Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1011

User:Moiidthg

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.

---

Moiidthg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) No doubt here in good faith, but unfortunately WP:INCOMPETENT. They're posting nonsense in talk pages and articles, and are a danger to themselves and Wikipedia. I leave the rest up to your discretion. Guywan (talk) 18:51, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

There's clearly a problem, but giving them some (brief) time to get their act together would not be unreasonable. Certainly, I don't see them being a danger to themselves (can you elaborate on that?) — which should be dealt with via WP:EMERGENCY, anyway. El_C 19:04, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

@El C: Just a bit of humour. I retract that statement. Guywan (talk) 19:12, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

For future reference, those nuances do not translate well over text. But at any rate, self-harm is no laughing matter. El_C 19:25, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

I would recommend Moiidthg go through the adopt a user process and be adopted by a experienced user. I have no doubt this user is here in good faith, but help will definitely be useful in their situation, so that they can get a gist of how Wikipedia works; and get a grip with the guidelines and the 5 pillars too. They don't need to recite them all off by heart, but knowledge of these guidelines will help everyone, including themselves. If you need any help Moiidthg, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page right here. Thanks. The Duke 23:02, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

This is not meant to be an insult. This editor's behavior seems to indicate being (1) under the influence of something, or (2) on the spectrum. Two possibilities, maybe other possibilities too. starship.paint (talk) 02:56, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Or they could be very young. Best not to speculate though, especially about potential health conditions. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 03:29, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Diannaa I did consider that they were very young, but I'm not sure how many very young people would know about [2] the problems of a specific type of Portuguese ships in the 15th century. . starship.paint (talk) 03:34, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

That part when you said "danger to themselves" was completely unnecessary and not a joke. Some people use emojis extensively in the internet; I don't know why, maybe because they are emotional. The editor is still new and is willing to learn and they appreciate help based on this comment--SharabSalam (talk) 03:39, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

I will log out in Wikipedia because it seems you don't like me😶 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moiidthg (talk • contribs) 05:15, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Moiidthg - no, we just want to help you. starship.paint (talk) 06:54, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Is that true?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moiidthg (talk • contribs) 07:01, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Moiidthg - yes, we want to help you become a good editor on Wikipedia. Hopefully that will happen. starship.paint (talk) 07:31, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

I didn't know that you wishes good things for me tnx you just my day horray — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moiidthg (talk • contribs) 07:58, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

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

Wiki attack

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’d like to report an IP user who is making apparent wiki attacks in the sandbox. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/899957313 Could an administrator look into it. Thanks! Sonicfan200530 (talk) 14:55, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

While that's technically a personal attack, you've neglected to mention that it followed immediately on the IP in question fixing disruption (the addition of the sandbox to inappropriate categories), and your restoring the disruptive edits with an edit summary of "no". I can entirely understand 79.17.196.73 becoming annoyed with you. ‑ Iridescent 14:59, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Excuse me that’s the most stupid answer I’ve seen when asking to deal with wiki attacks when they did it again when I asked them not to start an edit war https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/899963571 Sonicfan200530 (talk) 15:09, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

And what precisely was the point of this edit? Such edits are not helpful. IP editors are not prohibited from using the sandbox.Nigel Ish (talk) 15:31, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

As with an ANI above, we should not excuse PA's. I think a warning is all that is needed, but they should not have said that.Slatersteven (talk) 15:14, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Welp they did it to CLCStudent https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/899963998 Sonicfan200530 (talk) 15:16, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

In that case I think a block maybe in order, as their behavior tells me this is an existing user. All they have done [[3]] is play up. That does not excuse your actions though.Slatersteven (talk) 15:41, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

I gave the IP an NPA level 1 warning. So why is anyone edit warring with the IP on their talk page? I thought users had the right, with certain exceptions that don't apply here, to remove comments left on talk pages. - Donald Albury 15:25, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

They can remove those comments, and no one has a right to edit war to reinsert them (especially with edit summaries like [[4]] Grrr! I think warnings all round.Slatersteven (talk) 15:29, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm not in the mood to throw more template warnings around, but I will remind everyone of Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. - Donald Albury 15:48, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

As I say above I am not sure they are a newbie, they show a lack of editing (yet know of one of the more obscure areas of wiki).Slatersteven (talk) 15:50, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

I also not the IP was not correctly informed about this ANI, I will now do so.Slatersteven (talk) 15:44, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

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

Nishidani and personal attacks as in-jokes

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 blocked Nishidani (talk · contribs) for this edit (revision deleted). Having no prior interactions with Nishidani I wasn't aware that the insult is apparently some kind of in-joke between the two editors. This isn't the first time this situation has come up, with a previous block having been handed out over a similar issue. In good faith I'm opening a thread here for a second opinion - is the block warranted regardless? And more broadly, should in-jokes be tolerated even when uninvolved readers might read a message as a straightforward insult? Sam Walton (talk) 17:47, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Very bad block, please lift immediately. It was plain as day this was friendly banter. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:54, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

This is an over-reaction. I have edited with Nishidani and Nableezy for years and can testify that they have great respect for each other. Moreover, Nishdani is the type of person who would never use that word except in the knowledge that the receiver would know it to be an in-joke. Zero^talk 17:58, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm not debating whether Nishidani meant to insult Nableezy or Nableezy took it as an insult. I'm asking whether it's ok for me to call someone else whatever I like publicly on-Wiki provided the recipient understands it to be a 'joke', ignoring the thoughts or feelings of anyone else that might happen to read it. Sam Walton (talk) 18:02, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't know and I don't care what "anyone else that might happen to read it" might think about that exchange, if that "anyone else" doesn't know how to read. If they do know how to read, they will understand it; as I said, it was plain as day. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:05, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Two more things: first, please also lift the revision redaction; it prevents onlookers from making a judgment of the situation, and the edit wouldn't meet redaction criteria anyway even if it was a genuine personal attack. Second, even if you had a legitimate concern about how that posting could come across in the wrong way, the proper way of dealing with that would have been to approach the poster and ask for a self-redaction, not jumping immediately to a block. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:13, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

WP:NOTSOCIALMEDIA. There are other platforms for inside jokes. --Pudeo (talk) 18:13, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Whether it was a good idea or not to post something like that where people may read it who might not get the joke, it's clearly is just a joke. I would unblock here. Black Kite (talk) 18:11, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

I've unblocked, but stand by disagreeing with allowing these kinds of personal attacks that make Wikipedia appear to be a hostile community to be a part of. Sam Walton (talk) 18:18, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

It was not a personal attack. To the contrary. Wikipedia is, more than it is willing to admit, a hostile area. Try to remedy that and you will see some of its finest contributors like Poetic Bent, or most attentive hands-on toxic topic area admins like User:Malik Shabazz, hounded off, with a complete disregard to their role in ensuring serious encyclopedic work, and a hyper-supine sensitivity to pseudo-whingeing about being offended. If the goal is recruitment, then state that recruiting editors of unknown value is more important than retaining those who have proved their commitment to this place.Nishidani (talk) 20:08, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Just for the record, this also.Nishidani (talk) 20:23, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

I completely agree with Nishidani. I occasionally see more serious stuff about this issue, but nothing happens. Also, regarding to Pudeo's comment, both users -and most of the users- are likely to only interact via Wikipedia. Sebastian James what's the T? 20:40, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Sam Walton: I am very glad you unblocked; thank you. Having edited with both Nableezy and Nishidani (and Malik) for over a decade, I know they all three have the utmost respect for each other. They also all use a language to each other that I don't always approve of, but that is their business. This is like two Afro−Americans friends calling each other the "n−word": I might not like it, but it is not my job (as a white person) to try to stop that, Huldra (talk) 20:52, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

At first glance this does look like an attack (atleast to me anyway) however the most reasonable approach here would've been to ask Nishidani first .. or atleast skim through Maliks talkpage history to see if there was history between the 2 or whether it was just banter, Blocking should've been a last resort not the first. –Davey2010^Talk 21:59, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Well, there you go. The problem with banter is the audience. In real life, I have used re-appropriated pejoratives in the past without paying attention to "outsiders" who then reacted as though they found it awkward (no way of telling whether they took offence). In this case here, I admit, I'm surprised the jocular intent wasn't obvious to any even casual reader of that exchange, even if they were completely unaware of the interlocutors' sympathetic history. I guess my lesson is: Don't do it at Wikipedia. Evidently it can be misunderstood. ---Sluzzelin talk 22:12, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

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

• What a great opportunity for me to plug my handy template {{fbdb}}! (It renders as .) EEng 06:30, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Could that fit in my sig somewhere? -Roxy, the dog. wooF 16:14, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

IP sock, possible evasion, sealioning and targeting editors at TERF

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.

---

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

The IP appeared out of the blue on TERF trying to remove lead summary that's verified in body by RS, canvassing editors they believe to be on their side of POV, and wrapping mass-pinging in a lengthy accusation against named editors. Initially countered by Fæ, they refused to answer sock inquiry, called a misclicked editor "trigger-happy", and dug up Fae's past interaction records, suggesting that this is very possibly a blocked editor who had extensive involvement on this topic and had a history of interaction with other users. After the article was semi-protected in response to disruptive edits attracted by this reddit canvassing attempt], the IP churned out two RfCs lawyering for verified, pertinent RS content to be removed in favor of cherrypicked editorials from transphobic fringe authors. Apart from obvious throwaway SPA, the smell of sealions is astounding. Actions may be required fro this egregious block evasion and WP:IDHT problem. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 03:55, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

I modified the result. @Rivselis: please don't make assumptions about CU blocks, they happen for a multitude of reasons. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 04:37, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

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

On China–United States trade war and talk

Syopsis seems to be certain of his version of the truth that other editors must all be "for fucks sake stop the bleating already if you and other (sockpuppet?) user hate the article so much then feel free to inject your own POV into the article", and he then removed all the tags added to the article as if by removing these tags, the article will no automatically be taken as the truth when any intelligent reader could see the excessive coverage of the US's administration with little to no mention of its Chinese counterpart. When I reverted his edit that deleted ALL tags, he instead insist on his version and said I should discuss these changes first, when already several other have questioned the POV of the article on the talk pages for a long time. He seems to be unable to make arguments beside being a wiki lawyer and make personal attacks, when others have made clear stated point. I once thought even the most pro-current-administration person should agree this article simply writes too much from a US perspective, because besides the mentioning on the retaliatory tariff, all the rest are US,US,US if not TRUMPTRUMPTRUMP. Viztor (talk) 05:16, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

User's already filed two complaints (one at the neutral point of view noticeboard and another at the Administrator intervention against vandalism . I have said everything I needed to say but it basically boils down to the user refusing to even discuss the changes he wants - there is an assumption on his part that his view is "the truth". I have said from day one that we need to discuss the kind of changes that he is making on the talk page FIRST because it is A LOT of information that he is trying to pull out. There really isn't anything partisan about it, although given the user's history....the same can't be said. Syopsis (talk) 06:16, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

@Viztor: See this is the kind of edit that YOU need to be making and EVERYONE can agree on. Syopsis (talk) 06:22, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

@Syopsis: Regarding this atrocious edit: please read WP:CIVIL, and remember to not curse needlessly in communication, and to be respectful. If someone does something you disagree with, talk about it calmly and try to resolve the issue, instead of throwing your hands up in exasperation or being rude to other editors. Also, do not make baseless accusations of sockpuppetry. If you think someone is a sock, report it at WP:SPI, don't use it as a cudgel in conversation. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 09:00, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

@Viztor: I think you should read WP:CIVIL too, and also remember to not WP:FORUMSHOP. Posting an issue in one place is good enough, and ANI is the right venue. Your reports to the other boards have been removed or moved. Also, to both of you, your use of capitalization is excessive. Please tone it down. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 09:00, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

i'm generally quite relaxed and a all-time-lower-case person, however, it does came to my notice that this specific user were tracking and vetting the changes i make and reverted those he doesn't like, which is as if someone's scratching the back of my feet while i'm sleeping, which apparently cause reactions in my nervous system and make it quite uncomfortable to keep editing. Viztor (talk) 16:57, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

• Ok... you have both expressed your take on what is happening... now, please sit back and let others examine the situation and comment. Blueboar (talk) 11:09, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

BTW, I did not add those tags, I only became engaged as I reverted a change that removed all tags, when there are clearly related-discussion on the talk page, which nobody seems to bother to contest. After which, I agreed with the editor that four tags may be tag bombing and merged three into one globalize/US, yet the editor still insisted and removed all, at which point it is clear of his intention. As of now, the article remain untagged with the talk page filled with concerns rained about its neutrality. Viztor (talk) 05:42, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

• Comment In the article now remains tagged after after a discussion on the talk page. I reverted several of the reported user's edits, and the only one of mine that is still up is the {{globalize/US}} tag. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:08, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, this is significant undue weight. If I scroll to the top of "Arguments for the US to implement tariff sanctions" and PageDown, this section occupies nearly five screens, and from "Temporary reprieve" to the beginning of the China subsection of "Influence" is a little bit over three screens. The only China-specific section is the Influence/China subsection, which is less than one screen. You can't claim balance when one side gets eight times the coverage. Hint: wait until secondary sources come out (those written after the fact), rather than using primary sources (those written at the time of the event), because reliable secondary sources will provide a good overview instead of "Here's the latest X you should care about" typical of primary sources like news reports. Nyttend (talk) 11:58, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Can an administrator take a look at this set of edit-warring edits by User:Viztor ([5], [6] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=China%E2%80%93Uni ted_States_trade_war&diff=899784563&oldid=89978333])? I really don't want to give the impression that I am being petty or beating a dead horse or whatever you call it, but I must bring this up because the other user who the user was edit warring with (User talk:Hari147) got an outright 24 hour block for it; I would have just ignored the edit warring between those two as something to be expected had Hari not been blocked. Now I don't know the exact details of why Hari got blocked so I won't comment how just it was and i am also not going to saying that the same be automatically done to the other user. But on the face of it the treatment doesn't seem fair, especially when Viztor was edit warring even AFTER filing this ANI request.

And on an unrelated note, i have made lots of changes to the involved page and there hasn't been any edit-warring by ANY parties to the debate since so i've done my best to avoid any more edit warring. While still of course being bold in my changes.Syopsis (talk) 21:30, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Syopsis practically made up the third edit...It's a diff between different pages. False accusations do not earn this editor any respect in the community.
Viztor (talk) 21:36, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi there.It seems this has been escalating for too long.Let me explain a few of my thoughts on this.

I would like to mention that wikipedia should be a platform based on factual information,rather than content that favours a particular side,and more importantly,information that may be unnecessary to the context of the article,in this case,the article on China-United States trade war.I have warned user Viztor that his edits may be unconstructive to the context of the article,and revealed to him proper methods to publish articles in the future of such manner.Despite several warnings,he has been persistent to his actions and has been reluctant to abide by proper editing.He has been warned by other users also,and in retaliation he has been accusatory and seems to take it too personally.Hence,i request that all edits to this article be reviewed by proper management,as this topic may seem to be of a sensitive manner and the article,in fact,could possibly pose serious conflicts in real life,as people gain information to these articles.Nevertheless,the edits have been proper thus far.

I would also like to add to some arguments placed by some users on this topic.Although there might be information that does not well represent a particular side(or in this case,quantified),it does not mean that the article is going towards a biased avenue.The information thus far has been as accurate as possible and ONLY information that is related to the context should be added,rather than information that might actually be off-topic.Many of such previous information has included military personnel,background information of companies,or historical information of countries.These are topics that have been already discussed on other pages,and should not necessarily be included.If such information needs to be included,they should be linked to other articles,rather than to the above-mentioned article.I hope that the administrators would take a proper measures that such incidents are prevented as much possible.I would also like to add that i feel that the block on my rights was baseless and not needed,as i was only protecting the article form further damage.Nevertheless,it did not really affect me too much as i was in fact away during much of the time.Thank you.
hari147 (talk) 04:00, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

@Hari147: You were blocked for violating the WP:3RR, a hard and fast rule here on Wikipedia. No matter your intentions, we have the 3RR policy for good reason. Don't break it again, and don't edit war in general (even if you are right!) or you'll find yourself banned for much longer than 24 hours. In terms of Viztor, please provide diffs and/or other links to their supposed misconduct. Otherwise, its just claims without evidence, which won't lead to action. In terms of the content of the article? Discuss that on that article's talk page, not here. ANI is for conduct not content. Lastly, not to be rude, but if I may nitpick your grammar: you are lacking spaces after essentially all of your punctuation, which reads very awkwardly. Don't forget to add a space after each use of a period or comma :) Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 05:04, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Insults by User:Roxy the dog

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

---

I found myself at the receiving end of increasingly insulting behaviour by User:Roxy the dog. First, he reverted my edit, implying in the edit summary that I deliberatly overrode consensus and calling me "naughty". I asked him politely to avoid insulting me, and explained my action at his talk page. He responded with another insult. I dismissed it, but the insults wouldn't stop. I don't recall ever interacting with this user, but I don't think this would be acceptable even if we had a history. — Yerpo ^Eh? 14:08, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Personal attacks are never a good thing for Wikipedia. Profanity is not helpful. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:50, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

• At the time of reversion, I don't believe there was consensus and was thus a reasonable revert (though there now is rough consensus). Of the insults, "naughty" and "plonker" are hardly aggressive insults. Being told to F**k off is much worse, but Wikipedia seems to run a more flexible attitude towards it than I would. ~~

Indeed, it appears to be tolerated to tell someone to eff off from your own talk page, and is not regarded as a personal attack.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:56, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

I disagree. Somebody tells me to "fuck off" and I take it personally. No need for rudeness. - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:05, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

It's not something I necessarily agree with; it just seems to be a common outcome for these kind of complaints.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:32, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

• If these are insults worthy of admin intervention, most editors would be blocked. While being told to "fuck off" is rude, it traditionally has been tolerated if done on the person's own user talk page. EvergreenFir (talk) 15:37, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

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

User:Tomsmith81727 - an account solely for reverting?

Tomsmith81727 (talk · contribs) is an account apparently created solely for the purpose of reverting editors; its entire history until consists of that. The account usually (always?) reverts highly established editors with tens of thousands of edits. I would suggest that at a minimum it be indefinitely blocked. I also think it looks suspiciously like a bad hand account. I'm not the only editor who has this suspicion. Jayjg ^(talk) 12:51, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) A block for edit warring in Jewish Ghetto Police is overdue. They have been warned twice, this month. Kleuske (talk) 12:59, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Seems WP:NOTHERE to me. Indef with standard offer seems appropriate. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:09, 30 May 2019 (UTC).

My only interaction wit them was when they reinserted some non English quotation (within a ref) without justify why we need a wall of Polish text. As well as reinserting a ref that was just a quote, not even any mention of where the quote was from. Given the edit war as well I am getting a not here vibe from all of this. But by the same token they are a fairly new account. I would opt for a short block.Slatersteven (talk) 13:06, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

I've tried hard to reach out to this editor - giving them time between reverts to actually read their talk page, warning them, adding a welcome template, adding a personalized message to the warning on their talk page, but the edits are not good - and we've tried to discuss on the talk page of the article why - not just explain in edit summaries. No luck. The edit today re-adding back in a long list of articles to a see also section makes me wonder if this editor is connected to the editors above under WP:ANI#MOS:ETHNICITY on articles about Polish Jews (added here) Ealdgyth - Talk 13:44, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, good faith only goes so far - this edit which adds "Somebody wants to hide some history very much.... But no way!" definitely seems to tie this editor to the above section. Support block of some sort. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:47, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

That comment (his very first) seems to show that the editor is here to Right Great Wrongs. Jayjg ^(talk) 13:51, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

OK, block.Slatersteven (talk) 14:01, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Blocked 24 hours for edit warring. Someone can lengthen it if they think that's too short, or we could try seeing what happens after 24 hours. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:15, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

I lengthened it to indef. If they have a convincing unblock request, I am willing to put the original block back in place. But we have more than a 3RR violation. I first encountered this user when they started reverting back a spelling error, which I found quite disruptive. I am troubled to learn that all that account has done since has been to revert, except for one inflammatory talk page comment. To me, they seem to be clearly not here to collaborate. El_C 17:10, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

My only interaction with the user is that he/she keeps removing articles from a category I recently created: Category:Collaboration with the Axis Powers. He/she has not offered an explanation. Dimadick (talk) 04:09, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

• This is a content dispute. it started when K.e.coffman made this edit. Tomsmith81727 reverted that edit and then the editwar started but considering that the account is 17 days old means that they aren't yet aware of editwarring rules and stuff like that. I also blame Wikipedia itself for not making talk page message clear enough. I mean from the time you start your account you get a red notification at the top and then you don't even click on it because you don't know what is it even if you get new messages. It should be made clear that the notification button shows you the messages you receive. I think we need to not allow any editor to start editting except when they are told about everything in the interface of of Wikipedia and they should click on a button that says "Got it" when they learn something. I remember when I was a new editor I didn't know what that red button is or how to undo an edit etc. Anyway, indef block should be 24 hours block for only edit warring. I don't see any sign that this editor is not here to build an encyclopedia neither I see any sign that the editor is here to build. It's still too early to tell..--SharabSalam (talk) 04:40, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

• It's almost certainly not too early and, at any rate, AGF is not a suicide pact. The user is free to compose a convincing unblock request. Somehow, I tend to doubt that this is gonna happen, though. El_C 04:55, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

WP:AIV policy question

I reported User:Dormasheen, User:Mike1819, and User:BloopyBloppy123456 to WP:AIV here, here, and here as they were all created by vandalism-only accounts before they were indefinitely blocked. In the past, I have taken such accounts to SPI because it could run afoul of WP:SOCK but they were dismissed. I have taken ~5 to AIV in the past for this and all of which resulted in a block. In this wave of reports, 2/3 were obviously the same person (Mike1819 was created by Mikep1819 and BloopyBloppy123456 was created by BloopyBloppy). These 3 reports were dismissed by NJA with a claim that there is no reason to block based on policy as seen here. As NJA posted on my talk page,

1. User:Mike1819: created by User:Mikep1819 at 2019-05-27T13:59:14. Mikep1819 was blocked at 2019-05-27T14:13:28.
2. User:BloopyBloppy123456 was created by User:BloopyBloppy at 2019-05-28T12:45:57. BloopyBloppy was blocked at 2019-05-28T12:56:26.
3. User:Dormasheen: created by User:Username489 at 2019-05-26T01:34:04. Username489 was blocked at 2019-05-26T02:08:46.
   This is not a question of administrator conduct, just a policy related question. I am submitting this here as suggested in the brief dialogue we had on WP:AIV. Am I in the wrong here or is this based entirely on the admin's interpretation? Kb03 (talk) 18:59, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

(Edit: User:BloopyBloppy123456 was blocked for block evasion as I was writing this) Kb03 (talk) 19:01, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

•  See Special:Permalink/899241560#AIV_submissions for my response on this. NJA | talk 19:04, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Just because one hasn't used the other sleepers doesn't mean they shouldn't be blocked, They've shown the propensity to do it and thus all accounts should be blocked and tagged. Wrong venue for that but could've been resolved easier Hell in a Bucket (talk) 19:06, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Blocked on what justification and using which tags? The subsequent block of User:BloopyBloppy123456 is appropriate as they evaded the block, but what’s the justification for the former two? NJA | talk 19:09, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Well you admit on the link you put that the original account was blocked correct? They used one of their accounts as a sock puppet and that account was blocked correct? So two accounts blocked and several sleepers? If I am still on the right track then why wouldn't we block the other sleeper accounts and tag them as sockpuppets? That's like telling a shooter that since you only used this gun we won't take these four or 5 others. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 19:14, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

(ec) The accounts were created by vandals, so it's reasonable to expect that once the autoblock expires, the new accounts will be used for vandalism, too. I would sockblock them as sleeper accounts, but YMMV. —DoRD (talk)​ 19:14, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Exactly. It's precisely why we have sleeper checks, to block sleeper accounts that are likely to become active once the autoblock expires. It falls squarely within WP:PREVENTATIVE.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:17, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

I do not think it appropriate to block accounts made before any indefinite block is given and where the account has made no edits at all is good practice. No real sock puppetry has occurred as they had not yet tried to abuse multiple accounts. If that’s what is happening though then Kb03’s initial report should be re-considered. NJA | talk 19:21, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

We do this all the time. If the main account is indefinitely blocked, the other accounts are blocked as well. Sure, socking hasn't technically occurred yet, but the first edit by the other accounts would instantly be in violation of policy. This is also the basis behind sleeper checks and blocking of unused accounts revealed through CheckUser. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:00, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

• @TonyBallioni: It is clearly not routine enough otherwise I would not have declined three AIV reports on this basis. Can it be confirmed specifically what blocking template and tags an admin is recommended to use that is appropriate in the exact instance of users User:Mike1819 and User:Dormasheen? FYI I do not plan to do this and another admin is asked to re-consider Kb03’s routine request that I declined. I am interested however re tags and templates to be used. NJA | talk 20:07, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Also, as an aside, I’d argue Checkuser sleeper blocking is not the same as this exact scenario as that means blocking other accounts confirmed or likely connected to a user who has abused multiple accounts. In this case, I argue, no abuse of multiple accounts, evasion, etc occurred (aside from one who was correctly blocked for evasion). NJA | talk 20:10, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

