. Retrieved 2020-05-13. Misrepresentation.

Creator UPE? Possible to add by mistake?

1. "Success isn't achieved in the comfort zone ~ Dr. Freeman Osonuga - Nigeria and World News". The Guardian Nigeria News - Nigeria and World News. 2020-01- Retrieved 2020-05-17. Interview
2. "Freeman Osonuga – 'êth Communications". ethcommunications.com. 2015-09-25. Retrieved 2020-05-17. NOTNEWS
3. "Nigeria's Freeman Osonuga named among 3 finalists for space trip". Vanguard News. 2015-11-01. Retrieved 2020-05-13. NOTNEWS
4. Kazeem, Yomi. "A Nigerian Ebola doctor could be the first black African to go to space". Quartz Africa. Retrieved 2020-05-13. NOTNEWS
5. Culpan, Daniel (2016-05-22). "Meet the WIRED Innovation Fellows 2015". Wired UK. Retrieved 2020-05-17. TRIVIAL
6. "Most Influential Young Nigerians » Homepage". Most Influential Young Nigerians. Retrieved 2020-05-17. Listicle. Trivial

• Potential sources
• NOTNEWS
• Space Travel Selection News story (most fail Interview as well) Independence of sources. Interview (IV essay)
• (Full Name search)

1. http://venturesafrica.com/this-nigerian-may-become-the-first-black-african-to-go-to-space/
2. https://qz.com/africa/522413/a-nigerian-ebola-doctor-could-be-the-first-black-african-to-go-to-space/
3. https://www.bellanaija.com/2015/10/freeman-osonuga-could-be-become-the-1st-nigerian-to-visit-space-heres-why/
4. https://www.nigerianbulletin.com/threads/meet-freeman-osonuga-the-first-nigerian-to-travel-to-space.116391/
5. https://www.jeuneafrique.com/260053/societe/sera-premier-africain-noir-a-aller-lespace/
6. https://www.bellanaija.com/2015/10/mopol-to-be-charged-with-murder-in-shooting-death-of-junior-tennis-stars-mum/
7. https://www.i24news.tv/ar/
8. https://www.deperu.com/noticias/cuatro-jovenes-suenan-con-convertirse-en-los-primeros-africanos-negros-en-ir-al-espacio-62735.html
9. https://www.jeuneafrique.com/mag/387102/economie/panorama-lafrique-de-demain-sinvente-aujourdhui/
10. https://www.pulse.ng/news/freeman-osonuga-a-nigerian-man-is-about-to-make-space-history/5bg7smy
11. https://www.lepoint.fr/afrique/course-a-l-espace-des-africains-noirs-se-revent-en-astronautes-27-08-2015-1959628_3826.php
12. https://www.konnectafrica.net/freeman-osonuga/
13. https://opportunitydesk.org/2015/11/01/freeman-osonuga-ypom-november/
14. https://allafrica.com/stories/201508241286.html Gives Error (Try proxy?)
15. https://www.dailytrust.com.ng/meet-young-man-who-could-be-first-nigerian-in-space.html
16. https://atqnews.com/freeman-osonuga-after-braving-ebola-a-space-odyssey-beckons/

• Video Coverage

1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zns7DiuuKYc (interview)
2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwUTOmER5PE
3. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZsQ0fTejFAk Speech Wired UK

• PR. PROMO. RS

PR pieces News (logistics, Adloyalty, Heal the World etc.)