It's an abuse of multiple accounts. This happens frequent enough, and as Ponyo stated above, this is why we do check for sleepers. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:12, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I blocked them using the dropdown option for socking in the system dialogue, and didn't give a block notice or tag them. You could also custom type in a block rationale linking to whomever the master is "Alt of indef blocked User:Example". Block notice and tags aren't needed since the creation log makes it obvious and they're supposed to appeal from the main account anyway. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:13, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

OK got it. All blocked for “abuse of multiple accounts". The last question Kb03 asked is whether AIV was the proper forum for reporting accounts with no edits (edit filter, deleted, or otherwise) or if there’s a more appropriate forum? NJA | talk 20:17, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Editors are often requested to report obvious cases of socking to AIV in order to lessen the burden at SPI, which is really designed for the review of more intricate cases of socking as opposed to WP:DUCK throw-away vandal accounts. I'm guessing this is why Kb03 was feeling frustrated as doors were being closed regardless of where they looked for help. -- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:22, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

I recommend Kb03 take this here as I felt AIV wasn’t appropriate. I could not identify an "active, obvious, and persistent vandalism requiring an immediate block”. Also, as at the time of the AIV reports were made, none of them edited wikipedia at all and therefore I would be surprised if Kb03 "felt any doors were closed” (they haven’t said that anyhow). The question remains is AIV appropriate. NJA | talk 20:29, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

I wasn't assuming Kb03 had been pointed in several directions regarding this particular case, only that they have been receiving differing instructions from different admins in general regarding reporting obvious socking cases. They state this in their opening paragraph "I have taken such accounts to SPI because it could run afoul of WP:SOCK but they were dismissed. I have taken ~5 to AIV in the past for this and all of which resulted in a block.". I don't think anyone is in the wrong here.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:39, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Ponyo I agree entirely with "I don't think anyone is in the wrong here". I started this primarily to get a discussion going as to how this should be handled and if I need to change how I handle this. NJA I don't think you did anything wrong at all and I appreciate your timely responses. Kb03 (talk) 21:02, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Actually this is the second inciddent I've observed with User:NJA at the AVI. I will note that both times I would have preferred different actions but they are open to discussion and changing course if needed. This also being sparing with the blockhammer so all in all a decent admin. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 21:17, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment. I like to think I’m better than decent, but I’ll take it ;) I am curious of the other instance there was action you would have preferred me to take (just curious)? I think the whole block thing is sorted now (though I have reservations), but it ties into whether AIV is appropriate. After all I rarely get too involved in SPI forums, but I do block obvious socks and tag them often enough. Re AIV and these reports, I can confirm I agree with Jayron32 (see his statement below). AIV is clear what it’s for, and the reports I declined today would be declined by perhaps quite a few admins patrolling AIV. This is not because of any underlying good reason to block (again, I’m not so sure), but that the reports were not reports of ongoing, obvious and urgent vandalism. NJA | talk 21:28, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

• I think there are two different questions here: 1) Whether or not AIV is the appropriate place to handle these kind of reports and 2) Whether we should block these accounts when we become aware of them. I'll leave the second one as too nuanced to make definitive statements (for example, when someone becomes blocked quickly for vandalism, creates a new account, and never vandalizes again vs. when someone is creating a sockfarm for the purpose of committing widespread disruption are clearly two different issues). However, on the first one, I'd suggest that it really doesn't belong at AIV, and instead should be handled through a venue like WP:AN or WP:ANI. Here's why: AIV is really designed for rapid, obvious vandalism. When I respond at AIV, I make two quick clicks: the contributions page and the user talk page, to confirm that a) they are currently vandalizing and b) they have been warned. If both of those conditions are met, I block, and if they are not, I don't. AIV is designed for that kind of process. It is not designed for investigations or explanations of any sort. It should be the sort of thing where looking only at the edits themselves with absolutely no explanation at all, it is obvious a block is needed. If one has to actually explain why a block is needed, or if one needs an admin or checkuser to do any sort of investigation, then AIV is not appropriate. ANI exists for those purposes. Now, does that mean that sometimes such reports still result in a block at AIV? Sure, but it's not really what AIV is designed for, and we really should encourage people to use these process correctly so they can run effeciently. AIV should be a "speedy block" process and should not need any explanation at all. I would have declined these reports solely for that purpose, without prejudice against reporting the situation more properly at WP:ANI or elsewhere where it could be more properly dealt with. --Jayron32 20:18, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

  Jayron32 I agree entirely with what you said, although it seems like using ANI to report a possibly autoblocked alt account is a bit like using a sledgehammer to drive a nail. Kb03 (talk) 21:08, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) Speaking to the general issue of AIV vs ANI, I completely agree that AIV is not the place for long-winded explanations or non-urgent matters, but I usually prefer to report to AIV when I can explain myself in one sentence or less, for these reasons:

  • WP:DENY. Posting here makes a scene. And since you have to notify the user, they know about it. By posting here, you give the vandal the attention that they so crave. This page is archived forever, often preserving the vandal's name or a description of their edits. Reports at AIV are quickly buried in the gigantic history, and the only attention the vandal gets is the block notice.
  • Non-admins don't "clerk" AIV. On this page everyone has an opinion. Sometimes I think people pick threads here completely at random, carefully search for any minor problem with the OPs post, and shout "BOOMERANG!" for the lulz. This is a page where people are out for blood, and there's always a risk that it might be yours.

  By the standard given above (absolutely no explanation at all), I shouldn't be making reports at AIV with the explanation of "See also filter log", or "Blatant block evasion by 127.0.0.1", or "Making identical edits to the ones they were blocked for twice previously, no warning given", etc. None of these require an investigation as such, nor reading through a tedious WP:WALLOFTEXT explanation, just one or two extra clicks to verify that the report isn't BS. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 21:48, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

  Jayron32, That's about my workflow as well. If there's a multi-sentence explanation needed, or if there isn't obvious vandalism in the latest handful edits, it probably doesn't belong at AIV. SQL^{Query me!} 13:43, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

• Personally, if I see that a parent account (who I've blocked for being an obvious VOA) has created any child accounts like this, I apply the same block to all of the child accounts as well. Users like these who only edit in order to be purposefully disruptive and add vandalism to Wikipedia will typically use the child account(s) they created in order to do the same. If someone makes a report to AIV stating that they're reporting a child account of a parent account that was recently created and recently blocked due to being a VOA, I don't mind at all and I'll typically handle the matter appropriately. Is it really that big of a deal? :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:29, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Can I jump in with another "should I go to AIV" question? Asked already at AIV but under a report and dropped when report processed. At Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Fangusu is identified a list of IP ranges characteristically used by the banned user. Today I find more of the same user on new IP 172.85.185.67. (Oh, same area, but not (yet) on list - new house?)

Should these IPs - when recognizably used by the banned user - be immediately short-term blocked? Sometimes the IPs are used multiple days. Shenme (talk) 23:47, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

I have trolls whose IP addresses I block on sight only because I am familiar enough with them. It's important to remember that most admins are not familiar with most long-term trolls, so even IF you find it obvious, reporting such things at AIV will only work IF the first admin to happen upon your report is also familiar with the troll in question. It's best, in those cases, to either use WP:ANI OR if you know admins who know the troll in question, to hit them up on their talk page. --Jayron32 15:01, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

In direct relation to the above vandalism from the socks of Fangusu, I have found these two edits which appear to also be from Fangusu and appear to me to be vandalism. The page is locked so I am not able to revert them, and I was blocked for reverting other edits. Can a different editor please review the two edits in light of Fangusu's vandalism pattern and determine if they should be reverted or not? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Panties&oldid=898824411 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Panties&oldid=898792262

This is not vandalism. Please do not remove my comments. If you object to this post, please talk to me instead of blocking me and then ignoring me for a day. I am not here to vandalize. 2001:4898:80E8:3:3541:C292:A263:D9A1 (talk) 17:54, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

@Jayron32: As you are the administrator who suggested that people post on this forum for complaints like this, can you please watch this? 2001:4898:80E8:3:3541:C292:A263:D9A1 (talk) 17:56, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Possibly years of unnoticed vandalism from IP range

An OTRS email pointed me to this edit, adding a list of nominees and the winner for a category of the upcoming Primetime Emmy Awards. So I decided to look at the range to see if there was any other vandalism, and, well, title of the thread. The IP is on an apparently static /64 subnet, and has been editing award-related content for years, often without sources or with sources that predate the award, and sometimes adding awards that have not been announced yet. See Special:Contributions/2A02:C7D:49FD:A200:0:0:0:0/64. I think it's a couple thousand edits or so, and I really don't have a sense for how many of these were good edits, or how many of the bad ones have already been reverted. So reporting here. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:14, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Admins should be reminded that an IP6 /64 subset corresponds loosely to a single device, if not precisely equivalent to a single IP4 address. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:09, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest Issue involving IP Connected to Company

50.73.174.35 is licensed to the West Virginia Radio Corporation (WVRC). WVRC owns a slew of radio stations under WVRC, but also as AJG Corporation, along with The Dominion Post newspaper. In 2016, they attempted to edit some of their company's station's pages here on Wikipedia and that was successfully shut down with a simple COI warning. In the past week or so, they have started up again. I have issued 2 more COI warnings. It's clear all the edits are coming from the WVRC IP and they are trying to make the articles less than neutral or more kind to WVRC and their owners. The latest edit was pure OR. I have done what I can, so I bring it to this board for assistance. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:39 on May 25, 2019 (UTC)

We have Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard for this sort of thing. - Donald Albury 10:43, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

I was kinda hoping for some assistance, not the run-around. But sure...here ya go. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 11:09 on May 25, 2019 (UTC)

• The COI discussion has gone nowhere. I mean no responses, which seems typical of most of the posts there. Any assistance here would be appreciated. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 13:37 on May 27, 2019 (UTC)
  • 1) It's the weekend, 2) it's a holiday weekend in the States. Have a little more patience. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:22, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
    • This is English Wikipedia, which means there are more than just US folks here. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:58 on May 28, 2019 (UTC)
      • Hence my pointing out that it was the weekend first. The American holiday was to emphasize that American editors were likely still out doing other things even after that point. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:09, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
        • Instead of "pointing out" things, how about helping the matter? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 17:19 on May 28, 2019 (UTC)
          • Okay: When discussions get no traction, that often means it no one believes it rises to the level of needing correction. You've already given them a COI warning, if they proceed in promoting OR or pushing their brand, bring it up again. Right now, it's hardly a blip on the radar and I doubt admins will block an IP for what has happened so far. Bringing it to ANI was premature. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:12, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
            • Not wanting to do your "job" isn't a good response. This has happened in the past, this is a company registered IP, and the COI discussion has gone nowhere (still). So, I don't think it was premature to bring it to ANI (even though I brought it to ANI first). I think it's right where it needs to be. I just think no one actually wants to do anything about it. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 12:57 on May 30, 2019 (UTC)
              • Because they don't agree it rises to the level of needing anything to be done. On that note, I think we're done here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:04, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
                • Did we ever start? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 12:37 on June 1, 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive edits by Iamworm666

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 could an admin look at these edits by Iamworm666. Despite repeated warnings and explanations on their talk page (as well as edit summaries) by various editors including myself regarding aiming for generality in the lead in this article, said editor prefers to ignore what seems to be an obvious consensus and constantly reverts to his personal preference. Robvanvee 16:21, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

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

Need 2 quick indefs

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.

---

Resolved

See Janella Zulu and Janelle Zulu who are causing quite some problems at SPI. --qedk (t 桜 c) 19:36, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 19:39, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks a ton! --qedk (t 桜 c) 19:40, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

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

Can an admin look at this edit summary and do whatever they think best?

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.

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shelly_Miscavige&diff=849362335&oldid=842585754 That man from Nantucket (talk) 13:17, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

I revdeled the edit summary only. The edit itself had no objectionable content. --Jayron32 13:37, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Fwiw the edit was from 2018 and the editor's activities were pretty suspicious, but they were only active from that account for one day. 173.228.123.207 (talk) 19:33, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

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

Flix11 abusing a warning template

Pinging involved users: @Natureium:, @Meters:, @Thewinrat:.

For a long time now – this should have been reported ages ago – Flix11 (talk · contribs) has been abusing a warning template and biting newcomers. They routinely post an unnecessarily angry and aggressively sounding warning to newcomers' Talk pages: "You will surely be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia". This happens after newcomers' (often good-faith) first edits. On their Talk page, Flix11 has been repeatedly told to change their behaviour and start with level 1 warnings instead:

• In February: [7]
• In March: [8]
• In April: [9]

They are still at it, though. Their edit history (All contributions filtered by "Talk page") is full of these warnings. Some recent examples.

• Flix11 warns user, seemingly for three good faith edits. User responds to the warning: seemingly puzzled by the warning, never receives an explanation.
• Flix11 warns once, twice following relatively harmless changes that seem to have been made in good faith: trying to correct data giving a source in the edit summary, trying to improve sourcing. Unsurprisingly, the user feels unfairly treated as evidence by their edit summaries when removing the warnings from their Talk page.

Something needs to be done so that Flix11 stops harming Wikipedia by biting newcomers. Robby.is.on (talk) 08:40, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

• So you want to block me because I jump to level-4 warning? Even for blatant vandalism? If so, alright. I will use level-1 even for those intentional vandals from now on. – Flix11 (talk) 09:01, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
• "revert ignorant vandal"; because the IP user removed Flix11's tweaked, over-exaggerated, wrongly-used user-warning template for what appears to be a test/good-faith edit (diff) from their own talk page. Even if the IP's edits were disruptive, this obvious personal attack is unjustifiable. —RainFall 09:42, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
• Robby.is.on, have you tried to discuss this issue with Flix11 in their talk page?. Flix11 consider using twinkle it's much easier and can help you to get different templates. Not all edits are vandalism. Vandalism edits are like this: ahsbdksidbdkfkdndosbd, the only intention behind vandalising an article is vandalism. Adding unsourced content is not vandalism, disruptive edits are not vandalism, edit tests are not vandalism and so on. Use twinkle tool, it will give you all templates you need. Also please don't use uncivil words such as "ignorant". Read WP:CIVILITY--SharabSalam (talk) 10:08, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

@SharabSalam: "Vandalism edits are like this: ahsbdksidbdkfkdndosbd": You're wrong; vandalism edits aren't only like "ahsbdksidbdkfkdndosbd." Also, disruptive edits are vandalism. —RainFall 11:14, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

When I said "disruptive edits," I meant the intentional ones. Thought I'd mentioned that, but, apparently, I hadn't. —RainFall 16:37, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

RainFall you quoted me right but responded with a wrong response. I didn't say vandalism are only like this. I just wanted to illustrate the meaning of vandalism by giving one example. I didn't say the word only. And disruptive edits are not vandalism that's the first thing you read in disruptive edits policy. It literally says "Disruptive editing is not vandalism" Wikipedia:Disruptive editing-SharabSalam (talk) 11:35, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Also, disruptive edits are vandalism. That is absolutely incorrect. Grandpallama (talk) 13:51, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

• Hello. Yesterday I did two goods edits about Europa League Final. this one and this one, following the previous finals of this competition. Flix11 removed my edits (maybe without reading the contents) and came in my talk page adding twice a block warning and saying that I'm a CATANIAN vandal. What's the problem if Am I a Catanian? Is this user ok or not? Now my edits are ok, because I, here on Wikipedia English version, always make goods edits. To concluding, I think Flix11 has to be quiet with people in this Encyclopedia. Best regards.--82.57.44.190 (talk) 11:18, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
• "Also, disruptive edits are vandalism." - that's a very concerning line to read, SharabSalam is completely correct that they are specifically different things. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:47, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
• @Flix11:'s conduct on the 2019_UEFA_Europa_League_Final was very problematic. The IPs first edit was clearly good-faith, although not constructive as they linked to the wrong UEFA page. Flix11's response (a Level 4 vandalism warning, followed by replacing it with an editsummary of "revert ignorant vandal") was absolutely disgraceful. Their second revert of the IP appeared actually to be incorrect, and they then reverted the established editor who pointed it out. And what does this edit-summary mean? Flix11 has a whole user page full of people complaining about their use of warning templates - I looked at the few and they were, indeed, complete misuse. This one, for example, was in response to this edit - which was not only constructive but correct. How to proceed - well, I think we're looking at a minumum of a topic ban from Flix11 using vandalism templates, because they clearly lack the competence to do so. Black Kite (talk) 14:39, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Vandalism edits are like this: ahsbdksidbdkfkdndosbd - FWIW, if this is the first edit a new account or an IP has made, that shouldn't be treated as vandalism either - that's a perfect example of what the 'test edit' warning is for, someone mashing the keyboard to see whether they can actually edit a page - you can't judge intent from random characters, so AGF and treat as a test. (Note - this doesn't make it any more difficult in getting an account blocked - if you start at level 1 test, you can still escalate to level 2 vandalism if they persist after being warned).
• Black Kite (talk · contribs) - Absolutely agree that this extreme and indiscriminate use of templates is inappropriate and offputting for newbies. An alternative suggestion: if Flix11 was willing, I could take them through the CVUA course to explain when and how to use templates - that would not be possible if a TBAN was in place however. Would that be an acceptable approach to you, if Flix11 confirms whey are willing to hold off on templating until we are on the course, and only to do so under my guidance? GirthSummit _(blether) 14:44, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

• That would be an excellent idea, if possible. Black Kite (talk) 14:47, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
• Having looked at this earlier, I was thinking of suggesting a TBAN from posting vandalism warnings too, as Flix11 simply does not have the competence to identify vandalism, and is far too aggressive when they think they have. But if you're prepared to take them through the CVUA course, Girth Summit, I think that's a very kind offer and I would be happy to hold off any sanctions if Flix11 is prepared to do it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:27, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

• No no, I did a good update. I added the good version of UEFA document showing the number of attendance on the right down page of the pdf document (51,370), but Flix after a few minutes removed my edit without reason and adding a block warning in my talk page. Why did he do that?--82.57.44.190 (talk) 15:09, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry, IP. At first (for about 50 minutes) the attendance did not included in the report (one only opened in a new tab instead of requesting auto download). Girth Summit I would like to take CVUA please. – Flix11 (talk) 15:40, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

No problem, you're welcome. At first, S.A. Julio put another source for attendance because in pdf document there weren't. When I added the UEFA's document, attendance were already showed. Maybe you didn't see it.--82.57.44.190 (talk) 15:49, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

OK FLix11 - I've created a training page for you here - please read through and respond there, and don't leave any further warning messages anywhere until we've covered that part of the course. Boing! said Zebedee, Black Kite - hopefully that'll put an end to the disruption, but I'll let you know if it breaks down. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 15:56, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: Thanks again. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:00, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

• I think perhaps Flix11 needs to lay off on the vandalism warnings until @Girth Summit: is able to provide further guidance. They are still jumping in with inappropriate level warnings for good faith edits (e.g. a level three warning for an IP updating a page in good faith.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:18, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping Ponyo. @Flix11: - sorry if I wasn't clear before, but if you want to engage with the training course, I need you to stop putting any kind of warning on other editors' talk pages immediately, and not to do it again until we've done the relevant part of the course and I have told you to do so - please confirm that you understand this. I'm not asking you to stop editing, but I think the best way for you to show willingness to engage with the course would be to agree not to revert or warn any other editor until we've done the first part of the course. If you can't agree to that, I can't train you. Looking forward to your response, GirthSummit _(blether) 18:31, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Girth Summit Apologies before. I just can not stand when IP addresses deliberately ignore my reason to revert their premature edit (WP:LIVESCORES). But OK then. I will take a break. Flix11 (talk) 18:40, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Do not make any further warning to any IP before taking the training course--SharabSalam (talk) 23:44, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I was offline or I would have commented on this. I am disheartened to see that Flix11 has continued leaving the customized level 4 warning as a first warning, particularly in cases where it is arguable that no warning at all was needed. The user has known that this is an issue for months. I agree that there appears to be a WP:CIR issue here, and from the user's latest response it's not clear to me that he or she understands the training offer. Just "taking a break" is not what is required, so much as avoiding leaving warnings while doing the training and learning to do things properly.

User:Flix11 do you agree to do the training, and to stop leaving warning templates on other user's pages (IP or named) in the mean time? Meters (talk) 03:51, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

@Meters: Yes I do. – Flix11 (talk) 04:00, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Good, and my apologies. I had missed that you had already committed to taking the course. Meters (talk) 04:06, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

• Untrainable It looks like the training page has been established... and Flix11 claims to have read everything on it: "I have done the reading. What is next?"[10] Of course, if that were true, he wouldn't be asking what to do next because he'd already know; instructions are clearly laid out on the page he professes to have read. This means that either he's lying, which means he has no intention of actually doing the training and accepted the offer in bad faith, or that he's incapable of understanding plain English. Now that the laudable attempt to train him has failed, what do we do next? 78.28.54.188 (talk) 11:49, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

  Apparently, against all odds, and despite clear evidence the trainee is not actually reading anything, User:Girth Summit wants to "continue" the training.[11] Let's see how it goes. 78.28.54.188 (talk) 12:35, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

  I don't this this is helpful, 78.28.54.188 - I don't see any reason not to believe that they have read the instructions. Flex11 is a volunteer, like all of us, and they can do the training course at their own rate, provided they don't revert any more users or issue any more warnings until the relevant part of the course has been completed, which they have not done since it was last discussed here. If I get the feeling that they aren't engaging, or that they are ignoring the advice I'm giving them, then I'll come back here and say so, but until then let's just let them get on with it. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:42, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

  He says he's read the page that tells him to post on it once he's read it and in the same breath, asks you what to do next. Now, I might be slightly biased here, having been on the receiving end of multiple asinine vandalism warnings in the past, but this just doesn't bode well for the rest of the training (and by "this" I mean his outright lying about having finished the reading). 78.28.54.188 (talk) 12:52, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

  Agree with the IP, I am assuming good faith but if Flix11 had read the training page, they would have responded there and the response should be whether they have enabled twinkle or not, not (I have read everything, what's next). I don't want Girth Summit to waste their time. It's painful to watch how kind and nice is Girth Summit being towards Flix11 and how Flix11 is not appreciating. Girth Summit is trying to save Flix11 from getting IBAN. Does Flix11 know that?. I also want to note that Flix11 has reverted some users while addressing their nationality like Catanian [12]. I don't know whether or not the training course will make it clear for him that nationality is not a reason to revert. Anyway, I suggest waiting until it is very clear that Flix11 is doing the training or not.--SharabSalam (talk) 13:03, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

SharabSalam With respect, I still don't think this is helpful. Flix11 has so far stuck to their agreement not to do any more reverts or warnings, let's give them some time to get going on the course before discussing it further here - please let's allow them to do it without feeling that everyone is watching, that kind of pressure wouldn't be conducive to learning, and as long as they're not causing disruption I don't think we need to discuss this further here. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:08, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

NYC Subway vandal

This IP needs a block per the weeks of edit warring on R179 (New York City Subway car) and various other subway train articles. Note that there is almost always no edit summary. Cards84664 (talk) 02:34, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

@Cards84664: I second this. The IP just unreverted en masse all their edits. They definitely need a block. They have been warned about this, as per on their talk page. A block is a good idea now. Thank you. The Duke 23:15, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

I would also support this block. I have been following this IP's talk page and have reviewed its contributions and it is clearly engaging in vandalism and edit warring. They have received numerous recent blocks. StudiesWorld (talk) 10:06, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

At the very least, the edit warring is disruptive so I have blocked the IP address for 31 hours. If the problem returns after the block expires, please feel free to let me know or report to WP:AIV. -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:53, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Since the same issues continued after the block expired, I blocked again for two weeks--Ymblanter (talk) 21:33, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Harassment

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

---

Hello this is a follow on the wiki attack post I made a few days ago. So more IP users are telling me to "f**k off" such as this edit https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/900271257 at which is an unprovoked wiki attack. Could an admin pls do something. Thanks! Sonicfan200530 (talk) 16:01, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: I feel for you. We all wish that the editors on WP would be more WP:CIVIL. I think my best advice is try to ignore. Some editors use this kind of colorful language. I hope an admin has a better suggestion for you. Lubbad85 (☎) 16:08, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
• Fuck off is not a personal attack and it's not incivil in most circumstances, I don't think admins can do anything in regard to that particular issue but maybe there are some other issues that could make the IP get sanctioned--SharabSalam (talk) 16:10, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Sure, it may not be a personal attack to you, but it may be to the OP. Some people might get really offended if you tell them to fuck off. --Erik (ここで私と話してください) 16:16, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Such as Police officers, TV executives, Priests, many bosses.. in fact many shops would kick you out, as would (even many public institutions (they have signs about about not swearing at staff). In fact I can only think of one place where it was ever considered acceptable (and never civil) and even there woe betide anyone who told the wrong person to fuck off. If you can think of any situation you would not consider it appropriate (such as a stranger telling your kids/wife/mother to fuck off then you should extend that same curtesy "please do not say fuck off" to others.Slatersteven (talk) 16:24, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Are you talking about fuck off? I hear it a lot in the TV. Politicians, Comedy shows and others say it. "Fuck off" seems like free speech and it just means "go away" not a personal attack. Sure companies, preists etc would ask you not to say it because it is impolite and informal but it is not incivil. We can't call someone who say that word incivil.

Yes I am talking about fuck off, [[13]], yes people get criticized for using it. [[14]] as to what civility is [[15]]. So if something is impolite it is uncivil.Slatersteven (talk) 16:51, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Also that's in the sandbox and it's after you wrote "fart" this doesn't smell good. Kingerikthesecond this has been disscused before. Fuck off means go away and its not a personal attack.-SharabSalam (talk) 16:19, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

• Another thing, this is the second report for the same issue. Just after 2 days from the same report--SharabSalam (talk) 16:53, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, we know...I think that is the point. This is part of long term harassment.Slatersteven (talk) 17:00, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Sonicfan wrote "fart" in the sandbox then another editor changed it to "unfart" then Sonicfan reverted, then the IP told Sonicfan to fuck off. Apparently Sonicfan is not here to build an encyclopedia but just to make troubles with IP editors in the sandbox. Looking into their edits they are mostly in the sandbox and not for test edits.--SharabSalam (talk) 17:26, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Quite possibly, and if that is the case the place to raise it is here, not at sandbox with a fuck bomb (as I say below). The way you deal with disruptive editors is to report them, not to sink to the same playground level (I am not an 8 year old trying to shock teacher).Slatersteven (talk) 17:29, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I suspect that if Sonicfan200530 were to stop trying to police the sandbox, this problem would go away. 86.133.149.192 (talk) 17:06, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Possibly, and of that is the intent (to stop a user editing a given page) its bang out of order. Now if his "policing" is problematic rasie it here, but do not post abusive comments. Are they problematic?Slatersteven (talk) 17:09, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

You appear to have mistaken me for somebody else. I have posted no abusive comments. As for whether Sonicfan200530's attempts to police the sandbox are problematic, I'd say that since they have twice led to issues being raised here on ANI, they probably are. The sandbox doesn't need anyone to police it, and if it did, someone capable of adult behaviour (rather than [16],[17] etc) would be better suited. 86.133.149.192 (talk) 17:32, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I did not say you did, I said it was not the correct way to respond. I am not sure I like the idea that being the victim of harassment if the fault of the victim for not going away. I agree that their behavior was immature, but then so is the response, as I said this is not a play ground and we are not 8 years old. No one has any excuse for how they acted. But harassment is always unacceptable. Now if anyone wants to report them for vandalism, do so.Slatersteven (talk) 17:36, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

@Sonicfan200530: I partly agree with the IP. I don't know if the attacks will go away, but if you stop editing/watching the Sandbox, you won't know about them. You're a new editor and you're spending far too much of your time at the sandbox. If you don't want to be considered a net liability to the project, you need to do other things.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:27, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

• I don't revert vandalism on there for 2 reasons: One being I see the sandbox as a vandals playground and that if they muck about there it then keeps them away from articles (ofcourse articles get vandalised regardless so that logic probably fails),

2. there's more to this website then reverting a sandbox ..... it's generally seen as a waste of edits and time reverting there .....,

Leave the sandbox, dewatch it and focus on editing articles which is why we're all here. –Davey2010^Talk 17:51, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

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

User:Malik Shabazz

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.

---

Repeated personal attacks[18][19][20] and edit warring at Black Hebrew Israelites. The page has been protected 3 times at this point while he has his crusade for their point of view against several different editors. It also appears they were socking at one point to continue past 3RR with two IP accounts.[21][22] PackMecEng (talk) 03:29, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

The suspected IP editing was a month ago. The talkpage diffs provided are strident but do not rise to the level of problematic personal attack. The discussion is in the Survey section of an RFC [23] Facepalm, and you are the one perpetuating the argument in the face to two people who oppose you. Drop the stick before you catch a WP:BOOMERANG. -- Softlavender (talk) 04:19, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes it was a month ago, this is one long continuous edit war. How many times is it acceptable to use IP to edit war anyhow? I thought it was none but I guess it's fine. Also in regards to personal attacks calling someone a dotard is not so bad or saying two other edits lie? Finally if you look at the page history and edit history you will note the number of people opposing him, it is far more than the two you mention opposing me. PackMecEng (talk) 04:33, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

The evidence (diffs) you provided is clear. This is just a content dispute. Report edit-warring at WP:ANEW, when it occurs. Let the RfC play out; that's what RfCs are for -- to settle content disputes, regardless of how many people are presumed to be on what side. Softlavender (talk) 04:38, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

This is separate from the ongoing dispute about content, this is about user conduct. Hence the diffs to behavior, we can disagree about content as long as it is civil but it was not. The RFC is of course irrelevant to the discussion here. PackMecEng (talk) 04:49, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Again, the comments do not rise to the level of problematic, actionable personal attack. The content dispute and edit war are being resolved by RfC. And at this point you are the one perpetuating the conflict instead of resolving it. There was no need for this ANI; the fact that you brought it here is another way you are perpetuating the dispute instead of letting the RfC resolve it. Right now you are setting yourself up for either an IBan or a boomerang. Softlavender (talk) 04:58, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Given their long block log for this very issue I respectfully believe you are mistaken. Thank you for your insight though. PackMecEng (talk) 05:02, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Softlavender, I can't see how you don't see a problem with MS's behavior here. There does appear to be socking and personal attacks during this discussion. Is the behavior blockable? I'd lean toward a firm warning instead. But I don't see how anything PackMecEng has said or done is wrong here, yet you appear to be threatening them with some type of block or ban. I think that's uncalled for. Hobit (talk) 09:46, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

A persona past history has no effect on how to interpret current cases unless they reflect a pastern. If a user is "up before the beak" for incivility they have to have been uncivil, it does not matter how uncivil they were in the past. If they are being uncivil their past actions can affect their "sentence", it does not imply guilt this time. Their comments (whilst rude) are no PA's, and whatever I may think civility it is clear that Wikipedia has a much broader concept of it, and this I am not sure these comments fall foul of it.Slatersteven (talk) 09:23, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: So calling someone a senile old moron, as they did with the dotard comment, is not a personal attack? PackMecEng (talk) 02:09, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Forgive me but I cannot see in the three diffs you provided where he calls any one a moron. Would you link to it again as maybe I am missing it?Slatersteven (talk) 08:14, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The third, which M S summarizes as (→‎Survey: reply to the dotard), and whose body is *:::::You're right. You're not listening, nor do you appear to be capable of reading.. Qwirkle (talk) 09:00, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

@Slatersteven:, I'm guessing it is the word itself, dotard. unless I'm wrong about what that means. cygnis insignis 08:54, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

And it was in the edit summery as well. Yes, that edit summery is a PA.Slatersteven (talk) 08:58, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

• The comments are uncivil and clearly are instances of attacking the editor, not discussing the article. The socking is, IMO, a real problem (though about a month old). At the least a formal warning is in order. This editor does seem to have a temper problem. I understand they believe they are doing the right thing, but that doesn't excuse the behavior. Hobit (talk) 09:40, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

• I don't think there *is* any socking. The range that covers both IPs has rangeblocked by Yamla for cross-wiki harassment (and very possibly long-term abuse as well). I doubt very much if the IP behind that is Malik Shabazz - do you? Meanwhile, the editor in that edit-war that I would look at is this one - 53 contributions and practically every one a revert, mostly on contentious topics. Doesn't look like a new editor to me. Black Kite (talk) 19:16, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

• The IPs are half a continent away from MS. Acroterion (talk) 19:55, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

• For anyone who wonders: Malik's userpage is in Category:Wikipedians in Cleveland (that's Cleveland, Ohio), while the IPs geolocate to Toledo, Ohio and Detroit, Michigan. I'm not clear why Acroterion says they're half a continent apart; you can drive from Cleveland to Detroit in four hours (and Toledo's in the middle), and I know I've had IP addresses that were geolocated to a couple of hundred kilometres away from my actual location. This is not saying that Malik has operated with these addresses, since I've not looked at anything else; I just don't see why geolocation rules out a connection. Nyttend (talk) 00:21, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

• I agree with Nyttend; it's clear that Malik was traveling or his mobile IP address geolocated to alternate locations, and the edit summaries and quickness of the first edit indicate it was him. He used the exact same language of the second edit summary (an article about religious groups with 10s of thousands of members doesn't need a section about five people) in the OP of the RfC he filed (In an article about a religious movement that spans more than 125 years and includes tens of thousands of adherents, does the inclusion in the article of the following paragraph about a single incident involving fewer than a dozen people ...). Softlavender (talk) 00:31, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

I was mistaken, I had been under the impression that MS was located elsewhere. Acroterion (talk) 02:17, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

• Malik's behavior on that page is beyond the pale, and given his history of edit warring and personal attacks, he should be blocked. I know we need to measure our responses to highly established editors who are constructive in the content space, but measured responses at this point are simply letting the blocks expire after a week or two. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 19:28, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

• I don't usually like to chime in on ANI threads, especially of a conduct thread, but MS is an editor where if I usually see him on a edit summary or if I see him in editing an article, I will usually stay away. I know that there are as Swarm says "protocols" for highly established editors, but MS doesn't seem to learn that being uncivil is not the way to go. His first response is usually to threaten, rather than engage. He is not a good ambassador for this project and most likely causes people to stay away from editing. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 00:42, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
• "beyond the pale" is a phrase I personally avoid using, for several reasons. cygnis insignis 08:54, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

It has a fairly innocuous origin, unless there's something I'm missing. Grandpallama (talk) 18:35, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

@Grandpallama: I wish our sister site would use citations, but the talk had a helpful link to some usage Hist. Ireland. Moore, 1837 cygnis insignis 20:30, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: I've now looked at the entire situation. PackMecEng's OP failed to make a case, but looking at the entire situation on the article and on the entire talk page going back nearly a year, the edit-warring, socking, bullying, and name-calling (both in posts and in edit summaries) all taken together are indeed actionable. Malik has long used his alternate account (MShabazz) to perpetuate edit wars and evade 3RR; he has done so here and edited logged out as well in the edit wars. I believe we need to institute a restriction on him against ever using his alternate account or editing logged out in an edit war, on pain of a lengthy block. I also think we need to institute a very firm restriction on any bullying, threatening, sarcasm, and name-calling, on pain of a very long block. It's a shame, because Malik used to be a mild-mannered straight-shooter, but a few years ago he drastically changed his on-wiki behavior. Softlavender (talk) 00:48, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Malik has long used his alternate account (MShabazz) to perpetuate edit wars and evade 3RR; he has done so here and edited logged out as well in the edit wars. Im sorry, but thats just not true. There is no evasion of 3RR on that article, and no evidence that the IP in question is his. Im not defending the language, but the comments on using the alternate account to evade anything are just not true. nableezy - 05:08, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

• [edit conflict with Nableezy] Depends what you mean. Judging by others' words here, "using main account and alternate account together in a single edit-war" might be a good restriction, but if he were involved in an edit-war with the alternate account only, we should treat it the same as if he were involved in an edit-war with the main account only. The opposite interpretation of your words, sanctioning him more harshly if he engaged in an edit-war using his alternate account only than if he engaged in an edit-war using his main account only, wouldn't make sense to me. Nyttend (talk) 05:09, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

We already have rules on this; all our conduct rules, including EW and 3RR, apply to the person not the account. If Malik made 4 reverts with the accounts combined in 24 hours he broke the 3RR. There is one 3RR violation in the history, as far as I looked anyway, but the reverts were all with his main account. I dont see where he used the combined accounts to try to step past the limit though. nableezy - 05:15, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Irrelevant. Stick to the point, please.

It was the name of the user that caught my attention, google it for some context. cygnis insignis 09:08, 27 May 2019 (UTC) Which one?Slatersteven (talk) 09:30, 27 May 2019 (UTC) The one in the section header? The name "Malik Shabazz", which is well known is several different contexts. One person so named has caught the attention of the SPLC and other organisation concerned with people who expound anti-Semitic views. There is some mention of the name on the users own page. Is that what you are asking about? cygnis insignis 10:09, 27 May 2019 (UTC) And others have not, so this is irrelevant (and is dangerously close to outing), and in fact the fact he has to differentiate between him and at least one other person (who is the one talked about by SPLC, so its not the same person) really does not give me confidence we can be sure which person he may, or may not, be (other then the one he denies being). Yes I was asking who you meant. I think I have said elsewhere that what users do of ANI (even if we can identify who they are) is irrelevant to how they act here. When we cannot even be sure if who we think they are is who they are even more so.Slatersteven (talk) 10:20, 27 May 2019 (UTC) It is not outing Slater, do more reading and less commenting, this is context that is mentioned on the user's talk page and is no coincidence. Anyone who was editing around that topic would be aware of a person with that name and their outspoken views. cygnis insignis 10:38, 27 May 2019 (UTC) Our disambig page Malik Shabazz (disambiguation), that's two we have articles on the name. There are more (we do not have pages on), but of course if I link to any of them that would be outing. Which is why I say this is "dangerously close to outing". You are not saying they are X (because that would be outing) you are just saying "they might well be X". Yes, they MIGHT be, but also they might not be whoever you want... oh no wait, they are not who you are implying they are, their user page says it, they are not Malik Zulu Shabazz (who SPLC calls anti-Semitic) they are in fact someone else entirely. So I fail to see its relevance. It does not matter what Malik Zulu Shabazz thinks says or does, he is not under discussion here. So all you have is that he has picked a name that someone else has also used in honour of a third person. This is guilt by accusation of the most indirect and offensive kind.Slatersteven (talk) 10:51, 27 May 2019 (UTC) In fact the context seems to be they have had to deal with this (unfounded accusation) before, and so felt is necessary to make it clear they are not (and their user name is not a reference to) this person.Slatersteven (talk) 11:10, 27 May 2019 (UTC) I made it clear that I was aware of this. I have not implied anything, you appear to have used my reference to the user page to falsely portray what I said in a "ah, gotcha" accusation of PA. I would prefer you don't double down again as you react to every comment here. cygnis insignis 11:30, 27 May 2019 (UTC) I am trying to ascertain what you think this "context" is. So what is the "context" we are supposed to be seeing? What is the point you are trying to make? If it was not to say "see they are honouring an Antisemite" or "this user is this person" then I apologize, but the context of your statement is not at all clear.Slatersteven (talk) 11:48, 27 May 2019 (UTC) For your information, Cygnis insignis, I've been using the name "Malik Shabazz" online for close to 30 years, longer than your friend Malik Zulu Shabazz has been using the name. If you have something to say about me, say it. Don't engage in innuendo and smear tactics. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 17:33, 27 May 2019 (UTC) The person engaging in “innuendo and smear tactics” here would appear to be yourself, Malik. You use a username that is...eye-catching... for various reasons, so much so that you feel the need to distance yourself from one of the others of the name. Complaining when others note what you have yourself done so seems a bit off. Qwirkle (talk) 17:44, 27 May 2019 (UTC) Nice attempt to troll me, Qwirkle. Perhaps the use of a dictionary would do you some good. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:40, 27 May 2019 (UTC) Not at all, Malik. Up to the point you came out with a forthright You're full of shit, Cygnis insignis, you were merely hinting that Cygnis was a liar. I’m not sure the outright personal attack improved anything. Qwirkle (talk) 00:03, 28 May 2019 (UTC) Hi Malik. I am not engaging in smear tactics, that was a standard smear tactic and deflection by someone apparently reacting and not paying attention. You engaged in a personal attack on another user at that article, which as a third party I saw as edged by the coincidence of the name, on a very particular topic that MZS has had much to say (and fuck him). I would expect that someone need to be extra cautious in their discussion of content (only!), in light of that context. Can I ask something about that claim that social media posts are likely to be by you, and not another like M Zulu S, who I imagine is very active in forums. Excuse my scepticism, but this is wikipedia and we are obvi not the only ones to be long-time fans of Malcolm X. I have nothing to say about you, per se, you are not as famous and I am completely unaware of your contributions, my comment is on the effect in talk page discussions and a shitty comment. Direct enough for you. cygnis insignis 17:57, 27 May 2019 (UTC) You're full of shit, Cygnis insignis. What do you call the preceding, if not innuendo and smear tactics? "You didn't hear it from me, but if you google his user name you'll see what the SPLC has to say about him." — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:40, 27 May 2019 (UTC) An attempt to illustrate what the consequence, intended or otherwise, of that name appearing in replies on that talk page. If you regard that as a personal attack, and that I should pretend ignorance of the provocative edge to the PA you made, that is your business. The section is about your PA, now PAs. And once again, fuck M Zulu S and the white racists who get so much mileage out his activities. You can have a nice day, or not, that is not my business. cygnis insignis 19:52, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

• @Malik Shabazz:: Could you indicate if the IP you are accused of socking from was in fact you? If so, could you explain why you edited twice as an IP in that situation? Hobit (talk) 21:43, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I didn't make either edit. First, I don't edit while logged out. Second, a review of my edit summaries (not just this account, but especially those made using my User:MShabazz account, which I use on my phone) would show that I rarely if ever abbreviate numbers using digits. (In other words, I would have written "tens", not "10s", as in the second IP edit summary.) I have never made a secret of the fact that I live in Cuyahoga County, Ohio, within 150 miles of Toledo and 200 miles of Detroit, which is evidently where the two IPs' wireless carriers geolocate. Believe me if you care to, or don't. I don't really care. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:21, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
    • A few things here. One they both geolocate to Akron, Ohio just down the road.[24][25] Also in the past you have made edits while logged out. Though last record I could find of it was a few years back when you were warned against doing it.[26] PackMecEng (talk) 23:37, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
      • I was relying on what was written above about the geolocations, and yes, three years ago during a period of "retirement" from Wikipedia I edited a few times while logged out. I haven't done so since then. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:08, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the response. It just seemed weird to be debating if it was you or not when, AFAICT, you hadn't addressed the issue. Hobit (talk) 17:42, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
• I'm going to give people one warning here not to edit war at ANI. The next time I see someone revert someone else's edit in this thread, I'm going to block them. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:39, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

• Swarm is right about the comments being "beyond the pale". A high percentage of Malik Shabazz's posts concerning that article appear to be intended purely as harassment, rather than attempting any constructive discussion. I'm sure a new user would be blocked quickly for this sort of disruption, and while I'm aware that older users are subject to a different standard, this sort of behavior drives away users who want to contribute constructively. I think that some sort of action should be taken here.Worldlywise (talk) 02:15, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
  • There's a big difference between anger and harassment. I hope the admins here will not take action based on this unsubstantiated comment. Drmies (talk) 01:59, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
• I'm a totally uninvolved non-administrator. Looking at the three links provided by PackMecEng, I agree that they are personal attacks but I disagree that they're beyond the pale. These seem to me like standard fare low-level personal attacks. Not civil, but not shockingly uncivil either. No comment on edit warring or any other behavioral issues. R2 (bleep) 19:38, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
• I would consider this a personal attack, saying, "he is a cancer on Wikipedia." diff, to almost echo his statement, I stay away from him, because he is extremely aggressive and almost impossible to deal with and just not a civil person. I am not sure why the admins are not doing anything about it. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 02:30, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

• Sorry, I have not had a chance to review this Incidents report, but I did just give the user a final warning about engaging in personal attacks. Conducting oneself in this manner is not going to be tolerated. Not by me, at least. El_C 02:36, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

I mean that isnt much different than saying such and such is a POV pusher. (also why does everyone use bullets for indents here?) nableezy - 02:40, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

That is just not so. Calling someone "a cancer" is very much different. El_C 03:54, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

I dont think so tbh. Putting my own bias aside, and I obviously like Malik and have for many many years, the phrasing "is a cancer on ..." is not mild but not really all that extreme either. See for example [27]. Its just a way of saying X has an extremely bad effect on something. There are things that he has said that I wish he wouldnt, as I think hes giving the people who would like him removed from Wikipedia an easier way of accomplishing that, but this isnt that much different than saying such and such is an extreme POV-pusher. nableezy - 04:58, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm not gonna argue over this as I feel it is self-evident. And if I see this sort of thing happen again, there will be sanctions, plain and simple. El_C 16:54, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

I did not think we had a ruling class that issued edicts here. nableezy - 17:29, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Just wanted to comment, that saying someone is a POV Pusher is indeed a PA and would be a violation of CIVIL, and shouldn't be allowed either. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 04:16, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

• "Not a civil person" that's in itself a personal attack. I would say Malik's comments are not civil but I wouldn't comment on him, himself personally.--SharabSalam (talk) 02:44, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

• I think this is a pretty uncivil remark. Calling into question the basic competence of a longtime editor (and administrator) is just a nice way of making a personal attack, and the point Malik Shabazz was making there is valid ("notability" of an event is established by its having an article, but that it should be mentioned in that article does not logically follow). The earlier use of "champ" on that same talk page is also highly uncollegial. But here's the thing: it's a heated debate, and as long as it's not a gutter fight causing wider disruption I don't see why we should step in on either side. PackMecEng, I hope you understand why I think throwing "CIR" into the mix is a low blow. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 04:25, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
  • @Drmies: I can see where you are coming from and will try to improve. I also hope you are not trying to downplay the long term, repeated, and ongoing civility issues with Malik Shabazz correct? PackMecEng (talk) 14:16, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
    • PackMecEng, my personal opinion is that Malik Shabazz probably should try to tone down the language some. But I am less familiar with his supposed longterm civility issues than with the longterm harassment he receives on our beautiful project: last night I blocked a user (who is not directly involved with this present dispute) after what I consider to be a racist insult against Malik. But there are almost 2,000 administrators on en-wiki, and I don't feel particularly interested in figuring out what's supposed to be wrong with his editing: I am more interested in trying to protect those who are singled out because of racist and other -ist stuff. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:48, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
    • @Drmies: I mean a quick look at their block log should be enough or Swarm did a very good job summarizing below. He is far from the victim here and I am saddened to see your response. PackMecEng (talk) 17:00, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

• Note - Malik and (I think) this issue in particular is being discussed on a off-wikipedia forum, with encouragements to "get him". It's entirely plausible that the IP account is someone associated with that site, pretending to be Malik.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:28, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
• I've always respected Malik. But it's hard for me to look at the page history, the reversions, the edit summaries, and the comments on the talk page (on an already-contentious topic) and not classify it as anything short of bullying that any normal editor would be blocked for. Then when I see subsequent edit warring and personal attacks while there is an AN/I thread open, that just seems entirely uncaring and unapologetic. Of course we do not want to have to choose between a valuable editor and our behavioral policies and guidelines. But when they've been desysopped, have a block log a mile long, and show no signs of improvement, and can't even bring themselves to stop during the AN/I thread, that just shows me that they've given up completely and that there's no point in doling out more and more rope. It can't go on forever, and it never does. Malik's gotten two "final warnings" for behavior that happened after this AN/I thread. I think that's the best we'll do here. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 05:15, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Incompetent editing or toxic POV pushing never seems to trouble administration if those who exemplify it mind their p's and q's, and indeed show a flair for being impeccable, wikiquette-wise(or dumb). It is the simplest way to wreak havoc here. Stick to protocol and sheathe a quiet stiletto of complaint into anyone openly disgruntled by winning exhibitions of good behaviour by deleterious editors. AGF is becoming the default ace up the sleeve of both kinds of wikipedians, meaning that content and its safeguarding are of far less importance to the project than protecting whiners. Before coming here, I thought whingeing about being 'hurt' or 'offended' was something one learnt to leave behind after elementary school. Can anyone point out Shabazz adding false content, spinning tendentious opinions, pushing with monomaniacal fervor an ethnonationalist POV over the last dozen years? I doubt it. The record is of unremittingly austere, principled exclusion or inclusion of matter in sensitive articles depending on what policy governs an issue. He gets pissed off and thinks, to use an Australianism, that bad judgement is a cancer on the knackerbag. He is an exceptionally careful editor whose downgrading from admin to targeted peon is one long story, when not one of administrative disattention or misreading, of trivial technicalities at a failure to be chummy, in disregard of the absolute priority on Wikipedia for manners over matter. Since content conflicts are by the rules beyond the scope of administrative judgement, though any careful vetting of them will show who it is who is culpable of deep POV spinning, admins ignore that content-behavior as beyond their remit and are left only with plaintiff whining about etiquette, meaning the aim is not encyclopedic, but maintaining a recruitment-friendly atmosphere by insisting that we must, above all, be sensitive to any and everyone's capacity to cry hurt, whatever the damage or delay to article construction may be. Of course Malik will get it in the end, which will translate out as just one more gimlet-eyed expert less to monitor the trashing of articles by the incautious, the ignorant or the dyed-in-the-wool true believers (present company, of course, excluded). Nishidani (talk) 19:50, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Five_pillars are all part of Wikipedia. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:11, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Oh, thanks for the tip-off. Even after 13 years and a thousand articles written, I still hadn't heard of that. Of course the 5 pillars will still stand long after the roof of quality content they are designed to uphold has fallen in.Nishidani (talk) 20:17, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

See the comment at the bottom of my userpage. For my response. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 22:35, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