1. https://www.vanguardngr.com/2020/02/adloyalty-business-network-hits-20000-realtors-launches-new-office-in-lekki/
2. https://www.vanguardngr.com/2019/11/housing-provision-real-estate-firm-unveils-the-plush-at-magodo-gra/
3. https://technext.ng/2018/10/26/need-deliver-goods-customers-these-4-nigerian-logistics-startups-could-help-out/
4. https://technext.ng/2018/01/30/delivery-man-the-fast-and-timely-delivery-service-launched-in-nigeria/
5. https://www.thisdaylive.com/index.php/2017/09/28/unfair-attitudes-to-children-with-cerebral-palsy-in-nigeria/
6. https://technext.ng/2018/01/30/delivery-man-the-fast-and-timely-delivery-service-launched-in-nigeria/
7. https://guardian.ng/property/adloyalty-business-network-hits-20000-realtors-launches-new-office-in-lekki/
8. https://disrupt-africa.com/2018/01/e-commerce-logistics-startup-deliveryman-launches-in-nigeria/
9. https://punchng.com/building-in-magodo-green-belt-illegal-says-lasg/
10. https://ynaija.com/yali-network-face2face-africa-rising-event-photos/
11. https://krugercowne.com/risingstar/shortlist/freeman-osonuga/

• Authored pieces

https://www.huffpost.com/author/freeman-osonuga?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAAPBAX_7XuNAEL5eDU0u6hD_HOzVY40A7D8o1f8SqhODZNS5qyaA7whWffKMaqlHZSWGLqOyJCeGfLzu-k63nalJnBrkIs4tN1fnGYojPSpmrkg4VIvDlaXHYNQ0miX8SFyaO1NHevA8fxzUtUIjDIpv6TfdubWtYYvDk2mwfSAT

• Possible Rebuttals.

1. BASIC. (Fails on multiple independent sources)
2. ANYBIO. (No contribution, no award)
3. LASTING for space story(argue with dates as well as sources)
4. Redirect to his company or Rename to company (Company fails GNG as well)

MistyGraceWhite (talk) 11:34, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

• @SharabSalam:, @SarekOfVulcan: - Over 120 new AfD noms in less than three weeks. There is no way Misty can read and fully evaluate that many articles for AfD in that time. Not asking you to change your stance, but just pointing out the blatantly obvious.BabbaQ (talk) 09:17, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Reply

I have not been involved in any lengthy debate at this forum, so I have had to read some of the wikipedia policies and guidelines, hence the late reply. This is about my AFD editing and all of it is cherry picked, so my complete AFD record needs to be seen. A tool called AFD stats is used to determine how good an editor is at AFD. My AFd stats can be found at this link, the summary provided by the tool is

• Total number of unique AfD pages edited by MistyGraceWhite: 274
• Without considering "No Consensus" results, 84.1% of AfD's were matches and 15.9% of AfD's were not.

My CSD Log, which I started this month is at User:MistyGraceWhite/CSD log.

The users above have given some instances of concern, and according to guidelines, I am allowed to reply to them before admins make thier decisiosn. I will ping the user who had a concern, so they can read my reply as well.User:Sulfurboy is concerned that I nominated Teri Mitti for deletion. In my defense, I did not nominate the current article for deletion. I nominated the version that was online on 24 April. The article on 24 April reads

Teri Mitti is a Hindi music video by Akshay Kumar and B Praak, depicting healthcare workers, police and other essential workers during the 2020 coronavirus pandemic in India. It was released on 24 April 2020 during India's lockdown, which advised people in India to stay at home. The lyrics are written by Manoj Muntashir and the music is by Arko. Inspired by the Teri Mitti song from the 2019 film Kesari, the video was shared by Kumar on Twitter, with the caption "सुना था डॉक्टर्स भगवन का रूप होते है लेकिन कोरोना वायरस की इस लड़ाई में देख भी लिया l #TeriMitti Tribute - an ode to our heroes in white, out now.