---

I have now blocked Malik Shabazz for 72 hours for calling Sandstein (?) "corrupt and incompetent". This after I warned him about personal attacks when he called Icewhiz "a cancer on Wikipedia". El_C 20:28, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Wow, another 72 hour block for PAs. Why apply the same length block as the previous ones for the same issues, when the previous ones obviously had little to no effect. This should be indef. Valeince (talk) 22:02, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Because I have not reviewed this Incidents report closely yet to make such a significant decision. El_C 22:04, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Edit warring? Free pass. Personal attacks? Free pass. AN/I thread? Free pass. Edit warring in the AN/I thread? Fine, warning. Continued personal attacks? Alright, fine...warning. Even still continued personal attacks? Okay, fine, we'll block, for not even half of the duration of the most recent block, which is still extraordinary special treatment. And the immediate response? Someone's calling the block fascist. Lol. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 22:38, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I say that disallowing a user from calling an admin "corrupt" is fascist. Ive said it here before too. Admins have special privileges here, and in any non-fascist organization that would allow for criticism of their use of those privileges. Including by calling them corrupt. Yall seemingly want to create this glorified caste that none of us lowly editors can speak ill on. Well, sorry, but to me that is indeed fascist. nableezy - 23:17, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Don't forget the editors lined up to argue that "He is a cancer on Wikipedia" is either not a personal attack, or it's OK to say because someone said that about Trump once, and anyone who feels otherwise apparently doesn't grasp the English language. Ever notice the most uncivil editors are also the most sensitive to criticism, the least able to deal with disagreement? – Levivich 22:43, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, dont forget about those of us saying the phrasing "is a cancer on" is fairly common phrase that appears regularly. Or that some editors see fit to lobby for blocks privately instead of commenting here while dishonestly slanting the evidence. Lets not forget these things. nableezy - 23:14, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Didn't you learn in grade school that just because another child says something mean to someone doesn't make it OK for you to then say it? – Levivich 23:21, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Jesus Christ thats just special. I give a number of examples of this exact phrasing being used in polite conversation but "back to basics" is your response. Yes, Corey Booker is a man-child saying a mean thing when he says "the war on drugs is a cancer on the soul of our nation". You may not be familiar with the phrasing, but that does not make it an outrageous personal attack. You are taking your ignorance of the phrase to be evidence of its maliciousness. No, it is evidence of something, just not that. nableezy - 23:25, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

It's one thing to use it in reference to a concept or inanimate object, but it's quite another to use it with regards to a person. Sure, it's a common phrase, but that doesn't make it civil. clpo13_(talk) 23:29, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

My point was that it is not the outrageous attack that some people are making it out to be. All it means is that the such and such has an extremely bad effect, to the point of poisoning it from within, on the target. Like I said above, it isnt that much different from saying such and such is an extreme POV-pusher. nableezy - 23:33, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

It's time to drop the stick over whether "He is a cancer on Wikipedia" is a personal attack. You may feel it isn't, but others agree with El_C: it is self evident. – Levivich 23:35, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the favored argument of somebody who has no evidence to back his position: it is self-evident. nableezy - 23:38, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Again, I was just not aware of all of that. I did not feel I was informed enough about the user's history to block for longer or indefinitely. If someone more informed than myself wishes to modify the block upwards, I have no objection and they do not need to consult me in anyway. El_C 22:58, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

NOTE: Qwirkle has left a message on my user talk page here expressing concerns with the closure I made here. As I said in my closing statement, please do not hesitate to remove my closure and re-open this discussion if I closed it prematurely. I wasn't certain if any further discussions regarding the consideration of applying a longer block were going to occur, but if they are - please don't let my closure interfere or get in the way. Re-open it, let me know on my user talk page that you did so, and (if you feel that it's necessary and deserved) feel free to smack me with a trout. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:50, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Done. Thanks again. Qwirkle (talk) 13:05, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Qwirkle - You bet. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:59, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Regarding the quality of Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs)’s editing, take a look at This dif. Reverting a statement which is fully supported in references already present in the article, although not cited particularly there, with an edit summary of rv unsourced and likely fanciful "history"). Which is to say, either ignoring good sources already present to push a POV, or not even bothering to read the sources in an article you are editing. People have been indeffed for either, and rightly so. Qwirkle (talk) 14:04, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

In your mind, does that diff represent the quality of his editing? ---Sluzzelin talk 14:26, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Of his writing as a whole? Dunno, there seems to be quite a bit of it, and I’m sure some of it is worthwhile, or at least not harmful. Of the problematic stuff? Absatively, posilutely. Tendentious, either incompetent or dishonest, with (mild, in this case) snark thrown in on the side. Qwirkle (talk) 14:49, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Wait wut? Your position is material that does not appear in any of the sources cited should be retained because somewhere else there exists sources that support it? And you restored material that does not meet WP:V? You see where that policy says All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material.? And you think Malik's edit is the problem here? nableezy - 18:04, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

No. My position is that a person editing an article needs to actually read the cited material. Some parts of the story were a little obscure recently, but not the one he challenged. What he did was roughly the equivalent of demanding a cite that showed Germany was involved in WWII.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwirkle (talk • contribs)

Thats nice. It however is not the position of our policies, which require inline citations to any material that has been challenged or is likely to be challenged. This edit violated WP:BURDEN, and this edit misrepresented the cited source. If anybody should be blocked over that series of edits it is you. nableezy - 21:10, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Also, apropos what is worth an indefinite block, you seem to have blatantly misrepresented the source you eventually cited. nableezy - 18:12, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Nonsense. Qwirkle (talk) 21:02, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Not even a little bit, the source you added does not support the material in question. See Talk:Negro Fort#burned alive prisoner. nableezy - 21:10, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

...(edit conflict)where we now see:

Whether this is a mere error, or deliberate misrepresentation, I will leave to the reader to determine, but the cite says explicitly, on page 80, Upon examination of the prisoners it was learned that Daniels, rhe seaman captured from the Luffborough party, had been tarred and burnt alive. Whatever the reason this was missed or ommitted, it is a reminder that Google-dredging a source, as opposed to actually reading it, is a A Bad Thing.

Again, a competent editor should carefully read the whole cite. Qwirkle (talk) 21:59, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

A competent editor should have included a citation instead of restoring challenged material without one. You know google doesnt search within sources right? I have no idea what "google-dredging" would mean otherwise, seeing as I have the entire article in front of me. Yes, I missed that bit. I already acknowledged that. Also, yes, your edit violated WP:V, which you have again failed to acknowledge. nableezy - 22:11, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

I missed a bit in that source, the burned body is indeed later on that page. The point on following WP:V however stands. nableezy - 21:47, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

No, on so many levels. That wasn’t a “bit”, that was the particular fact you were attempting to check. From the look of it, you thought Google was your friend; it often isn’t. Next, it isn’t “later on that page”, but a following one. It says nothing about a “burned body”, except by implication: it says burnt alive. So far, you have (mis)accused another editor of wrongdoing, removed factual sourced information from an article, and attempted to innacurately soften the description of what must have been a somewhat unpleasant experience for Daniels. Qwirkle (talk) 21:59, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

You realize I have the entire pdf right? And, again, your edit here violated WP:BURDEN, which requires inline citations to material that has been challenged. That material was challenged and you restored it with no citation. That is the only problematic edit in the sequence above. nableezy - 22:11, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

And oh by the way, you apparently feel that material not in the cited source can be removed. Even when it is available in source already cited in the article (see here, that source is already cited in the article). So, is it that a competent editor must read all the sources cited in an article before removing material that fails WP:V or not? Is that inaccurately soften the description of what must have been a somewhat unpleasant experience for Flo? nableezy - 22:31, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

First, don’t confuse other’ beliefs with your attempts to represnt them. Next, all sourceable information need not be in an article; picking the appropriate level of detail is important. Next, describing a person burnt alive solely as a”burnt body” is misleadingly euphemistic. Next, Stetson Kennedy has been accused repeatedly of playing loose with mere facts in pursuit of higher truth; view him as the Farley Mowat of Florida.

All this aside, all this looks like a rather ineffectual attempt to play defense attorney. Qwirkle (talk) 22:57, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Im sorry, Im confused. You say that a competent editor would read the sources in an article and not remove material that does not have an inline citation. Yet you do exactly that elsewhere. But its not a problem when you do it? Ok, I guess that settles that. Your edit summary in that edit was "also not supported by this cite". Not should this level of detail be included. But that it was not in the source that was listed at the end of the sentence. The edit you complain about had no source at all for it. But only one of those is a problem. Huh. The fact remains that all challenged material requires an inline citation, and when you restored material without adding a citation you violated WP:BURDEN. Yes, I was mistaken earlier on the contents of a source. That does not negate that a. you violated WP:BURDEN in your initial revert of Malik, and b. you did exactly the same thing you are complaining of others doing. Theres a word for that. nableezy - 23:02, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

An admin needs to disassociate Shabazz's edits from Shabazz himself and judge them accordingly with how they stack up against policy. This whole thread is muddied with disruptive, factional discussion. If his name were redacted from the edits in question and put before an impartial admin, there is little doubt lengthy and appropriate sanctions would be applied. There is plenty of case-history showing 'lower-tier' editors being blocked for the same or less. Admins should be doing their job, and if they can't or won't, then move out of the way and allow the project to flourish. RandomGnome (talk) 19:04, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

• Jfc Nableezy, we get it. You're a diehard supporter of MS. If you think we're giving every statement you make its weight in gold, you're sadly mistaken. You are certainly not helping his case with your spamming. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 08:07, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Proposal for a Indef Ban

This has been going on for far too long and admins are clearly not williing to deal with this, so I think its time for the community to decide. Malik Shabazz is a combative, POV pushing, and overall just downright uncivil editor. Even if he has made some good contributions, how is this good for wikipedia? He bullies other editors and its a massive waste of the community's time to deal with this every few months. I for one am sick of the double standards that certain (not all) admins have. "well, he's been around a long time", "he used to be an admin", etc. As far as I'm concerned, these are not excuses for his behavior, but actually reasons he should be held to a higher standard. Are we just going to come back here in another month or two so Malik can be given yet another 72 hour block? I know this proposal is going to get pushback, but I feel compelled to make it since no one else is.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:39, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

• Support- as proposer.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:40, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
• Why not something less drastic, maybe something like WP:No personal comments sanction. Would be curious to hear from MS when this block expires. – Levivich 03:49, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
  • @Levivich:That sanction is a joke! You can personally attack anyone you want as long as you retract the comment once someone notifies you that they are offended. I also question what authority any of AWilley's sanctions were created under. If you want to propose an alternative, I'm all for it, but it has to be something that actually has a chance of changing behavior.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:57, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure what the alternative is, but these are the sorts of things I'm concerned about:
      1. From last year (to Sandstein), with the edit summary "reply to the good German whose head is stuck up his ass": Yo Asshole: ... Fuck yourself if you don't like the fact that I warned somebody ... What the fuck are you smoking? ... Fuck yourself! Am I making myself clear, asshole? Pull your damn head out of your ass! ... In other words, do your fucking job!
      2. From six months ago (to 78.26): Look, it really wasn't so absurd to ask the dumbass why he thought an editor who had made two edits to the talk page was a nuisance. If that's a personal attack, you and he can go fuck yourselves., followed by Fuck you, and the jackass you rode in on.
      3. From three months ago (to Sandstein): What's the matter, Sandstein? Did I strike a little too close for comfort? What kind of dirt does Icewhiz have on you? and ... why the fuck don't Wikipedia's administrators do something about their conduct? Are you all lily-livered cowards who are afraid of your shadows? Does not one of you have a spine? (italics and bold in originals)
      4. From last week, in edit summaries edit warring the removal of Qwirkle's comment in this thread: ... either be an adult and say what's on your mind or skulk in the shadow like a coward and c'mon, act like an adult and say what you think or act like a coward and deal in innuendo
      5. From three days ago (about Icewhiz): ... since Icewhiz started spreading his unique fragrance in the topic area of Polish-Jewish history and relations ... He is a cancer on Wikipedia. Administrators can treat the topics he edits symptom by symptom, or they can excise the cancer. Their choice. Unfortunately, we all know which they're going to choose.
      6. Also three days ago, referred to Sandstein as The corrupt and incompetent administrator ... (which led to the current 72 hour block)

    I think it's reasonable for the community to receive some assurance from Malik Shabazz that this chronic verbal abuse will stop. – Levivich 07:18, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose looking at the three examples presented in this report they don't seem like a personal attack like saying "You are lying" about something... this seems to be a reply to an argument about the content that also address the argument that is replied to. The other example seems to be a rthetorical question that isn't a serious personal attack. The proposer argument why admins are not taking serious sanctions against Malik, is because Malik has made a lot of good faith edits to Wikipedia, he has improved Wikipedia. After all he is a former admin (I think). He has been in Wikipedia for many years that's why it's not that simple to basically ban him indeff for non-serious violations. 72 hours seems a perfect sanction. I will also remind you that the block is meant to be preventive not a punishment. And BTW this "Malik Shabazz is a combative, POV pushing, and overall just downright uncivil editor." is actually a personal attack--SharabSalam (talk) 04:19, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

• Are you saying that because he's been here for many years, he should get special treatment? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 04:26, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

• Yes editors who had made a lot of good faith contributions in the main space and has been here for a long time aren't like new comers. I don't have access right now to that tool that give statistics of edits of an editor but I have seen Malik Shabazz making a lot of good faith edits.--SharabSalam (talk) 04:33, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

• Malik Shabazz has created 8,267 article in Wikipedia and 60,289 of his edits are in the main space also a former admin. More can be found here I don't think that a non-serious personal attacks are going to get an editor like this indeff banned.--SharabSalam (talk) 04:43, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

  No. MS has created, at most, 141 articles. Not every page is an article. Qwirkle (talk) 05:12, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

• Support as Softlavender mentioned above, over the past few years he has become more combative and aggressive and uncivil and it's clear that escalating blocks don't work. First line of action for him is usually to threaten ANI/AE action and in general is not the kind of editor that makes a generally kind and congenial atmosphere to edit in. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 04:25, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - Proposing user was warned less than a month ago for proxying for a banned editor in the same topic area and has made a total of six articlespace edits since that warning; there are some decidedly unclean hands involved here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:40, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Yes, I wish that Malik Shabazz would refrain from combative responses. However, he has been harassed quite severely for years. He is a highly productive content contributor who has deep expertise in quite a few controversial topic areas. He is not a civil POV pusher. He is a genuine encyclopedist. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:49, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose but my flight is boarding and I can't write more now. Similar to what Cullen wrote. Zero^talk 07:27, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
• Comment I'm not going to "vote", but it's probably worth noting that none of the blocks have been ever escalated despite egregious personal attacks at blocking admins. In December he was blocked and then attacked the blocking admin afterwards: Fuck you, and the jackass you rode in on. The block was not extended for this. Similarly in July, he attacked the blocking admin and the block was not extended for this: You're almost as stupid as Sandstein, with your attitude that "only the editor who is factually wrong is being disruptive". What a bunch of fucking morons.. I'm fairly sure a regural user would have had his talkpage access removed after things like that, but Malik Shabazz is a former admin and has a lot of friends. So think about it how this might be enabling this behauvior. --Pudeo (talk) 13:14, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose I endorse everything said by Cullen328, including that it would probably be better for everyone - including Malik himself - if he could refrain from combative responses, but he is a valuable contributor, committed to core WP values. The level of incivility comes nowhere near the level of behaviour which would warrant a ban - and is balanced by the sizable positive contributions. Pincrete (talk) 13:23, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support Its one thing to act like a dick, especially if provoked. Another entirely to treat the enforcement with contempt. I have said before this is about my only line in the sand, no one should be so sure of their non stick coated editing they should be able to tell admins to fuck off and get away with it. Its not about the use of the word fuck, I would say the dam if they said "I do not care your only an admin", its attitude not language.Slatersteven (talk) 13:24, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support The hidden set of rules for special 'cherished' editors needs to be thrown out. Admins failure to deal appropriately with MS have clearly emboldened him, and much worse, driven good editors away who don't want to get mired in the increasing toxicity. RandomGnome (talk) 15:27, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
• An indef ban is an extreme step and probably not warranted at this point. I agree with SharabSalam that long-term, good-faith contributors should be given more leeway than newbies, but there is still a limit to that extra leeway. Given Malik's considerable recent history of abusive language toward other long-term, good-faith contributors, he is on the verge of using up his extra leeway. I'm doubtful that a 72-hour block will be sufficient to send the message as the prior short blocks haven't curtailed the problematic behavior. Lepricavark (talk) 18:07, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose, based own my own long-term observations which coincide with what Cullen wrote. ---Sluzzelin talk 20:08, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose, with pretty much the same rationale as Cullen328. I will also note that while some of the harassment Malik has suffered has been obvious (link, link, link), other has been far more subtle (and cruel), and mostly unnoticed by Wikipedias largely white editor base (example). I think the latter harrassment is probably the worst. Huldra (talk) 21:10, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per Cullen328, Huldra, and especially per NBSB; perhaps it's time to look at the OP's usefulness to WP again. Black Kite (talk) 21:18, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support While I am not sure indef is the best way it is very clear by the 7 blocks for civility since 2017. Most were short durations and did nothing. While I sympathize with those saying they are good editors, they are overlooking one of the core pillars of wikipedia . If you are blocked that many times for violating the same policy over and over there is clearly an issue that needs to be addressed. Basically all of the oppose votes at this point are not policy based, even saying it okay to violate policy because they like them. This needs to stop. I would not suggest indef if they would at least admit they have a problem. But it looks unlikely at this point. PackMecEng (talk) 21:50, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. Malik needs to drastically moderate his tone, but he is fundamentally here to build an encyclopedia, and is one of the few competent editors in an extremely toxic topic. The community needs to take a hard look at this broader pattern of interactions; Malik has received appropriate sanction, but many of those responsible for provoking him and/or engaging in battleground behavior in the related conflicts have not. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:00, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support - based on the comments in this discussion, 7 blocks for incivility have not resolved the problem. If WP:ROPE means anything, he's at the end of it. I have rarely supported an indef block, much less anything beyond a week or so. I've seen good editors indeffed for a lot less, and I've also seen editors get away with incivility when they should have been site banned. Incivility tends to leave a trail of frustration and disappointment and it makes editing more like a root canal than an exercise in collegial intercourse. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 22:23, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

• I agree, and what I'm basically seeing from the oppose votes is that they are willing to overlook things because he's Malik, and I think that's wrong. It might have been correct, to an extent, the first or second or third time, but after a certain point in time civility needs to be enforced. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 00:42, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose per Cullen328. --I am One of Many (talk) 22:37, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose indef ban, support 3 month block - needs escalation for incivility, think this extended period time will give them the chance to re-evaluate their behaviour. Noting that this user has faced harassment in the past, will give another chance (perhaps, the final chance) for them to reform their behaviour. starship.paint (talk) 01:37, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support indef block - per Slatersteven, Swarm, Atsme, Sir Joseph and the comments of Puedo, among others. As we all know, an indefinite block is not an eternal block, and I for one want to see sincere, serious reflection and contrition from this clearly abusive editor before they are allowed rejoin our editing community. Opposers utterly fail to convince me otherwise; several start with variations on “Yes he’s uncivil, but...” Enough. Jusdafax (talk) 02:33, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - per Cullen328. nableezy - 03:06, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose I'm not really concerned at all about the initial conduct that was brought to ANI here, if it is technically a personal attack it's a fairly light one, on a tendentious topic. I understand some of the harassment mentioned above on my search, and I've encountered several users I might call fly-in, fly-out trolls when I've been analysing things to make up my mind about this one. That being said I do take some of the more recent conduct very seriously. I don't think it's time for an indefinite ban, but I do support a short term block to cool things down. SportingFlyer T·C 04:30, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

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

• FYI: Malik has gotten his userpage wiped and has also gotten all of his talkpage archives wiped: [28]. -- Softlavender (talk) 21:46, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

I notice the user-talk archives were speedily deleted under criterion U1, which seems to explicitly exclude Talk pages. Moreover WP:DELTALK says such pages are generally not deleted (but may be courtesy-blanked). What are the exceptional circumstances here?—Odysseus1479 01:21, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Odysseus1479 you'd probably have to file a thread on WP:AN regarding this if you are concerned or want clarification. There may be different rules for TP archives than for TPs themselves, since the history of the TP itself remains intact. Softlavender (talk) 01:45, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

• Note: Malik appears to have stepped away from the project with no specification if they will return. starship.paint (talk) 00:27, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

A rather extreme reaction, as I recall it was only a 72 hour block.Slatersteven (talk) 09:28, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Legal threat at Caldwell Esselstyn

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.

---

Block needed. Thanks-Roxy, the dog. wooF 13:23, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Edits in question are [29] and [30], IP for block is User:49.199.32.100. I, for one, am deeply afraid of this person's engaged lawyers "sewing" me for "cash compenaatuon." creffett (talk) 13:27, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Dealt with. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 13:36, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

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

User:Halo Jerk1

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 didn't want to bring this here, but to make it short and simple, the user in question has continually pestered and harassed me even after I told him not to on this talk page. He refuses to respect my personal boundaries and had continually cussed me out when I told him to back off. I personally don't like to be on the receiving end of such abuse, so I usually resort to closing discussions when they get really disruptive, like this. That was done to protect myself. Halo also continued accuse me of WP:OWN, even though I never claimed ownership of the talk page, or the article in question. Most recently, he has proceeded to scream at me on my talkpage, making the same WP:OWN accusation. I think something should be done about this. Sk8erPrince (talk) 10:09, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Look at this section. Sk8erPrince was uncivil from the start after I asked him a simple question. And he acted like he owned the page. And he's complaining about me cursing? Bogus. The reason he brought this to ANI is because I said I would bring him to ANI for violating WP:TALK by removing my posts. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 10:13, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

You were cussing at me for no good reason when I told you to back off. Those are personal attacks, and that's something you can't deny. And when you continue to write such rude messages on an article talk page to perpetuate drama even after the discussion has closed, they deserve to be removed because they don't help improve the article. That's not what a talk page is for. It's as simple as that. Sk8erPrince (talk) 10:19, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

You were being rude for no good reason. You didn't tell me to back off. And back off from what? After I'd asked you a simple question? Dude, look at what you wrote! You expected me not to call out your attitude? Halo Jerk1 (talk) 10:22, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Look, telling you not to pester me is the same as telling you to back off. Additionally, how is telling you to search for info yourself "uncivil"? I am free to decline helping out because I'm not obligated to. I also didn't appreciate being pinged just because you didn't get an immediate answer. Should you even be talking about uncivility when you are the one that's been repeatedly cussing me out just because you're angry and can't keep a level head? Sk8erPrince (talk) 10:28, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

All I initially did was ask a question and ping you, man. I was not trying to pester you. It was not about an immediate answer. I told you that. What is it with you and your approach to interacting with people? I shouldn't have cursed, okay. But look at how you treated me. If you can't see how you were uncivil, I don't know what to tell you. I never said that you had to add reception info. I told you that! And you think you have a level head? The hypocrisy! Halo Jerk1 (talk) 10:37, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

IBAN.Slatersteven (talk) 10:30, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. I'd rather cease communication with Halo. Sk8erPrince (talk) 10:39, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Not so fast. From the diffs so far provided, it looks as if this all started 2 days ago, and looks like Sk8erPrince severely overreacting to a simple ping by Halo Jerk1. Things then escalated on both sides, but it is way premature to start about IBANs already. Sk8erPrince, is there any earlier history between the two of you? If so, please provide some links; if not, please don't overreact to a single ping you receive. You claim that Halo Jerk1 has "continually pestered" you, but you already claimled he "pestered" you based on a single ping. "He refuses to respect my personal boundaries and had continually cussed me out": he has made three responses in that discussion, where only the last one has them "cussing you out" to some degree, in response to your "Oh, spare me your BS. The only one that has an attitude problem is YOU. You may think you weren't pestering me, but I thought it was completely unnecessary. And surprise, surprise - I have every single right to think that. If anything, you didn't respect my personal boundaries when I told you that you were pestering me. So buzz off." Apparently the "respect for personal boudnaries" thing is the single ping, which they didn't repeat after you started with the pestering claims? You said that "you're so full of yourself and annoyingly self-righteous". I'm much more tempted to give you a block for violations of the WP:NPA policy and totally overreacting, than to impose a two-way IBAN. Fram (talk) 11:11, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

I have no history with this user. I can, however, provide the following edit summary. Halo told me to F off in his edit summary after my first reply, which is uncalled for. That's why I thought it was necessary to defend myself. The continuous pestering I claimed would be Halo perpetuating the problem on the talk page rather than letting it go. Halo admits that he shouldn't have cussed me out here. That being said, I can see how I overreacted on that ping; I should have just ignored it without saying anything if I had no intention in adding a Reception section. Sk8erPrince (talk) 11:34, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

So can the pair of you agree to stop this, are you both capable of stepping back?Slatersteven (talk) 11:41, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I agree to stop this, and I am capable of stepping back. Sk8erPrince (talk) 11:48, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Two way IBAN

I propose a two way IBAN between me and Halo so that I am no longer on the receiving end of verbal abuse. Sk8erPrince (talk) 10:39, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

*Support as nominator. Sk8erPrince (talk) 10:39, 5 June 2019 (UTC) Withdrawing proposal and close due to overreaction. Sk8erPrince (talk) 12:01, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

*Support since Sk8erPrince wants it and apparently Halo Jerk1 wants it too: I will never attempt to interact with you again. [31]. Bonus - edit summary. starship.paint (talk) 11:14, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose as overreaction. You have both expressed a desire to stop talking to each other, so just do that yourselves and stop wasting our time here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:33, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose and close per WP:IFIHAVETOPULLTHISCAROVERYOULLBOTHBESORRY -- Begoon 11:41, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

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

Vandalism only account?

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

---

Hi all. Dr Kolin98 (contributions) appeared an hour ago and seems to be making exclusively subtle vandalism edits to articles on a variety of topics. Disclaimer: some of these are small changes to the infoboxes of Malaysian politicians, and I'm not 100% sure the changes are vandalism? Edits are ongoing every few minutes. If someone could take a look and maybe give a short preventative block to the username, that would be much appreciated. Thanks! Ajpolino (talk) 19:35, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

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

Personal attacks on Talk:Dean Ambrose by User:Wicka wicka

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.