This version was about a newly released song, which had come out mere hours ago. After I nominated the article Sulfurboy changed the article's content so it was about the original song, which had been released with the movie Kesari in 2019. It now gives the details of the Kesari movie and the female version as well. I stand by my decision to nominate the version about the remix, as the remix, in my view does not deserve an article.
User:MER-C is concerned that I may have been paid for my contributions to wikipedia. This is something, which I am not sure how to defend, except with my word that I do not earn anything from wikipedia. To date, I have created 6 pages as you can see from this tool. The last two are Nigerians whose pages I created when the Nigerian editathon was going on, others are a dead Russian governor, a dead gangster, and a dead saint. I have declared already that I do not have any connection with the subject of Nabeel Ahmad, and I created his page after watching a Tedtalk. I thought that statesman etc. were good and reliable sources, but it appears that they sell article space as well. I did not recreate the article. I have requested undeletion of one article, which exists at User:MistyGraceWhite/Syed Sultan Shah. I think that this man, as a former captain of a national team, should have an article on Wikipedia, but I am currently trying to find sources. If User:MER-C has any concerns that they think, can only be shared with an admin, I can not comment on them. User:Harmanprtjhj has followed me here from Breast Tax deletion review and their concern is that I called some accounts new, while being the newest one myself. This user has a very rude demeanor, and comments using very rude language. I cannot assume if they are personal attacks, or just the way he talks normally, whichever the case, he should stop. Comments like To say there is "Nothing in RS to indicate notability" is purely deceiving., You should better withdraw your misleading nomination, reeks of your own POV pushing are not suitable for Wikipedia, this is not Reddit. My comment on the Review was

Endorse Classic WP:IDONTLIKEIT, which is also apparent in some of the heated comments here in the review by those who voted delete. Most, as in a fairly large percentage, (not all) delete voters were new accounts with <1000 edits, some had even <100. They were unable to understand policy due to their lack of experience at AFD and were perhaps unable to understand that deletion discussions are not majority votes and AFD is not cleanup. Their arguments also appear to confirm that they are not able to grasp policies like GNG and POVFORK. The only policy based arguments were from Lorstaking whose view was the lack of HISTRS may lead to deletion; but HISTRS are used in the article. The canvassing that is supposed to have occurred did not drive any voters to the AFD, and is therefore inconsequential in this review. The Keep should not be overturned.

The table below shows the edit counts of all users who voted delete.

User	Live Edits
Harmanprtjhj	506
42.106.4.156	~60
Azuredivay	638 ·
BhaskaraPattelar	64
Mohanabhil	180
Yoonadue	580
Coolabahapple	71,263
Capankajsmilyo	42,187
Accesscrawl	3,909
Kerberous	78
TheodoreIndiana	702 ·

Concerns of User:Kaizenify are bizarre. I have read the AGF and NPA guidelines, and as I think there are some forums where editors are allowed to discuss the behavior of the editor who made the edits and their behavior overall, I will make some comments on this users behavior. User:Kaizenify has is making this report out of spite that I nominated his article Freeman Osonuga, an article which essentially parrots the fake claim that the subject won Time 2014 award, when he is not mentioned by time as being the winner, and then gives out that he won the Presidential Award, when all lists posted by RS say that he did not. Therefore this part of his complaint should be ignored. An exchange occurred at the deletion debate that is reproduced below

*Keep: This article meets WP:BASIC even if he doesn't meet the criteria for doctor. He is a recipient of a national award from the President of Sierra Leone as well as a recipient of 2014 TIME magazine award. Isn't that enough? He has been discussed to a significant extent in multiple independent enough to meet our inclusion criteria. User:SuperSwift(Talk) 15:15, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

@User:SuperSwift If such is your claim then you need a source that says he won 2014 TIME magazine award. All reliable sources, including Time say that the award in 2014 was given to "Ebola Fighters" a class of unnamed people. Ebola fighters are the hundreds of health workers who fough the Ebola epidemic. You say that he won the Presidential Award (Sierra Leone) in 2014, but this list says that he did not win anything. The article is based on hoaxes. User:MistyGraceWhite (talk) 22:09, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

. He has cherry picked the AFD discussions where the consensus was to keep, which is not the overall picture of my edits.

Kaizenify Misquotes me and should be reprimanded

Kaizenify makes the complaint that

In another disruptive nomination, this user claimed that Ghana Music Awards, the major and the biggest music award in Ghana (won by the musician 3 times) isn't notable because it not a Grammy and that it must be a Grammy per WP:MUSICBIO.

This is misquoting. The exchange occured at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J.Derobie (2nd nomination). Acocrding to all persons concerned J.derobie has never won the Ghana Music Awards, but he did win the 3 Music Awards Ghana, a non notable award, which has no connection to the Vodafone Awards. The Exact quote of the exchange is here.

Keep. J.Derobie has so many independent sources speaking about him an his music which makes him pass of as notable to have an article. He also has been nominated in two major awards schemes in Ghana and has won one award from one of the award scheme.Owula kpakpo (talk) 16:10, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

@User:Owula kpakpo He has not won any major award in music, he has won a very minor award. An award whose facebook page is barely noticeable with only 25K likes, and whose twitter is even less popular. Saying that this award somehow allows him to inherit notability is wrong on so many levels. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 17:28, 20 May 2020 (UTC) @MistyGraceWhite: So to you an award has to have lots of social media following to become major is that the argument you making. 3 music awards is in it's third year of existence a simple Google search who would show you how popular and major the scheme is to Ghanaians and Ghanaian musicians. I live in Ghana and I believe with benefit of my location I am confident of my assertion that the award scheme is major is very right. Using social media numbers to make such an assertion is not right mind you 3 music awards is featured in almost every prominent media website in Ghana.Owula kpakpo (talk) 17:53, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

@User:Owula kpakpo it may be a major award to you, but it is not mentioned in any Reliable sources as being a major award, so according to wikipedia it is a minor almost nothing award. The social media numbers were just to explain it to you, but seeing that you did not get my point, it does not matter. The award is a minor award according to wikipedia standards, and winning such a minor award does not make this guy notable. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 17:58, 20 May 2020 (UTC) @MistyGraceWhite: again the fact that the awards scheme doesn't have a Wikipedia page doesn't mean it's a minor awards unless you can point to a Wikipedia position on what a minor awards or major awards is which you clearly not added in your response to me. Like I said in Ghana the Multimedia Group Limited is a major media house and for them to be partnering with this awards should tell you the pedigree of such an award. Like I said if you have the benefit of the Ghanaian media landscape you would understand clearly why I say so. So as it stands it's your word against mine so bring something substantial with your critique.Owula kpakpo (talk) 18:11, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

@User:Owula kpakpo It is not my word against yours, it is the view of reliable sources against your opinion. You are misinterpreting the ANYBIO#1. The awards mentioned there, the kind which confer notability and allow a person to actually inherit notability in a way, are the ones which are given due a significant impact of that person's work in his field. You should instead consult the MUSICBIO guideline which points out that a major award isslike d

These are the only concerns I see in the complaint. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 14:16, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Other admins aren't going to read all this. Care to provide a one-paragraph summary? MER-C 14:22, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

@User:MER-C. Kaizenify Cherry picks my AFD record, which is around 84% in my favour and 15% against. He cherry picks my CSD, as is evident from my CSD log, therefore he should be ignored. He also misquotes me, and on this he should be reprimanded. You User:MER-C assume that I am paid to edit Wikipedia, while I created only 6 articles, 2 about Nigerians in a recent meditation, from a list that was given to me, one about a dead gangster, one about a dead governed, one about a dead saint and one about a random guy I saw on youtube. The article about the youtube guy was deleted, I did not recreate it. I also tend to vote delete on my AFD, so if people want to pay someone to keep their article here, I am not that guy. Most of my mainspace edits are on stubs of buildings etc. However it is only my word that you have, so you can watchlist my userpage and follow my contributions, as only my future edits can prove my point definitively, until you are satisfied one way or the other, I should be allowed to edit. Harmanprtjhj is just hurt that I went against him on an AFD review. He has few edits, as shown in the table above, so he cannot say that I was wrong. He is rude,a nd should be reminded we are on Wikipedia not reddit. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 14:44, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Your above comments are a blatant misrepresentation of events. I note that you ignored most of the concerns I raised. Weren't you claiming less than 2 months ago about yourself that "I am new"? Furthermore, edit count does not prove credibility, but given you think completely opposite you need to tell if this is why you are spamming CSDs and AfDs in order to rack up edit count and disregarding quality+policies? I still support a WP:NOTHERE block. Harmanprtjhj (talk) 22:28, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