---

Wicka wicka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Apologies for bringing yet more pro wrestling drama into ANI. There is currently a move discussion involving Dean Ambrose and his recent change of ring name to Jon Moxley. User:Wicka wicka is on the Support side of the discussion, but is making personal attacks at other editors who are on the Oppose side, regularly calling them trolls

• As an example, [32] Claims than an oppose vote was "CLEARLY written by a WWE fan who doesn't want to acknowledge the world of wrestling outside of WWE." Doubles down on said stance [33] here.
• [34] Attacks Wikipedia in general, stating "Unfortunately the whole point of wiki policy is to create a framework for ignoring common sense."
• [35] "Hey look! Two more comments that are clearly WWE fans trying to turn this into an us vs them situation." One of these comments referred to is mine, where I stated "we all want it to happen," referring to AEW's potential to be as big as WWE. Hardly a comment a WWE fanboy would make. I asked for a retraction and apology for this comment and none has been provided as of writing.
• [36] "Both of you are lazy concern trolls. Grow up." Again, directed at me and another editor.
• After being warned on his talk page for the above by a fourth editor, [37] " Please do not waste your time here defending trolls. No one needs that."
• [38] Doubles down on calling the third editor a "Troll" and "A bad faith editor"
• After ALL of this [39] "And no, the page does not need to be renamed immediately. It's important to get the name right but Jon Moxley still redirects here. There's no problem with leaving it as it is for now." So he was calling us trolls, for a discussion that he himself admits is not needed? Cool!
• On talk page again: [40] "If you're not able to see a troll for what they are then you need not be a part of this discussion."
• [41] "I'm the person who keeps telling you what our naming conventions are. Ironically, you can't seem to grasp them, despite my repeated efforts. One day we will overcome this." — Preceding unsigned comment added by GhostOfDanGurney (talk • contribs)

@Moe Epsilon: @Fishhead2100: @STATicVapor: @El C:

This guy is a real obvious troll who resorted to even more obvious sealioning when I pointed out his trolling. Please ask him to stop following me around and harassing me, thanks in advance. Your friend, Wicka wicka (talk) 14:51, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm not following you or harassing you. I entered a discussion and was subsequently attacked by you. Now you're Casting aspersions. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 15:40, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

2 of one over half a dozen of the other, but you do need to calm down. But no they are not an obvious troll. But it would have been nice if they had signed this, so I knew who was saying it. The more I think about it the less I like the attitude you have shown.Slatersteven (talk) 14:59, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

The complaint was made by GhostOfDanGurney who failed to identify themselves here. MPJ-DK (talk) 15:19, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Here, borrow some of my tidles.

-EEng

Apologies! Forgot my tidles GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 15:36, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

• Reminder that the topic of professional wrestling has community-authorized discretionary sanctions. I'll notify both parties momentarily. EvergreenFir (talk) 15:28, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to say my piece and leave it at this. Please ping me if you really need me but honestly I don't care to be involved in this discussion. The admins gotta do what they gotta do and I respect that.

The purpose of being a troll is to engender an emotional response from the person you're trolling, usually anger or frustration. On Wikipedia trolling is used to force a person you disagree with to express those emotions and thus undermine their own stance. The troll then feigns politeness or civility and often "wins" the debate by default, especially if they're so successful that the person they're trolling ends up being blocked. This problem is compounded by the assumption of good faith, which sounds neat on paper but frequently blinds editors and administrators to the fact that many editors are operating in bad faith - I have noticed on several occasions that administrators seem unable or unwilling to punish editors who are very obviously trolling.

As I said before, the admins gotta do what they gotta do and I respect that. I can't force them to see that an editor is trolling if they can't see it for themselves. But I also gotta do what I gotta do, and I'm never going to stop calling out trolls when I see them, because it's simply the right thing to do. Wicka wicka (talk) 16:03, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Astounding. I've blocked Wicka wicka for 48h for personal attacks.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:15, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

What an odd turn of events since I've left for work this morning. Wicka sounded really angry when I saw a lot of anonymous edits/new accounts stemming from a Reddit post to influence the discussion on changing the article title. Here is the Reddit post in question. Somehow pointing out that wrestling fans were storming the page because they like AEW and dislike WWE made me a troll/WWE fan/whatever *shrug* I don't particularly care that he called me a troll (since I've been called a lot worse on Wikipedia). I just wanted the article to actually follow traditional naming conventions and tried to explain how naming conventions were normally determined. Anyways, I've said basically all I wanted to say there by now three times over. I just ask that a small group of uninvolved administrators determine consensus/lack of consensus since there was a lot of discussion and a few suspect accounts used to manipulate consensus probably. — Moe Epsilon 18:10, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

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

Historyofiran

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 here. He is being racist to Norwegians. Makeen60fps (talk) 19:36, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Wut? Can you ban this troll already? He is a sockpuppet of several banned IPs/accounts who spams the revert button to push his pov. Just look at the activities of this page for example [42]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:37, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

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

Requesting a subject-matter ban for user Bacondrum on the Call-out Culture article

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

---

Bacondrum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has engaged in a lengthy campaign to either delete, or cut down to almost nothing, the article Call-out culture. I believe Bacondrum’s conduct is edit-warring and advocacy that is inconsistent with making a neutral point of view encyclopedia. (I note that Bacondrum also focuses on the Virtue signaling article in a similar way, engaging in what appears to be agenda-driven tendentious editing.) Examples of editors trying to reason with Bacondrum about this, to no avail:

• Special:Diff/899465320: My response to Bacondrum when they removed a citation to Dr. Lisa Nakamura, a University of Michigan professor and authoritative source on callout culture.
• Special:Diff/899431117: Here I am telling Bacondrum they have deleted well-sourced text and asking them to take it to talk page.
• Special:Diff/897772099: Here is editor Psantora warning Bacondrum about edit warring. But if you just look at the history of the article since then, it has become almost all Bacondrum … removing well-sourced, good-faith contributions despite other editors asking Bacondrum to get consensus first.
• Here is a section of the article’s Talk page where other editors are taking issue with Bacondrum’s idiosyncratic view of NPOV on Wikipedia.

Large sections of the talk page are essentially Bacondrum decreeing unilaterally that something should happen, and other editors not agreeing with Bacondrum’s decree. Bacondrum is apparently not interested in consensus, but seems to just want to prevail despite opposition from other editors and lack of consensus.

Bacondrum further removes quoted authoritative statements from experts on the topic, such as Lisa Nakamura of the University of Michigan, despite Bacondrum frequently complaining that the people being cited are not authorities or not experts on the topic. This is disruptive and shows bad faith and agenda-driven tendentious editing.

Special:Diff/899463750

Bacondrum makes demeaning comments against other editors, such as this comment on the Talk page calling certain edits “pathetic” and saying students “stoned out of their minds” would know not to cite a certain source. Bacondrum also multiple times, in Edit Summaries, exclaims "FFS!" [for f***'s sake] in frustration at other editors. This is not collegial or collaborative.

Bacondrum persists in edit warring that has already resulted in him having a 36 hour block, and a one-week block.

Special:Diff/893530670

Special:Diff/897841320

If you just eyeball the edit history of the article, it has become almost entirely Bacondrum, whittling down the article relentlessly despite having no consensus and other editors objecting to these cuts. Although Bacondrum has apparently learned not to violate the three revert rule, they still engage in edit warring, just in a less obvious manner.

-- DeRossitt (talk) 22:16, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

In my defense, I would like to point out that the original article broke numerous guidelines, it was hard to understand and relied almost entirely on op-eds, it was a real mess and strongly biased, it read like a personal opinion or an essay. I believe the article is significantly improved. None of my edits were done in bad faith or would constitute vandalism. I believe DeRossitt is insisting on his or her preferred version and now reverts any and every effort i make to improve the article. refuses to allow improvements and insists on retaining content that is not verifiable and is not properly cited (relies on primary sources) and poorly worded. In particular the section on call-out culture was hard to make any sense of. I've acted in good faith, yes I was edit warring at one stage, I did not contest the block I received and I've learnt my lesson, surely I'm allowed to try and improve a poorly cited and worded article.

Look at the entire history of the page and you'll see that a number of editors have been pushing a particular view of the subject. I have simply been trying to improve the article and I believe I have improved it significantly.

Cheers Bacondrum (talk) 21:52, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Much like its section header, this Incidents report is too lengthy. Feel free to condense, because speaking for myself, I just don't have time to look into something that's not concise enough and may relate to a content dispute that can be addressed with normal dispute resolution options, anyway. Sorry. El_C 22:02, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

I condensed it. --DeRossitt (talk) 22:18, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

And when you condense it, be very careful with what you retain. I examined the Bromwich bit, and Bacondrum is completely correct. As you'll see from [43], this individual generally writes about fashion. We have no evidence that he has any scholarly background at all, and he cites no sources. How do we know that he has fairly represented this individual? You need to cite her writings on the subject (preferably from peer-reviewed journals or university-press-published books), not newspaper interviews. If you go to college and write a paper citing this Times article, yes, you will be chastised by your professor because you cited something worthless. If the rest of Bacondrum's actions are comparable to his actions regarding Bromwich, Bacondrum is the one in the right. Nyttend (talk) 22:12, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Most of the article is like this, I think it contains only the one reliable source. Bacondrum (talk) 22:24, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm talking about a pattern of conduct that is disruptive and alienating to other editors. The fact that he may be correct about some part of the events I've described doesn't really get at the fact that he is behaving in ways that are disruptive (as his prior bans evidence). --DeRossitt (talk) 22:26, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

• I don't understand the objection to op-eds for a topic like this. It isn't math and it doesn't have theorems. It's mostly a matter of viewpoints, and our NPOV principle says we are supposed to document the notable viewpoints, which is precisely what published op-eds are. If person A says X, person B says Y, and person C says Z, then our article is supposed to summarize and cite all of those. At one point Bacondrum apparently edited the article from 57k bytes down to about 2.3k[44]. I looked at the 57k version and while there was a passage here or there that I could take issue with, it mostly was informative and well-cited, giving plenty of material to digest or research further, which as a reader is the main thing that I want from Wikipedia articles. Bacondrum also proposed deleting the article after chopping it to 2.7k,[45] (added:) and then AfD'd it[46] (closed as "keep"). So I'm unimpressed with Bacondrum's wikilawyering, and on the talk page it does look to me like Bacondrum is trying to WP:OWN the article. Bacondrum was blocked for 3RR on May 19 but continues after the block to revert furiously, for example 7 reverts on May 30.[47][48][49][50][51][52][53] Not going to get into the policy stuff for now but I think the article would be better off if Bacondrum left it alone for a while. 173.228.123.207 (talk) 22:27, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Jesus wept, what are you even saying? Bacondrum (talk) 22:34, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

I am saying you don't get to unilaterally decide whether the article should cite op-eds. It's obvious to me that it should, but if you feel differently the thing to do is discuss it on the talk page, not slash the article to ribbons. 173.228.123.207 (talk) 22:36, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

"you don't get to unilaterally decide whether the article should cite op-eds" You are 100% correct, the guidelines decide: "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact. Human interest reporting is generally not as reliable as news reporting, and may not be subject to the same rigorous standards of fact-checking and accuracy (see junk food news)." I understand if you've never attended university that op-eds may seem like reliable sources, but they are not, they are opinion. You wouldn't get past first year if you cited essays with op-eds. They are not acceptable here either. Read up WP:NEWSORG Bacondrum (talk) 00:03, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

"At one point Bacondrum apparently edited the article from 57k bytes down to about 2.3k" Yes I did, I am certain that my edits improved the article significantly, none of it was encyclopedic, it was all POV, biased rubbish (sorry if that offends, but I call things by their names, rubbish assertions with rubbish citations are, rubbish). The length of the article depends on verifiable encyclopedic content, not a desire to have a lengthy article, in-fact I'd suggest that a term having that much content is indicative of tendentious editing, it's not the history of WW2, it's a term. Read up WP:LENGTH Bacondrum (talk) 00:10, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

We're supposed to document viewpoints and not just facts. The op-eds document viewpoints. For some subjects like chemistry, facts will usually matter more than viewpoints. Other subjects like postmodernism or "call-out culture" would seem to be almost entirely about viewpoints. And while postmodernism might be mostly discussed in academic journals, "call-out culture" is apparently an issue being debated in the wider world. So if op-eds are where the published discourse is taking place, they are the RS.

Either way, it's a content question belongs on the talk page. And I read the 57k version from before you chopped it and didn't find it to be biased rubbish. Perhaps it could have used some reorganization (and I'd remove the picture of David Brooks) but chopping it to 2.3k or deleting it is obviously not an improvement. The purpose of an article is to inform people and discarding most of the content does the opposite of that. 173.228.123.207 (talk) 00:28, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

• Op-eds and opinion pieces aren't useless, sure, but they're very easy to misuse. It's difficult to evaluate WP:DUE weight from just opinion pieces, and very easy for an article to end up in a state where it either has major WP:POV issues due to a disproportionate abundance of opinion pieces representing a single position, or an article that turns into confusing back-and-forth between editors, who drop opinion pieces in by proxy in a way that isn't very useful for readers. In general, I'd say that anything cited solely to opinion pieces ought to be confined to a section devoted to them, which should be kept to a relatively small proportion of the article; broad opinions are better represented by secondary non-opinion sources covering those opinions, preferably neutral ones, since that makes it easier to illustrate due weight and to balance opinions properly. I would therefore share Bacondrum's concern with any article that seems to rely too heavily on opinion pieces. Always remember that the purpose of using an opinion piece is to say "some people take this general position", not to present every argument for that position by proxy - an article should never attempt to convince a user, and when we're trying to convey anything to them except "some people hold opinion X", we should try to rely on sources that can be used for statements of fact, not opinion pieces. I also feel it's worth toning down and trimming opinion pieces that seem collectively seem structured, within the article, to 'convince' the user - again, the purpose is "opinion X exists", not "here is why you should believe X", so opinion pieces should be covered in a neutral way with an eye towards minimizing their flash or impact. I especially think flashy, fiery quotes should be removed on sight, replaced with more neutral language stating someone's ultimate belief. And I would generally avoid leaning on "general" opinion writers - I don't see any value to dropping David Brooks' opinion into every article on cultural issues, for instance. He's not an expert, so who cares what he thinks? --Aquillion (talk) 01:32, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, couldn't agree more. I just want the article to be encyclopedic and cited with reliable sources. The article was a mess of opinions, so I improved it in accordance with the guidelines, improved it significantly. For that I've been accused of tendentious editing, vandalism, editing in bad faith and now have a request for a subject ban...all from DeRossit and his mate. Bacondrum (talk) 01:48, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

• Aquillion, I don't care much for David Brooks either; I don't usually look at articles like this so I don't know what other articles have had his opinions added, but I didn't feel like the call-out culture article convinced me of anything or tried to. It told me what the issue was (I had already somewhat heard of it so I got the idea quickly) and then gave a big pile of "here is what is being said about it and here is who is saying it", which as I see it is perfectly fine. It means that in some science fiction scenario where I actually wanted to research call-out culture in detail, I now know where to start. So I'm thankful all the cites are there. I'm an adult and I don't feel like I need Bacondrum's services to shield my sensitive eyes from the words of big bad meanies like David Brooks or those who disagree with him. I'd rather that Wikipedia just give me the info and then stay out of the way.

  Bacondrum, re when I was at university this stuff would get you a fail: Wikipedia articles are not university theses; they are reference works. Their goals are completely different. If a university faculty member asked a librarian or grad student to round up published writings on call-out culture and got back a citation list like the one in the 57k article, I think they'd be satisfied, while they'd be unsatisfied with the 2.3k version. That is the standard I would go by. Our role as encyclopedia editors is closer to that of librarians than of thesis writers. It doesn't matter if an article fails as a term paper as long as it succeeds as a reference work. I hope that helps. 173.228.123.207 (talk) 02:23, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

@Nyttend: Hi, I was wondering, if you have the time would you be able to take a look at the article? I feel like it has been created and edited in a tendentious manner and is now being owned by a small group of tendentious editors who are pushing a certain view rather than working towards an encyclopedic article. The citations are almost exclusively op-eds, when I was at university this stuff would get you a fail, I would hope wikipedia has similar standards. Bacondrum (talk) 00:16, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

If you think the article is one-sided, why not add to it instead of deleting from it? 173.228.123.207 (talk) 00:34, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Apologies, but I see this argument a lot, and it always rankles me a bit. All good faith editing is an assist to Wikipedia. Not all of it stands, but it is all part of the process of making the encyclopedia better. Removing unreliable or misused sources is a good thing. No one is under any onus to edit in a particular way, add instead of delete, etc. (other than the rules, of course!). I would recommend everyone have another go and try to listen anew to whatever suggestions are being made additive or subtractive though they may be. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 00:45, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Dumuzid, in this case the sources in question are perfectly good, or at least presumptively good until decided otherwise by consensus on the talk page, since they were in stable articles (the one under discussion and another that was merged into it). Bacondrum's revert warring and bullying is clearly disruptive. And I can't agree that someone who is HTDE (Here To Destroy an Encyclopedia) by deleting stuff all day long is here to build an encyclopedia or should be treated like a contributor. If they contribute stuff and occasionally delete something after discussion, that's different. That's not what we're seeing here. 173.228.123.207 (talk) 01:43, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

@173.228.123.207: You right mate? Wanna stop with the personal insults? I'm not a bully, and I'm not here to destroy anything. I've not attacked you personally. Poor form mate! Bacondrum (talk) 02:10, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

• I mentioned this above, but I feel that this is generally a terrible idea for articles that rely too heavily on op-eds and opinion pieces. It turns the article into a useless maze of conflicting op-eds that editors use to argue with each other by proxy. Again, the point is just to illustrate who holds specific, narrowly-summarized opinion; opinion pieces, on Wikipedia, should never be used to try and convince the reader. --Aquillion (talk) 01:37, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Bacondrum, I'm not sure how you're using the term "op-ed" in this context. In this edit, you removed sources explaining that the effect of call-out culture can be to deprive someone of making a living. At least one is an appropriate source: an interview in the New York Times with Lisa Nakamura, a digital-media scholar and Gwendolyn Calvert Baker Collegiate Professor at the University of Michigan. [54] SarahSV ^(talk) 00:57, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

"I'm not sure how you're using the term "op-ed"" Sorry, you are correct, it is not an op-ed, it's an opinions piece. Still not a relaible source for this content. I accept that assertion and the qualifications of the academic, but her words are a quote from a opinions piece and I can't find the quote anywhere else, it is therefor unreliable - we can't be certain she actually said that. Bacondrum (talk) 01:05, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Bacondrum, that interview is a reliable source for this article, as is the New York Times piece in general. The article isn't about brain surgery or hard news; it's about popular culture. If you can find a scholarly article by that academic about this topic, all the better, but the interview is fine, particularly as it describes what is often a key component of call-out culture. The words that were quoted are in the NYT article: "'It's a cultural boycott,' said Lisa Nakamura, a professor at the University of Michigan who studies the intersection of digital media and race, gender and sexuality. 'It's an agreement not to amplify, signal boost, give money to. People talk about the attention economy — when you deprive someone of your attention, you’re depriving them of a livelihood.'" The edit in question quoted her accurately. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:18, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Okay, so that one stands, what about the other assertions that rely on that opinions piece? The guidelines state that op-eds and opinions pieces are not reliable sources for statements of fact and rarely reliable for anything other than the authors own words. And what about the other op-eds cited? The article relies on op-eds and opinion, there are only two reliable secondary sources. Bacondrum (talk) 01:56, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

The other source in that edit is a Vice article. I probably wouldn't have used that, not least because it repeats what the New York Times says. I haven't looked at the rest of the article. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:01, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Bacondrum, which guideline are you relying on that cautions against the use of opinion pieces (or articles in newspapers other than news stories)? SarahSV ^(talk) 02:14, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

SlimVirgin WP:NEWSORG "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact. Human interest reporting is generally not as reliable as news reporting, and may not be subject to the same rigorous standards of fact-checking and accuracy (see junk food news)." It's the same standard you would be subjected to at university - Op-eds and opinions are not reliable sources for much other than the authors own words. If you look at the article as it was when I came to learn about the term you'll see why they shouldn't be used, it was an incomprehensible hodge-podge of opinion. Bacondrum (talk) 02:29, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Bacondrum, the fact-versus-opinion distinction is trickier than that guideline suggests, but leaving that to one side, in the edit we're discussing, the opinion was attributed to Lisa Nakamura, so it was compliant with NEWSORG. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:06, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I hear you, but it doesn't cut the mustard, because she is not the author, we can't verify that she really said what the author claims. He has no academic credentials, he is an op-ed fashion writer. Bacondrum (talk) 03:16, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

We have no reason to assume that the New York Times suddenly doesn't know how to quote people. As for the author, Jonah Engel Bromwich, he writes about popular culture: style issues, music, and so on. SarahSV ^(talk) 04:08, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

True, the New York Times is a quality source for news, I can see what your saying - although it seems like a mere opinions piece to me, I may be wrong. I still don't see this as a quality source. The quality of the source is besides the point in the context however, this is not about content, it's not a content dispute - it's a request to block me from editing the page. I feel I'm being harassed by DeRossitt and others because I removed some of their work and now a small group who created this version want me punished for it. I was rightfully punished for the only thing I've done that warrants any action - edit warring. I sat out my block, my time is served, I did not contest. I still deserve the assumption of good faith and I should still be able to contribute. I personally think I've made massive improvements to an awful page and most of my edits stand. I believe this is petty and vexatious harassment form a small group of involved editor lead by DeRossitt. Bacondrum (talk) 22:53, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

@Dumuzid: Exactly, thank you. if you have the time would you be able to take a look at the article? I feel like it has been created and edited in a tendentious manner from the outset and is now being owned by a small group of tendentious editors who are pushing a certain view rather than working towards an encyclopedic article. I feel like it reads okay now, but the citations are unreliable, op-eds - primary sources. Bacondrum (talk) 01:05, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

@173.228.123.207:"If you think the article is one-sided, why not add to it instead of deleting from it?" pray tell, what shall I add? The article should be clear, well cited and describe the subject and any other relevant details - It did not, it was rambling to the point of being nonsense, un-encyclopedic, biased and contained no reliable sources that I could see. It now contains one or two reliable sources, the rest are op-eds. Again, work towards encyclopedic content, not your personal opinion. Bacondrum (talk) 01:05, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I read the 57k article and don't agree with your assessment of it as being nonsense (it made sense to me), unencyclopedic (AfD decided the opposite), rambling (it could have used some organizational touches but it stayed on topic afaict), or lacking RS (see below). "Biased" might be valid (that would mean one viewpoint was overrepresented as the expense of another) but as everything was pretty well cited, if there was bias choosing the sourced viewpoints, that should be fixed by adding citations to opposing views, not slashing up what was there. Of course the article wasn't perfect but nothing ever is. I am perfectly fine with the use of op-eds as sources for that topic. Which particular ones to use, or how many, is a reasonable matter for talk page discussion. You can't just stomp your foot and dictate to other editors what the article should contain. WP:YDOW. 173.228.123.207 (talk) 03:51, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: Hi, I was wondering, if you have the time would you be able to take a look at the article? I feel like it has been created and edited in a tendentious manner and is now being owned by a small group of tendentious editors who are pushing a certain view rather than working towards an encyclopedic article. The citations are almost exclusively op-eds, when I was at university this stuff would get you a fail, I would hope wikipedia has similar standards. Bacondrum (talk) 01:09, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

This is clearly a content dispute, I believe this request for a subject-matter ban is a vexatious request made by a tendentious editor who is pushing a particular point of view rather than working towards encyclopedic content. This is clearly a content dispute and does not belong here. Bacondrum (talk) 01:13, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

No, this is about your conduct: your edit warring despite three prior bans (I thought it was just two but then I saw it was three), you destructive editing that alienates other editors, your lack of interest in consensus, your ownership attitude toward the article.—DeRossitt (talk) 02:08, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Hahahaha! Yeah, keep telling yourself that. Bacondrum (talk) 02:36, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree with DeRossitt that there is a valid conduct complaint about Bacondrum's editing. The revert warring, general uncollegiality, imperious attitude on the talk page[55] and afaict total lack of contributions to the article (i.e. Bacondrum seems to only want to police or supervise other editors rather than provide any actual help) are all classic tendentious editing. Bacondrum does seem to have contributed to other articles[56] so they are not totally NHBE, but I don't think they are helping this article. 173.228.123.207 (talk) 02:40, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Do you want to stop attacking me? I edit in good faith. Bacondrum (talk) 02:52, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I believe you, but you can edit in good faith while still being a terrible editor. The suggestions I'd make is follow WP:CIVIL as well as you can ("[t]ry to treat your fellow editors as respected colleagues..."), concentrate more on additions than subtractions, and completely stop reverting (0RR) without at least discussing proposed reverts on the talk page first. Or 1RR if you must, but only if you think the revert will be uncontroversial. 173.228.123.207 (talk) 03:37, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Oh, so I'm a terrible editor now? You can't help yourself can you? I believe I'm under no obligation to take anything you say seriously after you've made repeated personal attacks. Well I improved the article significantly and most of my edits stand. I'll no longer be engaging with you after repeatedly asking you to stop making personal insults Bacondrum (talk) 03:56, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Pretty clear to me that this is an ideological/POV crusade on Bacondrum's part. Strongest evidence for me is the series of edits which removed commentary from several experts including a social psychologist known for commenting frequently about cultural issues as "All of this is irrelevant and undue", some of which he recently expanded, right after saying in an edit summary that "Very much reads like a one sided vent about leftist online activism". Since then, though, Bacondrum has employed a slash-and-burn style of editing, eventually whittling it down to a single paragraph right before PRODing it and AFDing it. I'd also point out this CANVASSing on the talk page to his RfC. I think the comment about "leftist online activism" shows the beginning of a WP:BATTLEGROUND approach, which is then shown in the later destructive editing style, aggressive comments to editors, and the frivolous use of an PROD, an RFC, and eventually AFD. He's bringing every gun in the arsenal to bear against this article's very existence and challenging every bit of content that can be used to expand it, and so can no longer be assumed to be a NPOV participant in its development. Definitely need some kind of break from Bacondrum for the article to be recovered and brought to a stable state, and prevent occurrences at similar articles like he's done at virtue signalling. -- Netoholic @ 03:01, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

hahahaha! Says the guy who was canvassed for this discussion by DeRossit. Bacondrum (talk) 03:11, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't even care anymore, your vexatious request to have me topic banned has brought in editors who actually want to build an encyclopedia. My work is done. Nice own goal folks! Bacondrum (talk) 03:13, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Collaborative project, Bacondrum. Insulting other editors is rarely a good thing. Drmies (talk) 03:19, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Like I said, others are actually working to an encyclopedic article now, rather than pushing an opinions piece. my work is done. I won't be adding to the page any further. Bacondrum (talk) 03:40, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

• Endorse topic ban - As one of the "others" that Bacondrum refers to above who is now working on the article, let me state that my interactions with Bacondrum have been almost universally unpleasant, tendentious, and not conducive to productive editing. I became involved in the article when I reviewed it for AFD. As you can see references supporting the notability of the article were raised early in the AFD but Bacondrum, even though they recognised that the references supported notability, did not withdraw their nomination but instead to keep insisting that other editors improve the article (not an AFD requirement) and accusing me of being "here pushing the term". In another AFD raised at the same time they did exactly the same thing - even though they now recognise that the article is likely notable, they haven't withdrawn their nom. They engage in ultimatum-setting, demand-making, and insult-making ("back to school", "Dick Cheney, is that you?", "first year arts students stoned out of their minds"). Of course a voluntary topic ban might suffice - but Bacondrum has only agreed thus far not to add anything further to the article, when their deletions are often just as problematic. FOARP (talk) 08:50, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

  @FOARP: - what is the scope of the topic ban you are supporting? Just the Call-out Culture article? starship.paint (talk) 09:19, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

  • • Yes, as far as I can see the only still-ongoing problem is there. EDIT: though the RR issue does justify a 0RR restriction. FOARP (talk) 14:49, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

---

Bacondrum - so I looked at your recent edits at other articles. Can you explain why you removed journals and information cited to them? There was Kowal (2008) at Aboriginal self-determination, which was reference #3 that you removed. Also, there is Shariff (2017) and Griskevicius (2010) at virtue signalling, previously reference #9 and #10, that you removed. I don't think you adequately explained that. starship.paint (talk) 09:42, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Starship.paintThese are completely unrelated articles. I assure you all my edits are done in good faith. I was blocked for edit warring at Call-out culture, I let my desire to see a quality entry get the better of me, I learn't my lesson, didn't challenge the block and if you check my history, you'll see I've done absolutely nothing wrong since. This is pure harassment from DeRossitt and FOAR, nothing more, nothing less. DeRossitt has even been canvassing other users for this block request as can be seen: here here here here here here here here and here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bacondrum (talk • contribs)

@Bacondrum: - they are unrelated articles because I am concerned about your conduct. I don't doubt your good faith, at least at this point. But I have noticed you have been deleting a lot of content, and I am seeing academic sources and content cited to them being deleted without a full explanation. This is concerning behaviour and I need you to explain it. Was it carelessness? Was it done purposely? starship.paint (talk) 02:49, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

@Starship.paint: Look, part of editing is adding and deleting things. If I removed something it would have been because it was unrelated to the subject or the citation was unreliable. My edits have been in good faith, I acted poorly over Call-out culture because I thought the page was completely un-encyclopedic, I let my passion get the better of me and I edit warred - I see my mistake and accept that I was sanctioned for it. This current request is just bullying by DeRossitt and I highly doubt it is going anywhere. If you want to block me from editing the page then go for it, I won't object, though I personally think it would be completely undue. Bacondrum (talk) 03:08, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Bacondrum - I've given you just two other articles, and just three references to explain. You can't even explain specifically? These are journal articles here. starship.paint (talk) 03:28, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

I've tried to stay out of the discussion today and let it run its course, as I've said my piece. But after Bacondrum's latest siege on this discussion, I'd like to point out a few things:

• Look at the combative tone Bacondrum takes in this discussion, the relentless way of laying siege to the discussion and trying to control it. You are seeing here a manifestation of the interaction style that caused this ANI in the first place. A persistent failure to grasp their errors that MANY EDITORS are pointing out, their misrepresentation of Wikipedia policy, their refusal to answer when asked about incidents that appear to be examples of the conduct complained of (see, in the discussion just above this, Bacondrum says they're not going to "justify on request" their edits that starship.paint inquired about -- edits that, as starship.paint clearly recognizes, are part of Bacondrum's pattern of destructive behavior on Wikipedia.
• Bacondrum has persistently misrepresented Wikipedia policy, and keeps saying I canvassed and should be sanctioned for that. I notified the top ten editors of the Call-out Culture article by number of edits. Here, at the policy page Wikipedia:Canvassing - Appropriate Notification, it is explicitly stated that what I did is an example of appropriate notification. It says that appropriate notification is to place a neutral message "On the user talk pages of concerned editors. Examples include: * Editors who have made substantial edits to the topic or article ..." I left a neutral message. But Bacondrum, probably a dozen times, keeps hammering, despite Wikipedia policy, that I "canvassed," bullied, harassed. This is patent dishonesty, and Bacondrum should produce examples of me harassing and bullying. No examples exist. If Bacondrum's conduct is not checked by sanctions, they will continue to be a destructive, alienating editor who drives other editors away from pages.

--DeRossitt (talk) 03:39, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

---

• Endorse sitewide 0RR restriction, neutral on topic ban I haven't seen mention of bad additions Bacondrum has made to these articles, just bad reversions. But the reversions seem to cross topics, so topic ban by itself will just move the problem elsewhere. Some of this comes from Bacondrum being a relatively new editor who started out and has stayed in controversial topics, that take considerable experience to edit. Other parts come from taking the policy docs too literally (a typical newbie error), and more worryingly a seeming lack of self-awareness (e.g. not seeing any problems with making 7 reverts in 1 day after already having been blocked for 3RR). If 0RR restriction seems too strict then go for 1RR but really, 0RR should work fine. It would still be ok for Bacondrum to propose reversions on talk pages, up to 3 per day. I'd suggest Bacondrum focus for a while on less controversial topics, but won't propose a formal restriction for now. 173.228.123.207 (talk) 15:49, 4 June 2019 (UTC) By the way, there is no reason to restrict RS for "callout culture" to academics or "experts" since as SV says, it's a popular culture topic. We would not limit the "critical response" section of Avengers: Endgame to citing highbrow academic film theorists. If they have something to say we'd use it, but we'd use mostly newspaper and other mainstream reviews. This is similar. 173.228.123.207 (talk) 15:57, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
• Endorse topic ban as proposer. And I also join with user 173.228.123.207 to request sitewide 0RR restriction for Bacondrum based on what has come up in this discussion. —-DeRossitt (talk) 16:18, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

^^^Three involved editors - this is baldfaced harassment. I've been punished for my edit warring. I was blocked and didn't contest it. I've learnt my lesson and not reverted anything since. I've made a few edits since, none of which I have reverted when they have been challenged. This is straight up harassment. Bacondrum (talk) 21:28, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

• Endorse topic ban disruptive editing. Volunteer1234

^^^And another who was canvassed by DeRossitt. Again, this is baldfaced harassment - since I was blocked for edit warring I've done absolutely nothing wrong. All endorsements of ban so far are by involved editors who've been canvassed, as can be seen: here here here here here here here here and here Bacondrum (talk) 21:34, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

• I'll happily accept a page ban. The page is significantly improved and now others who arn't involved in this dispute are making quality edits, I'm more than happy to leave it, I've played my part in improving the article - that being said the harassing behavior of DeRossitt, as seen in the canvassing, also calls for sanctions. Bacondrum (talk) 22:03, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

El_C Could you look at this debate for us now? I believe this is a content dispute, not a legitimate request. I was blocked for my bad behavior, I sucked it up, sat it out and did not contest - I admit I was wrong and understand why I was blocked. I believe DeRossitt is engaging in a personal crusade against me, making personal attacks and slowly ramping up the sanctions they are calling for and this is evidenced in the fact that he or she has canvassed other involved users and at this point their behavior constitutes harassment. I will happily accept a page ban if that helps put this to bed. I hope you can see I have made some mistakes and acknowledge them, but I make my edits in good faith. Bacondrum (talk) 23:22, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

• I only have a chance to glance, sorry. But from that glance, I feel this was a content dispute where you became impatient, because you failed to rely on your dispute resolution options, which is what you should be doing when you need outside input. So, indeed, you made mistakes realated to that. But I don't think this rises to the levels of sanctions, for either of you — this discussion just got a bit derailed. And now you did get some outside input into the article, by virtue of this very Incidents report. You can choose to step away from the article (and perhaps a short break is due), but you can also return to it, providing you are able to edit in a collegial and collaborative manner. It's okay to dissent, just do it the right way. El_C 23:35, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Cheers, yes I can see my mistakes. Thanks you, I'll leave it alone for a while. Bacondrum (talk) 00:47, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Request for sanctions over misuse of Admin Noticeboard

Re:above nomination for subject-matter ban. I believe I am being subject to a vexatious campaign to have me blocked. I believe this request for a subject ban is personal and vexatious, it is an abuse of the system. This is a content dispute, and I've not violated any rules since I was blocked for edit warring. User:173.228.123.207 has repeatedly made personal attacks despite being asked to refrain. DeRossitt has been surreptitiously canvassing to get me blocked as can be seen here here here here here here here here and hereBacondrum (talk) 04:17, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

With all due respect, I don't think this is the right approach to take. I know it's tough, but if you can back off for even a bit, we often make better decisions once we get a bit of separation from events. Just a thought, feel free to ignore. Best of luck. Dumuzid (talk) 04:21, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Cheers, I just think this is outrageous. This is a content dispute and DeRossitt is clearly abusing the system here. Surely you can't canvas for a block request. This is a content dispute, not a violation of any rules. Bacondrum (talk) 04:24, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Response: I did make some criticisms in the above thread, not intended as personal attacks but rather of what I see as bad editing. Bacondrum was actually blocked 3 times (most recently for 3RR on May 19)[57] but continued to edit war (reverting 7 times on the callout culture article on May 30 alone, diffs in above thread), and their level of insults and obnoxiousness in the above thread and in edit summaries is obvious. I haven't checked the claim about not re-reverting unreversions made by others. I don't have a strong sense of whether Bacondrum's editing of that article was biased towards a particular POV, but I do find it obvious that it was highly disruptive. If that is what Bacondrum considers to be good editing style, a topic ban probably won't help, since there are plenty of other topics available in which to do the same thing. Something like site-wide 1RR might be better. 173.228.123.207 (talk) 04:30, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I posted a neutral message on the User Talk pages of the top ten contributors to the article in question, Call-out culture, notifying them of the discussion. That’s not canvassing. —DeRossitt (talk) 04:31, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

And in response to Bacondrum’s latest edit to his frivolous “Request for Sanctions,” I selected the people to notify by going here and finding the top ten editors by number of edits, and placed a neutral notification on their user page. That’s allowed.—DeRossitt (talk) 04:40, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I doubt very much that canvassing is allowed. It's called bullying and harassment. Bacondrum (talk) 21:37, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

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

Supervote close. Not gonna stoke up more drama by formally contesting it since if things work out, that's great, and otherwise we'll be back here before long. But it's obvious that Bacondrum is still seriously confused about multiple things and I still believe it would be better for the encyclopedia if they were to edit without reverting for a while. 173.228.123.207 (talk) 05:20, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE editing by User:Shayanhello001 and his IP socks

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.

---

• Shayanhello001 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 77.95.96.87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 84.81.217.126 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

1. Keeps adding unsourced content without edit summary at Zadeh, Shayan and Ashkan. Just check the revision histories of these three articles; he's been creating absolute mayhem and has violated WP:SOCK and WP:3RR numerous times already.[58]-[59]-[60]
2. One of his IP's, 84.81.217.126, was blocked yesterday by Materialscientist, now he's using IP 77.95.96.87 instead (same editorial pattern, same geo-location).[61]
3. Keeps adding cuneiform Old Persian (language that stopped being used 2,000 yrs ago) to BLP articles[62]-[63] and other articles without edit summary/explanation.
4. Changes long-standing content without reason/explanation into very dubious stuff.[64]
5. Has been warned numerous times on his talk page.[65]-[66]

Looking at the compelling evidence, its safe to say that this user is WP:NOTHERE to build this encyclopedia. - LouisAragon (talk) 10:29, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

This account has only been editing for less than a week, though. starship.paint (talk) 10:33, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't have time to investigate this at the moment, but I did ec protect the articles, for now. (Which any admin should feel free to undo without consulting me in anyway.) El_C 10:37, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

• Agree. Clearly not here...--SharabSalam (talk) 10:48, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

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

Stage-struck?

Eddaido (talk · contribs), who recently displayed some rather odd ownership issues on the Concord coach article, is currently repeatedly reverting to a version which is not supported by the cited source...or, indeed, any good source, using a cite which clearly discusses local adoption as proof of world-wide first usage. Outside eyballs appreciated. Qwirkle (talk) 17:56, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

This is not a venue to get "more eyes" when you are in a Simple content dispute. If you find yourself in an intractable dispute with another editor you need to avail yourself of the options at WP:DR.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:04, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Neither simple, nor merely a content dispute, but ownership and competence issues going back to another article. Qwirkle (talk) 18:09, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

All I see is the two of you in a slow motion edit war at Stagecoach. Eddaido hasn't even edited Concord coach since March 8th. If you're going to make accusations of ownership and incompetence you will need to back your claims up with specific diffs demonstrating as such or it just comes off as a personal attack.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:22, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

What Qwirkle's trying to say is that Eddaido has displayed problematic behavior at Concord Coach, and is now continuing that behavior at Stagecoach. This isn't a mere content dispute; his competence problems are real and longstanding. No diffs since I'm on mobile, so sue me. EEng 18:43, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

It does not look like anyone has edited Concord_coach in a month (March/April). Is this an urgent problem? 209.152.44.201 (talk) 20:05, 30 May 2019 (UTC) (i see this point has been made)

It's a chronic problem. And the locus now, as I said, is Stagecoach. EEng 21:09, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

So is this a request for more eyes, or a request to investigate Eddiado's editing more generally? If it's the first, then Ponyo is right (although I rewarded this misuse of ANI and provided an opinion on the article talk page). If it's the second, then we need a whole lot more info than is provided here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:20, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

As you may have seen illustrated on the page in question, I think this a floor wax and a dessert topping. There are both issues for which ANI or ANEW are exactly the right fora, and there are some that simple visibility over a wider swath than the other usual noticeboards can give would help. If it were only the latter, it’d really not belong, except on a real slow day. Qwirkle (talk) 23:41, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Speaking in hypotheticals because I haven't looked at any diffs yet, but if Qwirkle's claims be accurate, this is something deserving sanctions, and it definitely belongs here. It's disruptive to add material with a source that doesn't back it up (you're claiming that the source says something it doesn't, i.e. you're adding a hoax), and while we can revert once with a kindly message, someone who does it persistently must be stopped, and a request for an enforced stop is definitely appropriate at WP:ANI. I'll start looking into the situation momentarily. Nyttend (talk) 23:49, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Okay, now I've looked at page histories and talk entries for Concord coach and Stagecoach. At the former page, I note that Eddaido repeatedly added a claim that 2500 US pounds was 2¼ US tons, which is wrong (1 ton = 2000 pounds), and problematic after you're warned once; and I see that he admitted at talk to making up numbers and throwing them in. At the latter page, I see that he's removing content, which on the face of things is different from adding a hoax. But here, the removal changes the meaning significantly — The first recorded stagecoach route in Britain started in 1610 and ran from Edinburgh to Leith means that the 1610 route was the first one on a big island, while The first recorded stagecoach route started in 1610 and ran from Edinburgh to Leith means that the 1610 route was the first one in the world. Since Floquenbeam has added a quote from the source, which specifically talks about it being the first on a specific island and not in the world, Eddaido is indeed causing the article to provide false information. This isn't simply removing an extraneous detail (e.g. changing "19 December 1610" to "1610"); if you delete words whose absence makes a significant change that can't be derived from the source, it's no less problematic than adding un-backed-up information in the first place. Nyttend (talk) 00:04, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

And now I see this comment by Eddaido: ...you say you have found a direct quote. Why has your friend never pointed this up? If I understand rightly, the quote from the source was a surprise to him, as if he hadn't consulted the source. If my understanding be correct, that's an even bigger issue: no one should be making significant changes to the meaning of a cited phrase without consulting the source or without solid evidence that the source has been misrepresented somehow. Nyttend (talk) 00:40, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

@Nyttend: I have not looked at the issue (which is indeffable as described above) but 2¼ US tons (short tons) is 2500 pounds, confirmed with {{convert|1+1/4|ST|lb}}. Johnuniq (talk) 05:01, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

@Nyttend and Johnuniq: I think Nyttend just made a typo there, somewhere. The book states that the coach in question weighed "2-and-one-quarter-ton". Eddaido had been consistently stating this as "2.25 metric tonnes." Someguy1221 (talk) 09:43, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, that makes sense. I think the reported editor is affecting us all because my convert is for 1.25 instead of 2.25. Johnuniq (talk) 10:16, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Short ton covers a unit equal to 2000 pounds, so 2500 = 1¼ tons. It's not a matter of hitting the adjacent key; in [67] Eddaido restored a challenged piece of text that said weighed two and a quarter tons or 2.25 metric tonnes. Nyttend (talk) 11:45, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

• I ran into the reported user back at the beginning of 2018 at hearse. I removed some uncited and poorly-written information and was 'thanked' by Eddaido. He then put the information back -poorly worded and all- and cited Oxford's English Dictionary. I didn't pursue the matter because editwarring is lame. It does appear that he has a fascination with coaches and other similiar motor vehicles and exhibits ownership of them. I'm not asking for any action, but this is something I have noticed. Jip Orlando (talk) 19:51, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

  Not motor vehicles specifically, but anyway... This has been a problem for a while. I wish there was some way to get him to listen to what other editors (often multiple other editors at once) try to tell him in discussions. EEng 20:27, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

• Not all of this user's edits are about land vehicles. Some of them relate to articles about military personnel, such as this edit and the previous one to Malcolm C. McGregor. So the recommended action is at most a topic ban from vehicles. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:28, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Ethnocentric vandalism edits

During the past days due to inattenion by involved users and as a result, ethnocentric abuse by some users that are involved in ethnic conflicts between two Iranan groups (Lurs and Kurds), were conducted. All pages related to Lurish people have been under mass invasion to change their background and identity towards their desires and wishes. You can have a look to the recent edit history of pages: Lurs, Feyli Lurs, Iraqi Lurs, Lak people, Laki language, Southern Lurs, History of the Lurs to find their catastrophic footprint. Unfortunately, there are not Lurish users in the English wikipedia to demonstrate the facts butI wonder how some ethnocentric totalitarian users are doing everything to their desires and wishes in such a bad way?!! I expect you to help to clarify the facts by returning the original pages to discuss disputes.SHADEGAN (talk) 09:56, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

You need to explain what you mean by Ethnocentric vandalism and why you don't reply to multiple users' questions on the talk pages, e.g. Talk: Laki language. --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 10:31, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

• I have added the articles to my watchlist.You can discuss the issue in talk pages. Wikipedia is not the death note. Whatever you write in Wikipedia it will not become fact in the ground. I don't know much about these lur, kurd people but I think this is part of identity politics which is controversial most of the time and we usually find reliable sources contradicting each other.--SharabSalam (talk) 10:42, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Just found this: "On the other hand, they themselves consider it an insult to be confounded with the Kurds, whom they call Leks."[68]

You're right this user tries to make everything to Kurds. Not just the Lurs. He also tries it with Shabaks, Zazas and Yazidis. And the sad thing is that the administrators does not want to hear or see it all, and in some cases they even support his attempt because they are not familiar with this topics. 77.245.112.237 (talk) 11:07, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

You are once again misleading with your quotes. The text says that Lurs don't consider themselves Kurds whom they call Leks. As in, Lurs call Kurds the name "Leks". You can also use the talkpages to contest the references I have given, despite being an IP. --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 11:22, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

What is that saying, "Never attribute to malice what can be attributed to ignorance"? I think wikipedia might not have enough user knowledgeable about these subjects. 209.152.44.201 (talk) 21:07, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

---

I already warned the OP about personal attacks, such as "ethnocentric totalitarian users." Focus on the content and not on the contributors. That's in everyone's best interests. El_C 21:15, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

The user is continuing his vandalism campaign. nothing constructive but only on Wikipedia to push for his POV. If this isn't pure vandalism, nothing is: [69] --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 15:02, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

And then has the audacity to [70] --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 15:03, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Now he's gone berzerk[71] --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 15:35, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

This is not helpful. As mentioned elsewhere, I expect you both to be guided be the principle of applying due weight to the available reliable sources. And while you attempt that, both of you should cut down on the rhetoric (vandalism accusations and otherwise). El_C 16:16, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Both Shadegan and Coron Arol (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are immune to RS and only on Wikipedia for disruptive editing. The rest of us have shown and shown RS but they continue with their work. Now they are on to changing the names of all Kurdish-related articles[72][73] --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 11:08, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

I think you are in conflict with every user who does not support your POV. And then you accuse them as vandals and constantly start an editwar. 2.62.251.66 (talk) 11:30, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Which pov and which edit war? If you have observed my actions, please tell. --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 11:36, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

---

I have undone the recent unilateral moves from the new user — this new user was already cautioned about using a proper move request in another article. I have extended-confirmed the articles in question and restored the stable, status quo ante versions. The user is welcome to contribute to the discussion on the article talk pages — discussion which so far has been absent. This has just become too disruptive, with new users and IPs attempting to circumvent discussion, reaching consensus, applying due weight to the reliable sources, all seemingly over the last few weeks. I'm really not sure where this concerted effort is suddenly coming from, but I will have none of it. That having been said, if another admin feels that I have overstepped, they should feel free to undo my actions and they do not need to consult me about it in any way. El_C 16:22, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

It seems like that you support his POV. We need another administrator who does not support POV. I have already said to you in the Ane[74] that your actions are not neutral. Coron Arol (talk) 19:01, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, you made it clear that you don't feel I'm suitable to be an administrator. That's on the record. El_C 19:44, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Sock puppeter User:Jahmalm is back as User:Nathan Annick. Same arguments (or claims) on the same articles, same way of referencing (only one I know who uses ', , etc')[75][76]. I ask admins to take a look at this. Thank you. --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 14:04, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

I don’t know what you mean and I don’t know this user. I just added some sources and you deleted them. Please stop annoying me. Nathan Annick (talk) 14:10, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

You may file a Sock investigation. There's not much that can be done here. El_C 16:09, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

On China–United States trade war and talk

Syopsis seems to be certain of his version of the truth that other editors must all be "for fucks sake stop the bleating already if you and other (sockpuppet?) user hate the article so much then feel free to inject your own POV into the article", and he then removed all the tags added to the article as if by removing these tags, the article will no automatically be taken as the truth when any intelligent reader could see the excessive coverage of the US's administration with little to no mention of its Chinese counterpart. When I reverted his edit that deleted ALL tags, he instead insist on his version and said I should discuss these changes first, when already several other have questioned the POV of the article on the talk pages for a long time. He seems to be unable to make arguments beside being a wiki lawyer and make personal attacks, when others have made clear stated point. I once thought even the most pro-current-administration person should agree this article simply writes too much from a US perspective, because besides the mentioning on the retaliatory tariff, all the rest are US,US,US if not TRUMPTRUMPTRUMP. Viztor (talk) 05:16, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

User's already filed two complaints (one at the neutral point of view noticeboard and another at the Administrator intervention against vandalism . I have said everything I needed to say but it basically boils down to the user refusing to even discuss the changes he wants - there is an assumption on his part that his view is "the truth". I have said from day one that we need to discuss the kind of changes that he is making on the talk page FIRST because it is A LOT of information that he is trying to pull out. There really isn't anything partisan about it, although given the user's history....the same can't be said. Syopsis (talk) 06:16, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

@Viztor: See this is the kind of edit that YOU need to be making and EVERYONE can agree on. Syopsis (talk) 06:22, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

@Syopsis: Regarding this atrocious edit: please read WP:CIVIL, and remember to not curse needlessly in communication, and to be respectful. If someone does something you disagree with, talk about it calmly and try to resolve the issue, instead of throwing your hands up in exasperation or being rude to other editors. Also, do not make baseless accusations of sockpuppetry. If you think someone is a sock, report it at WP:SPI, don't use it as a cudgel in conversation. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 09:00, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

@Viztor: I think you should read WP:CIVIL too, and also remember to not WP:FORUMSHOP. Posting an issue in one place is good enough, and ANI is the right venue. Your reports to the other boards have been removed or moved. Also, to both of you, your use of capitalization is excessive. Please tone it down. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 09:00, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

i'm generally quite relaxed and a all-time-lower-case person, however, it does came to my notice that this specific user were tracking and vetting the changes i make and reverted those he doesn't like, which is as if someone's scratching the back of my feet while i'm sleeping, which apparently cause reactions in my nervous system and make it quite uncomfortable to keep editing. Viztor (talk) 16:57, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

• Ok... you have both expressed your take on what is happening... now, please sit back and let others examine the situation and comment. Blueboar (talk) 11:09, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

BTW, I did not add those tags, I only became engaged as I reverted a change that removed all tags, when there are clearly related-discussion on the talk page, which nobody seems to bother to contest. After which, I agreed with the editor that four tags may be tag bombing and merged three into one globalize/US, yet the editor still insisted and removed all, at which point it is clear of his intention. As of now, the article remain untagged with the talk page filled with concerns rained about its neutrality. Viztor (talk) 05:42, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

• Comment In the article now remains tagged after after a discussion on the talk page. I reverted several of the reported user's edits, and the only one of mine that is still up is the {{globalize/US}} tag. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:08, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, this is significant undue weight. If I scroll to the top of "Arguments for the US to implement tariff sanctions" and PageDown, this section occupies nearly five screens, and from "Temporary reprieve" to the beginning of the China subsection of "Influence" is a little bit over three screens. The only China-specific section is the Influence/China subsection, which is less than one screen. You can't claim balance when one side gets eight times the coverage. Hint: wait until secondary sources come out (those written after the fact), rather than using primary sources (those written at the time of the event), because reliable secondary sources will provide a good overview instead of "Here's the latest X you should care about" typical of primary sources like news reports. Nyttend (talk) 11:58, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Can an administrator take a look at this set of edit-warring edits by User:Viztor ([77], [78] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=China%E2%80%93Uni ted_States_trade_war&diff=899784563&oldid=89978333])? I really don't want to give the impression that I am being petty or beating a dead horse or whatever you call it, but I must bring this up because the other user who the user was edit warring with (User talk:Hari147) got an outright 24 hour block for it; I would have just ignored the edit warring between those two as something to be expected had Hari not been blocked. Now I don't know the exact details of why Hari got blocked so I won't comment how just it was and i am also not going to saying that the same be automatically done to the other user. But on the face of it the treatment doesn't seem fair, especially when Viztor was edit warring even AFTER filing this ANI request.