• I actually think most of MistyGraceWhite's comments at AfD are well argued, and even most of the things Kaizenify links to here above are policy based or at least defensible. The speed of the nominations may be a bit high, and I don't think it's good form of Misty to nominate yet another one of Kaizenify's articles after this report was opened. This focus on AfD is a bit out of the ordinary, I only recall having seen this pattern from one UPE editor we recently had. – Thjarkur (talk) 14:01, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Leave your comments in the comments section. Secondly, Misty incriminated itself by adding yet another AfD nom on an article after this nom. And continues being argumentative and POV pushing on all of the AfDs it is involved in. BabbaQ (talk) 14:08, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Moved up. – Thjarkur (talk) 14:26, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Proposal (MGW)

We do need to move forward and find a way to stop the disruptive editing by this user as it looks like they aren't going to stop (at least from their response to concerns here by multiple users) if the community don't stop them.

Proposed indefinite block of User:MistyGraceWhite

It is apparently clear from this new user's comments below that they aren't ready to change their disruptive behavior. On this note, User:MistyGraceWhite is indefinitely blocked for disruptive editing and abuse of the AfD process

• Support as proposer. Kaizenify (talk) 11:55, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support - per everything mentioned and discussed above and below.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:13, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support - the discussions on abuse of MistyGraceWhite as explained above and below is enough reason to support. SuperSwift (talk) 12:37, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support The WP:FILIBUSTER on this thread should be enough for anyone to verify how disruptive this user is. Together with that, they have not addressed anything about their suspicious creation of Draft:Nabeel Ahmad (entrepreneur). Harmanprtjhj (talk) 13:27, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

  They had responded to it above and here. – Thjarkur (talk) 13:46, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose, I don't think that the case for an indefinite block has been made. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:49, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

• No case has been made for an obvious returning UPE who has no plan to understand policies but always engage in battleground mentality? Orientls (talk) 01:50, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support - intentions of this editor are questionable. Doesn't do proper WP:BEFORE (here), cites Wiki Policies incorrectly and takes the absence of sources on the page to mean absence of reliable sources in general (here), hasty to add deletion tags without a thorough checking of sources, which may discourage good faith edits (here, as a side note here's a good ref currently not in the article but easily found). And I don't know how many other articles and good faith contributions have been already jeopardized, all in an effort to rack up edit count or, who knows, a lot worse.. Jfadkitz (talk) 03:25, 26 May 2020 (UTC)— Jfadkitz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --04:41, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

@User:Jfadkitz How did you find this exact thread in your third edit? Within an hour of creating your account.? MistyGraceWhite (talk) 11:57, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

As I go deeper into your edit history, I'm becoming increasingly worried. You nominated Azerbaijan America Alliance (created in 2012) without due diligence. There are so many sources; here's Trump's biography on Google Books which says the alliance spent $12million in lobbying. Then you nominated the now-deleted AZ Phizo Memorial with a curt "non notable memorial" without finding out that Angami Zapu Phizo is considered the father of the Naga people and his final resting place is an important landmark for Nagas, and now a tourist site, see Google Books. Then, again with Fish Statue in Lagos. On and on and on...what is going on...? Jfadkitz (talk) 13:29, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

@User:Jfadkitz. When you said you nominated the now-deleted as an example of my disruption at AFD I was amazed. Why are you on this thread? With 2 other edits? ExplainMistyGraceWhite (talk) 14:13, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support I came here only after warning this user of abusing template on my talk page over a notification made 6 days ago for initiating a broad discussion about a few problematic articles.[224] User a habit of abusing templates and AFAIK some days ago they also dropped a warning on a user's talk page[225] only for rightfully tagging a canvassed editor on AfD.[226] Since the disruption is on-going in the lieu of this thread, strong measures are needed to control this loose cannon. Wareon (talk) 04:36, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

@User:Wareon you admit that you are here to support my ban/block because I templated you for a canvass, which incidentally was caught, not by me, but by Vanamonde who said "@Wareon: please read through WP:CANVAS. Your message here is not a neutral presentation of the issue." Strange world we live in. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 11:57, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

I only mentioned how I got here. So you admit that there was no need of templating over a non-issue still you abused template anyway over a 5 days old happening just for spewing your poor understanding of the policy and/or display your battleground mentality by abusing template. I also note your WP:ASPERSIONs you have been casting by labeling editors as "Indian editors". I am absolutely not the only editor who is seeing you as overall net-negative. Wareon (talk) 14:50, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

@User:Wareon No, I do not admit that there was no need. There was an urgent need to template a new editor with only 180 edits, who seems to be very experienced. I did not label anyone, it was your behavior that brought that on. You are the only editor on this entire board with less than 200 edits. Apart from the DUCK quacking a few lines above. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 17:25, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

None of your attempts at deceiving others are actually deflecting from the concerns about your undisclosed paid editing. No matter how much you evade the concerns. Wareon (talk) 17:38, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

@User:Wareon What am I paid to do? In your view. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 17:50, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose All of his edits appears to be made in good-faith.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 04:41, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. What the heck is going on here? We do not indefinitely block users for being overzealous in their deletion nominations; we most certainly do not do this before they've ever been sanctioned before. I do not think it is a coincidence that most of the sanctioned users have been involved in AfD disputes with MGW. MGW needs to take more care before nominating things at AfD; that's about it. BabbaQ as far as I can see, you're the only uninvolved editor !voting support here. May I ask you to reconsider? Vanamonde (Talk) 14:46, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
• strong oppose I hate to use the word witch hunt...but, here we are. nomination took place less than an hour after the article was created - which scarcely allows for an adequate WP:BEFORE, given the language consideration Also the idea that there is a time requirement for a before is as absurd as this thread. It is completely possible to do a before in well under an hour. Also per Vanamonde. 120 AFDs in 3 weeks is hardly spamming if there are 120 articles in need of discussion... Praxidicae (talk) 14:51, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per Praxidicae and Vanamonde: the case for indeffing has not been made. ——Serial ^# 14:59, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose None of this makes any sense, and a site ban would be an injustice. SportingFlyer T·C 15:37, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose, but they should be blocked for spamming - looking again at the deleted draft I linked to above, I am now 100% certain that it was paid for due to the use of black-hat SEO sites as sources. This directly contradicts the explanation given at User talk:Þjarkur/Archive 2#Nabeel Ahmad (entrepreneur), which now looks like a blatant lie. MER-C 17:51, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

I do agree with MER-C about this, having seen the deleted draft myself, it has all the hallmarks of for-hire editing/spamming and I have other concerns about this as well. My opposition to the block originally proposed is because it is just factually incorrect. I would be interested in hearing this users explanation for that disastrous draft though given their AFd work, they know full well that the sources in that draft were intentionally deceptive and black hat SEO, which again raises the alarm for me. Praxidicae (talk) 18:15, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