And on an unrelated note, i have made lots of changes to the involved page and there hasn't been any edit-warring by ANY parties to the debate since so i've done my best to avoid any more edit warring. While still of course being bold in my changes.Syopsis (talk) 21:30, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Syopsis practically made up the third edit...It's a diff between different pages. False accusations do not earn this editor any respect in the community.
Viztor (talk) 21:36, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi there.It seems this has been escalating for too long.Let me explain a few of my thoughts on this.

I would like to mention that wikipedia should be a platform based on factual information,rather than content that favours a particular side,and more importantly,information that may be unnecessary to the context of the article,in this case,the article on China-United States trade war.I have warned user Viztor that his edits may be unconstructive to the context of the article,and revealed to him proper methods to publish articles in the future of such manner.Despite several warnings,he has been persistent to his actions and has been reluctant to abide by proper editing.He has been warned by other users also,and in retaliation he has been accusatory and seems to take it too personally.Hence,i request that all edits to this article be reviewed by proper management,as this topic may seem to be of a sensitive manner and the article,in fact,could possibly pose serious conflicts in real life,as people gain information to these articles.Nevertheless,the edits have been proper thus far.

I would also like to add to some arguments placed by some users on this topic.Although there might be information that does not well represent a particular side(or in this case,quantified),it does not mean that the article is going towards a biased avenue.The information thus far has been as accurate as possible and ONLY information that is related to the context should be added,rather than information that might actually be off-topic.Many of such previous information has included military personnel,background information of companies,or historical information of countries.These are topics that have been already discussed on other pages,and should not necessarily be included.If such information needs to be included,they should be linked to other articles,rather than to the above-mentioned article.I hope that the administrators would take a proper measures that such incidents are prevented as much possible.I would also like to add that i feel that the block on my rights was baseless and not needed,as i was only protecting the article form further damage.Nevertheless,it did not really affect me too much as i was in fact away during much of the time.Thank you.
hari147 (talk) 04:00, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

@Hari147: You were blocked for violating the WP:3RR, a hard and fast rule here on Wikipedia. No matter your intentions, we have the 3RR policy for good reason. Don't break it again, and don't edit war in general (even if you are right!) or you'll find yourself banned for much longer than 24 hours. In terms of Viztor, please provide diffs and/or other links to their supposed misconduct. Otherwise, its just claims without evidence, which won't lead to action. In terms of the content of the article? Discuss that on that article's talk page, not here. ANI is for conduct not content. Lastly, not to be rude, but if I may nitpick your grammar: you are lacking spaces after essentially all of your punctuation, which reads very awkwardly. Don't forget to add a space after each use of a period or comma :) Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 05:04, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

MOS:ETHNICITY on articles about Polish Jews

In the few weeks I've noticed some odd goings-on at the biographies of various Polish Jews with questionable, or even odious histories. Specifically, there seems to be a concerted effort to label them as "Jewish", and not as "Polish", generally in apparent ignorance or defiance of MOS:ETHNICITY and the "Nationality" parameter in Infobox person. I think I first noticed it at Salomon Morel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), but it has been particularly apparent at Chaim Rumkowski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), where multiple IPs and new/seldom-used accounts have shown up to make edits like this, this, this, this, this, this, this and this. There does not seem to be any similar effort to designate other types of biographies of Polish Jews (e.g. resistance fighters such as Yitzhak Zuckerman, Frumka Płotnicka, Hirsch Berlinski, Chaike Belchatowska Spiegel) as "Jewish" and not "Polish". It seems unlikely that seldom used accounts such as Sophiel777 (talk · contribs), Rordayukki (talk · contribs), Szydlot (talk · contribs), Albertus teolog (talk · contribs), Waćpan (talk · contribs), Tashi (talk · contribs) suddenly discovered this article/dispute by chance. There is now a section on the article's talk page discussing the issue, but my concern is much more regarding the source of this influx of suddenly activated/reactivated and highly motivated editors. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:52, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

There have been ongoing edit conflicts on wiki with editors who insist that Jewishness is a distinct and exclusive ethnicity and, for instance, one can't be both Jewish and Polish or Jewish and German, individuals are one of the other. Perennial pov conflict that needs attention? 209.152.44.201 (talk) 20:09, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

I have seen some of that too; this board relatively recently had an incident of a long-term IP editor who seemed to believe one couldn't be both Swedish and Jewish, and kept replacing "Swedish" with "Jewish". Jayjg ^(talk) 20:23, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

This seems to be a bit distorted version of the events.I have actually seen attempts to remove mention of Jewish ethnicity from articles about individuals who collaborated with Nazis leaving only Polish in the lead first sentence, under pretext that it indicates nationality[79].Also in case of Salomon Morel the issue has been it seems debated since years looking at history of the page.For the record reliable sources in cases of individuals with complicated identity often use the term Polish-Jewish as per Per Anne Applebaum "Iron Curtain: The Crushing of Eastern Europe 1944-56 "the unusual case of Salomon Morel, who – all agree – was a Polish Jew and a communist partisan" New York Magazine - 9 Mau 1994.

Per MOS:ETHNICITY MOS:ETHNICITY,that ethnicity can be mentioned “Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless it is relevant to the subject's notability.” The cases where somebody was involved in Holocaust and it played a major role in his life, or used his ethnic background as defence against persectution for crimes and it caused international controversy are I believe good reasons for mentioning the ethnicity in the first sentence.I believe the proper description would be Polish-Jewish rather than solely Polish or just Jewish in cases where Jewish ethnicity played a major role in life of a citizen of Poland. I believe the proper description would be Polish-Jewish rather than solely Polish or just Jewish in cases where Jewish ethnicity played a major role in life of a citizen of Poland.

As for recent activity it seems that popular publicist Rafal Ziemkiewicz re-tweeted this characterization on his twitter webpage recentely[80], which probably led to people reading this to react. I don't know how to link to re-tweet, as I don't use twitter much.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:11, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, that could help explain the recent influx of editors at the Rumkowski article, though perhaps not at others. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:17, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Oh, and regarding this edit you criticized above, you do realize that the nationality parameter on infobox person is only for citizenship, not ethnicity, don't you? Jayjg ^(talk) 20:23, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it is a fact that the tweet was the cause of interest because many people have noticed that in case of hideous Jewish characters, their Jewishness have been erased from the article. We need to remember that people as Chaim Rumkowsky wasn't in fact Polish. They have Polish citizenship but they didn't identify with Poland and Polish nation (as many Jews in that time in history). Another example may be the recent edition in Stefan Michnik which was a Stalinist judge who was responsible for murdering many Polish anti-communist soldiers, generals etc. All information about his sentences have been deleted even though I provided two different sources. All of them have been marked as "too far-right". User Jayjg was the topic on many Wikipedia forums and here's the one (Redacted). Different people regardless of their political beliefs accuse him of being partial when it comes to Jewish-related articles. Tashi _{Talk to me} 20:26, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Tashi, I suggest less emotional approach.I know that some of the crimes comitted by Nazi collaborators or Soviet executioners can be upsetting but it's best to keep professional attitude and don't use insults, I suggest you re-write your sentence a it.

From a technical point of view I encountered a similiar problem once before:mainly the units of Selbstschutz in Poland 1939 were made of Germans with Polish nationality living in Poland that fought against Polish state. Would it be fitting to describe such individuals as Polish? I am sure this would seem wrong and there should be description of their ethnicity as well in order not to confuse the readers. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:46, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Trust me that I'm trying to keep it as professional as possible but I also wanted to point out some facts that seems to be constantly omitted. I have nothing against Jayjig or any other user and I think we can work out and reach a consensus :) Though, there's a space for the debate about the nationality since that term is understood differently worldwide and it can be the bone of contention. I understand the argument that nationality is somehow related to the citizenship but there is no doubt that calling people like Rumkowsky as Polish is totally misunderstanding since he did not identify himself as Polish. Someone suggested the term "Russian-born Polish Jew" and I think that would be acceptable historically Tashi _{Talk to me} 20:54, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Comment. Note that I have extended-confirmed protected Chaim Rumkowski, it is clearly appropriate as the semi-protection (where I was the protecting admin) is not working as designed.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:05, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Comment - I do not see why there need to be labels made in the article about Chaim Rumkowski. Disputes concerning nationality or descent are common and tend to be left out in most cases when a consensus is not achieved, as in Nicolaus Copernicus where only occupation is stated. However, it is appropriate to consider where the person lived, worked and/or obtained citizenship. Rumkowski held Polish citizenship and lived in Poland which is a dominating factor. In general context, I cannot stress enough that "Jewish" is not a nationality only an identity based on both racial descent and religion. All Polish Jews (considering they haven't emigrated) that are either secular or not Orthodox should be labelled as "Polish" per citizenship laws. "Polish-Jewish" or simply "Jewish" is a term appropriate for rabbis and religious or spiritual leaders. You do not see the label "American-Jewish" in articles about American actors, musicians, soldiers or politicians that are of Jewish heritage. Oliszydlowski, 09:24, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Rumkowski was born in ethnic Russia so he might have been perceived by Polish Jews are a Russina Jew (Litvak).Xx236 (talk) 07:56, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

MOS:Ethnicity is not based on religious criteria, and for purely MOS comparison(not character), Janusz Korczak or Anne Frank have their ethnicity mentioned in the lead.I agree that usually it’s not needed, but in cases where it played huge role(Morel for example)and RS point this out ethnicity should be mentioned.Also contrary to your assesment we have actors described as American-Jewish, ie Leo Fuchs or Menasha Skulnik[User:MyMoloboaccount|MyMoloboaccount]] (talk) 23:39, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

A reader should be informed why Morel run away to Israel rather than to Sweden or Chile.Xx236 (talk) 08:00, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: I'm disturbed by the statement from Tashi, We need to remember that people as Chaim Rumkowsky wasn't in fact Polish. They have Polish citizenship but they didn't identify with Poland and Polish nation (as many Jews in that time in history). (emphasis mine). This is reminiscent of the "exclusionary antisemitism" common in pre-war Europe. Compare with:

Exclusionary Antisemitism

The exclusionary nature of antisemitism derives from the perception that the Jew stands outside the nation, and represents an alternative nation or an anti-national, internationalist collective. This idea thrived in the early twentieth century when Jews were said to be internationalist, and thus to stand against the interests of national communities. Because there are distinct Jewish communities in many countries, antisemites alleged that: 1) Jewish communities conspire to advance their collective interests to the detriment of their "host" countries and 2) the dominant forms taken by this conspiracy in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries are international finance and communism. In making such claims, antisemites sought to push out the Jew altogether.

Source. To go with Tashi's quote, see their edit here: [81]. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:47, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

The problem was that Jewish community was very strong and very separated. It made up majority in many places. In addition to separation between ethnic Poles and ethnic Jews, there were also separation between assimilated Jews and non-assimilated Jews. Pre WW2 state was very liberal in national and religious question. Cautious (talk) 23:11, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Oh yeah, antisemitism. Sorry but if the discussion is going to be about playing the antisemitism card then I'm out. I don't know how well you're familiar with Polish history but it is a fact that a lot of Jewish people didn't even speak Polish though they had lived there for a few centuries. It's not only about Polish only. That's historical fact and what's antisemitic about it? The other thing, yes I added he was a Jewish businessman because that information had been deleted. It's not something I made up. I used to say he was a Polish Jew but someone is trying to delete that information and I don't know why Tashi _{Talk to me} 06:14, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Just got these kind words from a newly created account on my talk. I will note that comments on "playing the antisemitism card", and above that editing of WWII historical articles was prompted by tweets by Rafal Ziemkiewicz, are deeply concerning. Some context on Ziemkiewicz is in order: Guardian 2018 (visit cancelled to UK, views on Muslims, gays, and Jews, Ziemkiewicz calling UK "fascist"), National Post, 2019 (comments on Jew hatred), JTA 2018 ("scabs" for jews), JTA 2018 (WJC - "gang of international blackmailers"), Pankowski, Rafał. Right-wing extremism in Poland. Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, Department for Central and Eastern Europe, 2012. (endorsement of a book advocating that Poland should've allied itself with Hitler in 1939), Minkner, Kamil. "Polish contemporary art to the anti-semitism of Poles and its political significance." Review of Nationalities 6.1 (2016): 195-221. (views on Jedwabne pogrom and antisemitism). Icewhiz (talk) 08:23, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't agree. In my POV those comments was prmoted by this: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/262593 ("'Israeli minister who made anti-Polish remarks a stupid idiot’ Prominent Holocaust survivor Ed Mosberg blasts Israeli FM over anti-Polish comments". Artcile date 02/05/19 16:10 Rordayukki (talk) 19:01, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

I have no idea about the particular case, but have come across the attitude (in exactly the way it has been put) in a number of articles relating to Jewish-Polish relations. I said it there and I will say it here, saying that this is an anti-Semitic trope. Apart from a very small number of ultra-orthodox Jews there is no evidence the Jews refused to speak (or did not see themselves) as Polish (serving in both the home army and the Free Polish forces). I think a topic ban is in order. We cannot and should not allow the propagation of anti-Semitic tropes.Slatersteven (talk) 08:12, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Many Jews didn't identify themselves as Poles and spoke polish with very strong accent. It might be due to the fact the seprate religious education was allowed. This has changed after WW2, when the state enforced uniformed primary education and went hard for uniformisation. Cautious (talk) 23:07, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

I'd recommend caution, to avoid stiffing the debate through chilling effect and variations of Godwin's law and political correctness.

Lucy Dawidowicz (a Polish-American-Jewish scholar) wrote "Even the Jewish lower classes who did not speak Polish felt themselves part of Poland." This, ironically, contradicts both Tashi - and you.

Leo Cooper (from University of Melbourne) wrote [around WWII]] "Many Jews either did not speak Polish, or spoke it badly."

Halik Kochanski (Polish-British historian) speaking for the same time period estimated that "80 per cent were unassimilated and therefore did not speak Polish". (through TBH I find 80% a rather surprisingly high figure)

Iwo Pogonowski likewise wrote that "In national census of 1931 nearly ninety percent of the Jew reported that they did not speak Polish". That said, Polish_census_of_1931#Mother_tongue_controversy... and I couldn't verify this with the document here, through perhaps it is simply not complete. It could be that IP confused speaking Polish with chosing Polish as the "mother tongue".

Ewa Kurek (Polish scholar, somewhat controversial) cites for example a report from the 1930s that said "In small towns, Jewish youth did not know the Polish language at all, only Yiddish or Hebrew. Young people did not speak Polish, and if they did, they spoke it they way I did – very poorly." and on the next page herself states that "On the eve of the outbreak of WWII, barely 15% of the Jewish population had knowledge of Polish language"

Ezra Mendelsohn on the other hand suggested that around that time most of the youth were assimilated and spoke Polish, but this also suggested that it was a relatively new developoment ([82]).

But Mordecai Schreiber, a rabbi, wrote that "many Jews did not speak Polish well "

Celia Stopnicka Heller, Polish-American sociologist, wrote (referring to the Orthodox Jews) "Not infrequent among the older generations were those who spoke no Polish."

Finally, British historian Norman Davies wrote "There was also a shrinking category of people who, though Poles in the sense of being Polish citizens, spoke no Polish, shunned wider social contacts, and lived in closed, ultra-Orthodox Yiddish-speaking communities. These ultra-Orthodox were dominant in the traditional shtetln or 'smal Jewish towns' of the countryside. but less so in the larger cities""

I hpoe it is clear that it is not 'antisemitic' to discus to what extent Polish Jews spoke Polish and identified with the Polish nation, and that someone who makes the argument that some, and perhaps most Polish Jews did not speak Polish, is not an anti-semite who deserves a topic ban. We should, of course, keep antisemitic discourse off this project, but the case discussed above is very much a normal academic issue, not 'an antisemitic trope'. PS. Personally, I am not convinced that 'most Polish Jews' did not spoke Polish, this may be an exaggeration, but it is one tha at least some scholars support. And I think the sources presented above make it very clear that at least a significant group of Polish Jews did not speak Polish (but whether that significant group was 10% or 90%, I have no opinion on yet). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:40, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

When someone does not say "some Jewish could not speak Polish" but rather "Jews were not Polish, and the evidence is they could not even speak our language". The issue is not that they could not speak Polish, but that they were not Polish, but rather They are a race and nation apart (see the quoted canard above).Slatersteven (talk) 11:32, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

I've never written that Jews are not Polish. I just pointed out that many Jewish people who lived in Poland did not identify as Poles and it can be observed in fact that they did not know the language of the country they lived in and other arguments Piotrus mentioned. There have been thousands of Polish Jews who identified themselves with Polish and Polish culture. I really don't see anything antisemitic in that claiming. If banning is the way of discussion then I think that the idea of Wikipedia is already dead since we can disagree on many topics but we should try to reach a consensus. Tashi _{Talk to me} 15:11, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

No you have just used it as an excuse to argue to certain types of people should not be called polish based upon no other evidence then they were Jewish. If you had provided some sources saying "X did ot indetofy" as Polish I would not have ascribed this view to the perpetuating of antisemitic canards. The fact is the only evidence you have produced (some of which even contracts your claim) is that some Jews could not speak Polish, ergo a particular jew (which not source has said could not speak Polish) was not Polish.Slatersteven (talk) 15:23, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

That is not even evidence, since there is no natural historical equation between citizenship and fluency in the designated national language. You don't require it in Israel, be you Israeli Arab or a Jew making aliyah. Sometimes states stipulate this as a sine qua non (notoriously in Baltic states) but where ius soli defines citizenship, being born there automatically confers citizenship. When the US passed its citizenship act in 1924, that right automatically extended to indigenous peoples like the Navajo, though many did not speak English, and even to this day, on a number of reservations studies indicate that 20% are monolingual, not knowing English, something which in no way imperils their citizenship identity. To give an extreme example when the Piripkura or Kawahiva were discovered in Amazonia, they were automatically Brazilian citizens since they were born there, though they didn't speak Brazilian. Nishidani (talk) 17:45, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Piotrus BTW, according to Halik Kochanski more than 80 % Rordayukki (talk) 19:47, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, but I'd like to see what source she uses for that. It's a rather far-reaching estimate that needs good backing from sources. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:52, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Wow, what a mess. In short - the lede should mention their nationality/citizenship only (X was a Polish astronomer, Y was an American writer etc.) and only mention ethnicity/religion if it is key to their notability - so Anne Frank should probably be described as Jewish but there is no need to describe Barack Obama as African-American, for example. GiantSnowman 10:07, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Ethnicity of Barack Obama is described by his picture. Xx236 (talk) 07:52, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Xx236, that is pretty ridiculous. Like, completely ridiculous. Please look at Trevor Noah and tell me what ethnicity you see. Or don't, and just don't participate in this discussion because you're just digging your hole deeper. Drmies (talk) 18:49, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

• After reading this and reading some of what some are calling RS, I do think a TBAN for Tashi is in order. I saw a lot of links posted, so I am not sure if this was in the mix, but this is one of the sources being pushed, [83]. This is not something we should allow on the encycopedia. Antisemitism or antisemitic tropes should not be tolerated or condoned. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:06, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
• To Piotrus: pointing out ethnic tropes & bigotry is not political correctness [84] run amok; it's basic human decency. Tashi doubles down and complains that some Jews did not speak Polish "though they had lived there for a few centuries" [85] -- there where? Between 1795 and 1918 Poland did not exist as a nation state. Jews (and Poles, Belorussians, Ukrainians, etc) lived in the multi-ethnic German, Astro-Hungarian, and Russian empires. I could equally accuse Poles of not 100% speaking Russian, German, or Yiddish, even though they "lived there" for over a century, but that would be silly.

Then there's Tashi's targeting of Jayjg: User Jayjg was the topic on many Wikipedia forums and here's the one. Different people regardless of their political beliefs accuse him of being partial when it comes to Jewish-related articles. This is highly inappropriate. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:46, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

• • @K.e.coffman: I certainly agree that unsubstantiated accusations like the comment about Jayjg are not constructive, and I hope User:Tashi will withdraw it per WP:REFACTOR. However, regarding the first point, there's a difference between repeating bigoted stereotypes (ex. Jews are greedy, Caucasians have big noses) and and a scientific analysis of whether some cultures are more mercantilist or some DNA is more likely to result in, well, large noses :) We should warn people to avoid the former, but the latter should not be discouraged. It is very unfortunate when a chilling effect can be seen when a trigger happy admin throws blocks and bans or their proposals around. Frankly, commenting in such discussions at A(N, N/I, E) or such always makes me wonder - will I get banned or blocked? Because sadly I have seen a lot of misunderstandings and such solved with a banhammer. Why bother drawing lines if nuking solves quickly problems, eh? In either case, I think we should both warn some people here to be careful when it come to using streotypes or such, but also, warn people not to denounce others too quickly to avoid chilling effects in such discussions. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:52, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
    • @K.e.coffman:, @Piotrus:, @Slatersteven:, what do you think of this "refactoring", that still doesn't appear to accept that there's anything wrong with bringing up some random 7 year old attack thread on some outside forum, but "apologizes" if that was somehow taken as an attack? Jayjg ^(talk) 16:12, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

I fail to see what the relevance of that forum is, not what it "proves" in the way of anything. It was not in and off itself a PA, but it was (I think) uncivil. What a bunch of loud fingers on some forum think is irrelevant and a distraction, but does imply the user see's this as some battle against a "towering figure in the history of WikiKorruption", i am also am also somewhat concerned that that forum had an outing attempt, and linking to it here was outing as well. Overall it reinforces my view the user needs a TBAN, as I see nothing but distractions and obstructions.Slatersteven (talk) 16:25, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

This is all kind of a stupid argument, because in both cases - that of Chaim Rumkowski and Salomon Morel - the information as to their ethnicity/nationality is pretty much implied/stated right there in the sentence. In case of Morel, whom Icewhiz is trying to "tag" as Polish [86], it says in the same damn sentence he worked for the Polish security services. So his citizenship is kind of obvious. In the case of Rumkowski the first sentence states that he was "head of the Jewish Council of Elders" which already implies he was Jewish. So there's no point in trying to "tag" him as Jewish either. Trying to invoke an overly literal interpretation of WP:MOS here to insist on adding the nationality/ethnicity in the lede explicitly is a classic example of WP:POINT and WP:GAME. And WP:TEND.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:20, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

How is it possible that the Jewish Poles had Jewish property? Citizens of Poland have Polish property which is nationalized if heirless.

Pre-war Poland was obsolete, it continued some pre-division customs. Jews had their parties, Poles had their parties and Ukrainians had their ones. This division created ethnic wars partially described in Intimate Violence http://www.cornellpress.cornell.edu/book/?GCOI=80140102719170 . The massacre of Poles by Ukrainians was bigger than anti-Jewish violence of Poles.https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/21/lens/poland-ukraine-volhynia-massacre.html?searchResultPosition=1&fbclid=IwAR17TAD11EfjuGJ7L9uBWRmUTJcSO4aVPKoWgZIUhxcx7mAHhH2bjy5I0Yk BBWR and socialists accepted Jews.