@User:MER-C. I used google to search for him and added whatever was available, as I did with my previous two articles. I did not argue for the article once I was told about the websites, I did not recreate it and I just let it be, and continued my editing. How is a new editor supposed to know that these sites are blackhat SEO. The Statesman etc are normal everyday websites, there is no indication that they get paid for printing and publishing articles, normal people like me just read the articles and think that they are well researched. I started AFD work after User:Þjarkur told me that websites like these exist and they are not reliable sources because they are just paid websites. If you check my AFD record before 24 March, you can see that my nominations are different, like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aisha Steel, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Khadija Mushtaq (3rd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roots International Schools, where, in hindsight, I should have spent more time looking at sources. I liked the research part of authenticating sources, so I continued on AFD. @User:Praxidicae the draft was created before I started AFD work seriuosly, authenticating sources and creating detailed documents of each AFD, I had created 3 articles at that time I think, and none of them had any problems, so I had not even read the guidelines on completely, I just edited for fun. I do see your concerns though, which I think I can assauge easily. As putting out new articles is something I seldom do. (I have not moved a single article written by someone else to mainspace from draft, and my own are only these 6), would a voluntary 6 month break/leave from creating anything on mainspace be a valid show to of good faith for the community? It will assuage your doubts and I will divert the time to destub some women in Red stubs I have found at MontrealIP's page. An overall win for the community I think. However this should not be thought of as a pleading guilty to the complaint of AFD disruption. As far as that is concerned, I stand by my work. I do well researched AFD work. Case in point is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J.Derobie (2nd nomination) which the nom discussed in detail, but it was closed as delete (as no RS could be brought forward) while this thread was ongoing. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 18:29, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

• In terms of "well researched AFD work" and the J.Derobie article, it certainly looks like you missed quite easily found sources such as [227] [228] [229] [230] [231] [232] apart from being name-dropped in Pitchfork and Rolling Stone. Looking at the nom logs, not all appear to be bad (though most are very brief with few voters and don't have a lot of good discussion), but that's not an AfD you should be particularly proud of. Regardless of what happens here, I'd strongly recommend making more detailed AfD noms in the future describing where you've looked. SportingFlyer T·C 01:06, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose And I vote this way even being one of the people that found many of the user's actions questionable. Nothing here to warrant an indef though. This ANI process should be more than enough to get the message across in terms of the community's concerns. Sulfurboy (talk) 02:52, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. It isn't really fair to take a user to ANI and then immediately start planning an indefinite block, considering that the issue being brought here may well be enough to drive home the seriousness of this user's editing practices and set them on a different course, without a block being needed. A final warning is in order, followed by an indefinite block if the user continues. Passengerpigeon (talk) 04:41, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Restriction of User:MistyGraceWhite to one AfD nomination per day

User:MistyGraceWhite is restricted to one AfD nomination per day for at least 6 month for disruption and abuse of the AfD process. This restriction may be appealed not earlier than six months after it enactment.

• Support as proposer. Kaizenify (talk) 11:55, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
• Only support complete ban on AfD discussions as a requirement after the user gets unblocked. Harmanprtjhj (talk) 13:27, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
• Personally I would propose a 6 month block, plus a topic ban from XfD until further notice. SK2242 (talk) 23:25, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose, I don't see that the case has been made. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:49, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Nothing seems to be disruptive. His nominations are all made in good-faith. I dont see any problem with his edits. If you have a content dispute with him then this is not the right place for it.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 04:44, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

  Over 120 AfD noms in less than 3 weeks is not a content dispute. It is spamming.BabbaQ (talk) 10:17, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

@ User:BabbaQ Out of those 120, 88% were closed in with the consensus of delete and only 11% against, without a single deletion review. What is your point in giving out that number? That I do a lot of work at AFD? Why not thank me for that? Your support for my ban may be justified if I spam AFD debates without BEFORE, and then the articles are kept, creating a timesink. You are supporting a ban/block for me on the basis that I do good solid work at AFD but my speed is too quick for your liking? MistyGraceWhite (talk) 12:21, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. More reasonable than an indefinite block, but still uncalled for. That said; MistyGraceWhite; please don't take throw those numbers out as a defence. There are discussions where both keep and delete opinions are based in policy, and there are a few where they are not. You have been a little too eager with some nominations, and you need to slow down and take a little more care. I don't think either of these restrictions will be enacted, but if you don't slow down, something similar will be, at some point. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:49, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Blocked

User has been blocked for sockpuppetry. I think this can be closed now. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

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