The Jews were strictly isolated by their religion, mainly by lack of mixed marriages. A poor Pole wasn't able to marry a Jewish girl and join a Jewish business. Even getting work was a problem. Such division craeted serious economic and social problems. It's impossible to creatre a modern state from two strictly economically and socially divided ethnicities.

Zionists weren't Polish, they constructed future Israel. Xx236 (talk) 06:45, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

• I see a couple of users in this thread who clearly should not be editing Polish-Jewish topics. Is AE sufficient to enforce this, or do we need a new ArbCom case? In addition, let me please warn everybody against WP:NOTFORUM violations. Thank you for your understanding.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:11, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Seriously? Chilling effects to the extreme. While I fully support NOTFORUM, trying to topic ban someone for one-two talk page posts is ridiculous. Topic bans should be limited to people who have shown a consistent pattern, over many edits, of problematic editing of content, not made one-two borderline comments. I would like to see how many people you'd topic ban after seeing discussions on pages of Trump, Obama and such... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here}

Anyway, I think that this thread is nothing but NOTFORUM discussion that will lead to no constructive solution, and I suggest closing it. If any editors are making inappropriate edits, specific diffs can be discussed in new threads (or at AE). Reminders of WP:AGF, WP:NPA and WP:NPOV wouldn't go amiss, there are also warning templates for those, right? So I suggest that the closer sprinkles a few of those as neeeded, and we move on. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:58, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

• Comment This thread is an exemplary example of one problem that hounds editors in these fields: not prejudice (like antisemitism), but Wikipedia's reluctance to deal with it. This aspiration to keep Wikiepdia a "sterile space" where we only discuss editorial decisions and policy technicalities is, as we all know, ridiculous: Wikipedia is a reflection of society, and society has bigots, and so some Wikipedians are bigots. The assumption that calling out bigotry has a more "chilling" effect than not being able to call it out at all, has denial built in to it: that we don't have bigotry, that the usual processes are enough, that people minorities are "too sensitive" etc. And so in Wikipedia's current climate pointing prejudice out is a cause for indef blocking, while expressing prejudice is pastime that rarely gets addressed. It's not at all difficult to recognize: some editors are entirely concerned with eg. introducing sources that 3rd party RS describe as prejudiced; others repeatedly and explicitly express opinions that RS state are stereotyping, nationalistic, prejudiced etc. The fact that they're being polite about it (eg. dogwhistling) rather than burn crosses and paint swastiakas on synagogues doesn't make it any less severe, and Wikipedia should address it just like any other "real world" organization. François Robere (talk) 10:41, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

The problem is sometimes it is six of one half a dozen of the other, I have found myself supporting both sides of this particular issue (Jewish/Polish) at one time or another. At least in part because of a desire to label and dismiss the other sides opinions. What is happening it is producing a toxic atmosphere where a lot is being said that should be actionable, and maybe lead to topic bans (by both sides, no user should ever feel intimidated). Now in this case (I think) the case is clear cut enough, but I also do not want to other side to continue to bait any one they decide is a Polish Nationalist. I think this is one some users have turned up here to defend what should be seen as pretty indefensible. As such I do not think this is going to go away with the banning of one user (or even one side). I think there may need to be DS as harsh (and enforced) as there is for Jewish/Palestinian topics.Slatersteven (talk) 10:52, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: The concern I have is that some editors are using the label 'antisemitic' with little justification, but because of the 'political correctness', anyone who disagrees with them is risking being labelled an 'antisemite' (or a ill-judged defender of such). Hence, the chilling effect (intimidation). Do you want to stifle a discussion, scare some people away and bait some admins into political correctness-like blocking? Accuse your opponents of antisemitism and watch sparks fly. This is how we already lost the most prolific content editor in this topic area, User:Poeticbent, author of 1000+ DYKs, including among others dozens of perfectly neutral and informative entries of Jewish WWII-era ghettos and such. Someone accused him of an antisemitic attitude based on a single comment, a certain trigger happy admin agreed, Poeticbent got a topic ban and left in disgust saying 'if this is my reward for 10 years and 1000+ articles, bye'. This is the real danger here - that a group of editors, portraying themselves as on the side of angels ('we fight bigots/antisemites/nationalists so of course we are the perfect righteous guys, if you disagre with us you are a bigot/antisemite/nationalist!'), are going to intimate everyone else of this topic area. The comparison to Jewish/Palestine is not the best, as in that area the sides are more 'gray' than if you paint this as a fight between 'antisemites' and whatever the other group should be called. It is basically a logical fallacy of of Loaded question - posing the question of 'how are we going to deal with those antisemites', conveniently skipping the part where we prove that there are really any antisemites to be dealt with. Now, to be perfectly clear, I am totally supportive of warnings and blocks/bans for editors who are shown, beyond doubt, to be promoting bigotry, antisemitism and like. But there's a difference between calm elimination of editors who are here to promote such problematic views, and a witch hunt that starts when someone accuses someone else of antisemitism, and people pile on with 'antisemitism? awful, truly awful, let's topic ban the whole bunch, nobody wants those kind of people here' with scant evidence that someone behavior is problematic beyond one or two unclear comments that could be variously interpreted. PS. Going back to the OP post, I think there issue of removing/adding words Polish/Jewish to a bio has nothing to do with antisemitsm, just with a form of nationalistic defense of one's nations/ethnicity. For unsavory individuals, people prefer not to think of them as their own. Classic example, Hitler - I am sure many Austrians would prefer a description of him as German, not Austrian, and vice versa. For Morel, ditto - many Poles prefer to think of him as Jewish, and Jews, as a Pole. There is no antisemtism here, BUT there's certainly a problematic attitude. One I have seen in the past on numerous articles that had nothing to do with Jewish identify Polish/German, Polish/Lithuanian/Belarus, etc. If an editor is doing little but adding/removing nationality/ethnicity claim to the articles, a topic ban can be in order (one preventing them from adding/removing claims of nationality/ethnicity). That's really is all we should be focusing here: are some of the reported editors doing noting else in this topic area but warring over ethnicity/nationality? If so, we have something to act upon. If not, nothing to look at here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:51, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

As I said I am concerned that an over use of the accusation may just be being used to silence those who some users disagree with, just not (frankly) in this case. The user clearly used a common antisemitic canards to claim that certain people born in Poland, who held Polish passports were not Polish because some Jews (not even the ones who the articles are about) could not speak Polish. That is the problem. At the end of the day even if it was not antisemitism it was such a wholly invalid argument that it simply put is disruptive and tendentious as it is pure OR and synthases of the worst kind (and that IS being generous). Given that (even without the antisemitic edge to it) could well justify an TBAN. The possible antisemitism just makes it all the more distressful and thoughtless.Slatersteven (talk) 14:16, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Valid concerns, and all the more reason to have a forum where they can be addressed by admins/moderators who actually know what they're doing. I'm fairly convinced that most editors - even those that are clearly biased on some issue or another - aren't prejudiced in the sense we're talking about here; but we both know some are - I bet if I asked you to you'd give the same names that I would - and these are the ones we need to be able to address, and address harshly.

As for Poeticbent: I didn't know him except for the 2-3 times where he rushed into a discussion, flouted some accusations and disappeared. That behavior, to me, is unacceptable regardless of motive. Giving him the benefit of the doubt, I will say this: Wikipedia as a social system is poorly designed (well - barely designed), and many a veteran editor grew tired of its impotence and abrasiveness, either left or were left. Put differently: the current system isn't built to accommodate and consider a variety of human behaviors and modes of communication; to minimize editor wear we need a system that is. Such a system would naturally know how to deal with prejudice as well, be it real or imagined. François Robere (talk) 14:55, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Are you saying we need another noticeboard?Slatersteven (talk) 15:17, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

No, I'm saying we need changes in policy, informed admins and a change to DRN that will actually make it useful. François Robere (talk) 15:56, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

I never understood why WP:PAIN was closed. It even had such a nice acronym :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:33, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Not really in the scope of this ANI. I think you need to raise this at village pump. But this also has nothing to do with the question at hand, why should we no sanction the reported user for their actions. I do not care what the other boys did, did his actions fall short of what we expect?Slatersteven (talk) 16:01, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Nor was it intended to be, which why it's a comment and not a vote (or whatever). But it is in the context of this discussion, and the discussion is in its. François Robere (talk) 20:14, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Chaim Rumkowski was born on the area of Russian Russia, not Belarus. His mother tongue must have been Russian and Yiddish. He was not perceived as Pole or Polish Jew, because there is no information about his assimilation into polish society. Cautious (talk) 22:59, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Likely, but sources are needed. Without them it's WP:OR. We don't know whether he spoke Polish (well) and whether he identified himself as a Polish Jew or such. We can only speculate. BUT what we can be sure is that he DID have a Polish citizenship. Also, why are you posting this in reply to Francois comment is beyond me. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:33, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, regardless of the discussions above, this is still an issue; another seldom-used account has just shown up, and decided that "Jewish" is a "nationality", and started putting it infobox person.[87][88][89][90][91][92]. Perhaps one of the editors above who are concerned about labels etc. can explain why this still only seems to happen on biographies of Polish Jews who collaborated with Nazis, and not on any of the other approximately 1600 biographies we have of Polish Jews. Jayjg ^(talk) 13:10, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

The timing is suspicious. As I said above, a warning on edit warring should be given, and if an account is not adhering to it, I will support a topic ban (but not from a broad Polish-Jewish topic area, but from adding/removing claims of nationality/ethnicity/citizenship). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:33, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

References

• I would have more sympathy for an appeal to leniency from Piotrus it wasn't for the fact that he defends SPAs accounts in the topic area under the guise of fighting political correctness. For example, Piotrus did not request that Tashi retract his statement against Jayjd until after multiple posts from other editors and myself. Instead, there's a discussion on how Tashi's discourse was "very much on a normal academic issue" [93], that this is "Chilling effects to the extreme" [94], and that we should just all "move on" [95]. Prejudice is not acceptable. If such discussions would deter those who use Wikipedia to publish their unfiltered worldviews, then good. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:31, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Eh? I am the only person who gave him a direct conduct guideline/warning. But if you prefer to overract and nuke the guy, so be it - but I still reserve the right to see this as a pc-fueled overreaction for what merits at best a warning. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:33, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

It appears that Tashi was banned for a different reason. In any event, Tashi was hardly the worst offender; other editors have continued to edit in this way (and even edit-war over it). Jayjg ^(talk) 15:36, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree, and I think a TBAN fishing net is needed here, rather than one at a time. Sadly, I don't think it will happen, unless someone opens an ARBCOM case, something which has been done for someone in this thread years ago, IIRC. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:23, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

@Jayjg and Sir Joseph: - (non-admin response) - identify the worst offenders, post all the diffs of each offender at the very start of a section. starship.paint (talk) 00:57, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Proposal for an indef Tban for Tashi

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 I think enough discussion above to start with a proposal for an indefinite Tban for Tashi. I am proposing an indef Tban from anything related to WWII Poland and Polish-Jewish relations and Holocaust studies, broadly construed. I am trying to mimic prior Tbans for this area. I think we've seen quite a few comments from quite a few other users that are quite frankly evidence of not being here, but I think we don't need to overwhelm. At the same time, I don't think we should just keep building up a wall of text above.

• 'Support as proposer. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 01:36, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

  @Sir Joseph: - could you at least collate the diffs in your post above? I think I saw two but I don't know how many I missed? starship.paint (talk) 14:05, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

  @Starship.paint:No, the point of this section is not to rehash any argument, it's just to propose a tban and not to enter into any discussion. The op above has tons of diffs, the discussion has more. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:46, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

  The OP has also diffs from other people. I already asked - you didn't provide. Never mind then. starship.paint (talk) 23:13, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. Way to broad. WP:TOPICBAN's stated purpose is "to prevent editors from making edits related to a certain topic area where their contributions have been disruptive," A single comment at ANI that's pretty borderline and that the poster tried to clarify and refactor as at best meriting a warning. There is no indication that Tashi is making any disruptive edits in this topic area, there is no need to protect the topic area from his 'disruption' (which doesn't exist), and a broad topic ban is nothing but a major intimidation/chilling effect nuke (and a reminder that anyone posting in AN(I) who is not an admin asking for trouble). A narrow topic ban is also pointless since again he is not doing any problematic edits (at least I never saw a single diff). Again, topic banning for a single comment at ANI is a ridiculous over-reaction. A warning is all that's needed. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:33, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Please go back and read the OP, it's not just one diff. As multiple people have pointed out, you seem to ignore the multiple diffs. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 13:13, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

• Support It was not a single comment, he has tried to remove Polish from multiple articles using the same dodgy excuse with no evidence shown he gets this is not the way to go about things. The rest looks like a battleground mentality that see's all disputes through that prism. This is about him trying to right great wrongs, not this ANI.Slatersteven (talk) 08:11, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

  @Slatersteven: - do you have diffs? starship.paint (talk) 14:07, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Jewish as a nationality [[96]] made after this ANI was launched (more then once [[97]]. But I have to stand corrected, he has attempted to claim the nationality Polish was on only one article (but as I said more the once) rather then on multiple articles.Slatersteven (talk) 14:30, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Slatersteven. That doesn't look good. Tashi, if you wish to defend yourself, please provide a quote from the "Singing for survival" reference saying Jewish as a nationality. I note that you did provide a quote in the other source, [98], but I really don't think that other one says Jewish as a nationality either. starship.paint (talk) 14:38, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Note I made a typo, he claims the nationally was Jewish, not Polish.Slatersteven (talk) 14:43, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

• Support--someone who claims that one gets to be called "Polish" based on one's supposed "assimilation" should either apologize and change their ways or be topic-banned. Drmies (talk) 18:52, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support, per their comments above (in particular given the tweeter behind the discissed tweet) and not backing down from use of Robert Jerzy Nowak (see Poetry, Providence, and Patriotism: Polish Messianism in Dialogue with Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Pickwick Publications, Joel Burnell, page 274 and Faith and Fatherland: Catholicism, Modernity, and Poland, Oxford University Press, Brian A. Porter, page 325 for a Jewish BLP.Icewhiz (talk) 06:59, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support. I don't really like "per X" comments, but the supporters above have pretty much got it covered, and I'm not seeing any sign of Tashi getting it. I think we need a topic ban. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:06, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
• My statement: I know I'm going to get the ban regardless of my expalnantions thus I'm not going to elaborate on that. Additionally I've already written to Jayjg and Sir Jospeh and none of them have responded. As has already been stated, there are differences in understanding and attitude to the nationality in Polish and English languages which was the reason of the confusion. I've already apologized Jayjg for the inappropriate statements, yet at the same time I pointed out that this particular user had been a subject of similar discussion. Now I'm waiting for the verdict and if anybody has any question I'm willing to answer to it. Tashi _{Talk to me} 16:28, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

  Dear @KamillaŚ: - as you are a native Polish speaker and a learned English speaker, could you assist in this matter with your language skills? How plausible is Tashi’s argument that there are differences in understanding and attitude to the nationality in Polish and English languages which was the reason of the confusion - which may have led Tashi to conclude Jewish is a nationality? starship.paint (talk) 23:11, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Not as clear cut as either side would like I suspect. In the ANI above this one there is (at least in part) a problem over the incorrect use of language with users (apparently) using literal translations when in fact the literal translation implies something else. The difference here (as I see it) is that (as has been pointed out, more then once) the choice of words may not in fact be conveying the message they want. Yet not only did the user seem to continue to argue the point (using sourcing that some have argued implies the ungenerous interpenetration of what they meant is supported by using sources that expound that opinion), they also made at least one more edit of the contested kind during the course of this ANI. It is thus hard to believe that "He is not Polish he is a Jew" is some error due to a poor grasp of English (added to which is they only seen to have taken this attitude on some articles, and one where the targeting is over a very specific issue).Slatersteven (talk) 09:06, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

In Polish language you can say that someone is of "narodowości żydowskiej" or "narodowości polskiej" (literally Jewish / Polish nationality" and it's acceptable. You're definitely trying to undermine my arugments without knowing Polish language (as I suppose). Tashi _{Talk to me} 10:31, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Would you care to provide a source for the claim that saying someone is Jewish not Polish is acceptable?Slatersteven (talk) 11:47, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

For example, if you look up "Żydzi" (Jews) in Encyklopedia PWN (run by official Polish Scientific Publishers), it tells you a little about Jews and you can read that: 1) "w Polsce 2002 narodowość żydowską zadeklarowały 1133 osoby" (literary translated: In 2002, in Poland, the Jewish nationality was declared by 1133 people). 2) "wśród przywódców rewolucji ros. i w aparacie władzy ZSRR obecni byli politycy narodowości żydowskiej" (literary translated: among the leaders of the Russian Revolution and in the apparatus of the USSR's power, there were politicians of Jewish nationality) [Source Tashi _{Talk to me} 12:09, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

The problem is you have used this to declare people are Jewish (and not Polish) who this has not been said about, that is the issue. Also I would point out that the term might be the English equivalent of Ethnicity, not nationality. Whilst I agree this would be a translation issue but again you cannot use this to say any give Jew is not (in effect) Polish. But if you accept that you cannot in fact use this line of argument about someones ethnicity I am willing to AGF and withdraw the vote for a TBAN. At heart is the claim someone is not Polish but Jewish.Slatersteven (talk) 13:15, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

But I think my comments here have already proven that I withdrew my words. I think it goes without saying that one can be both Polish and Jewish and there is no contradiction here. What I wanted to underline was that many Jewish people did not identify with Poland but I didn't know that the nationality in fact means the citizenship. And it is true I did not have the right source for such claim in terms of Rumkowsky. I was kind of basing on the posts on the internet. I think the problem lays de facto in defying the word "nationality". Under all these circumstances, I believe that we should stick to the Polish nationality in such cases. Tashi _{Talk to me} 15:17, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Then I accept you may not longer be a problem.Slatersteven (talk) 15:29, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Slatersteven, I've received no emails from User:Tashi. And he still thinks it was fine (in response to my raising this here) to link to a 7 year old thread from an outside website in order to prove that I'm the actual problem? He's justified that behavior more than once, and never hinted that he thinks it's a problem. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:40, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

The linking to a 7 year old off wiki forum was bad, and deserves a warning. But if they agree to abide by the rules this ANI has served it purpose. However if they have lied (and you calim they have) that would warrant a block. I will AGF and wait for them to provide a diff to their communication with you and Sir Joseph.Slatersteven (talk) 16:51, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

• commentI'm not really seeing the antisemitism here. In a clear case of antisemitism, bigotry, racism or any other type of hate related editing the community has straight up fucking failed by pushing a topic ban.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 06:13, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Serialjoepsycho, there are ~1600 biographies of Polish Jews on Wikipedia, yet these editors only seem concerned with making it extremely clear that the ten or so who collaborated with Nazis are actually Jews (not real Poles). Some, like Rordayukki (talk · contribs) / 5.173.234.100 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) / 5.173.234.93 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) apparently only edit Wikipedia for the purpose of highlighting these individuals. What does that feel like to you? Jayjg ^(talk) 16:40, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

@Jayjg:I'm not a checkuser, I'm not an admin, and this didn't specifically seem like a sockpuppet investigation. I'm not seeing any antisemitism but only reviewing the Tashi account. That aside, in the face of hatespeech a topic ban is a piss poor action to take.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 02:28, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

This is part of the problem with this ANI, it should be about a user, not a whole raft of them. It makes it hard to see if this is a "serial" problem, or just a few edds making mistakes and then stopping. As an example I can only find two examples of Tashi doing this. If (thus) this is a case of 30 edits, made by 15 different users that is not a problem ANI can deal with.Slatersteven (talk) 17:01, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

TonyBallioni has indefinitely blocked Tashi so I do not know if that brings this discussion to an close. I wouldn't have made this choice and I'd like to hear from Tony about why he didn't just impose the proposed topic ban. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:28, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Liz, it is an {{OversightBlock}} that was placed after an issue was raised and discussed on oversight-l, and I can't discuss the matter further. If Tashi wishes to appeal, he should appeal to the Arbitration Committee. I did not close this discussion as I'd prefer to let the community decide whether or not they want a TBAN to be in effect if a successful appeal occurs. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:38, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Regardless of my disagreements with Tashi and their words, I don't agree with this action. But I admit that I don't have all of the details, and no access to the discussion about this on the email list. I just want to be sure that any blocked user has an avenue of appeal. And I appreciate you coming here, TonyBallioni, and providing as much of an explanation as you can, as frustrating as that is for the rest of us. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:27, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Liz - The user certainly does have an avenue regarding the ability to appeal the block that's been placed on them. They just have to do so privately and to the Arbitration Committee instead of through the usual channels that users with typical blocks have. I obviously can't share any information involved in the decision to block Tashi under an {{OversightBlock}}, but I viewed the information involved and I can give you my assurance that TonyBallioni's block on Tashi was necessary and justified, and I agree with the decision to do so. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:06, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

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

Continued

@K.e.coffman: Re: Tashi doubles down and complains that some Jews did not speak Polish "though they had lived there for a few centuries" [43] -- there where? Between 1795 and 1918 Poland did not exist as a nation state. Jews (and Poles, Belorussians, Ukrainians, etc) lived in the multi-ethnic German, Astro-Hungarian, and Russian empires. I see a logical issue and have a question. If on Wikipedia we describe nationality based on citizenship rather than ethnicity, why would January Suchodolski (for example), who was alive only during that period, be (accurately I assume) described as "Polish" in his lead when he did not have such citizenship? We could probably find many articles like this. So my question is this, when do we use ethnicity for nationality and when do we use citizenship? Is there a clear rule? From MOS:ETHNICITY: In most modern-day cases this will be the country of which the person is a citizen, national or permanent resident, or if the person is notable mainly for past events, the country where the person was a citizen, national or permanent resident when the person became notable. I think that is an incomplete formulation of what we have to do in some circumstances.

@Xx236: Re: Ethnicity of Barack Obama is described by his picture. So many things wrong with this that I think it speaks to the fact that you should not be editing articles related to this topic. Other of your comments here and on Talk:History of the Jews in Poland, also speak to a bias and agenda, for example: Thousands of Israeli citizens ask for Polish citizenship and/or visit Poland. Israeli youth is indoctrinated and terrorised by Israeli guides/bodyguards to prevent informal contacts with Polish youth. This one also speaks of personal bias: My family lost everything during the war. Our house in Belarus was plundered by Polish neighbours. Isn't there something else you can edit on Wikipedia?

I think there is some honest question over how to apply MOS:ETHNICITY as outlined above. It is tempting to say that being Jewish in Europe during the holocaust may be essential to providing the context demanded by the MOS, but I think this is limited to cases, as the MOS says, where the person is notable for something related to being Jewish. These issues can be reasonably worked out on article talk pages and dispute resolution venues. I do believe there is a problem with several editors who are fixated on Polish Jewry constantly being at odds with each other. This does not quite rise to a TBAN (except perhaps in two cases, one of which being rendered moot), and I think that would lead to an imbalance to prevent the open discussion of what is NPOV and RSed on these topics, but to my mind this pushes the limits of what is acceptable as far as activism by editors. —DIYeditor (talk) 16:58, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

This is not really a discussion for ANI, but I would say that this is at the heart of the dispute. They are (say) Polish when someone wants them to be, and not Polish when they dont. Ethnicity and nationality are not the same thing, some om can be a Polish Pole or a Jewish Pole. The problem was calking they were (in effect) not Polish at all. This may not have been the intent, it was the effect.Slatersteven (talk) 18:34, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

I would agree that a main symptom of the problem was a desire to designate a very small list of individuals (specifically Nazi collaborators and Salomon Morel) as "Jewish" and not "Polish", particularly not an "ethnic Pole". And it was clearly the intent, not just the effect; a number of talk page comments (e.g. [99]) made that clear. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:14, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Help

Please someone help me to resolve this problem: User_talk:Shevonsilva#COROP. Personally for me, this is a bit rude, and, continuesly trying to let me down by telling about my English or any other stuff. Improving articles is something else. Thanks. He/She may be trying to help me, but, difficult for me to response. Shevonsilva (talk) 22:52, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Shevonsilva, you need to be more specific about what you want administrators to do about your problem. If your disagreement is with Imaginatorium you need to notify them of this ANI discussion on their talk page as the bright message says to do when you posted your comment here. This discussion can't continue until you do so. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:49, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Your talk page claims there are various problems with your edit. One claim is: "Others are plain wrong, because the[y] link to different regions. Northern Netherlands, for example, goes to a political division, which has nothing to do with COROP". What is your response to that claim? Repeatedly editing articles in a way that introduces errors is very disruptive. Not responding to claims that the errors occur is also very disruptive. Johnuniq (talk) 07:56, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Update:

• User_talk:Shevonsilva#About_vacuous_articles
• User_talk:Shevonsilva#COROP
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Stuck_(unit)
• [[100]]

etc.

In above, Imaginatorium has repeatedly tried to confirm about my English language skills and placed a lot of personal opinions on it, and, was unable to point-out any Errors but criticized my English (personally I believe she/he has a difficulty of dealing with longer sentences [or may be something else due to stress, I do not know]). This is a clear disturbance for me as it is clearly letting me down, and, I find very difficult to respond those comments.

Additionally, by referring the articles below too, I suspect Johnuniq, Reyk, Reywas92 and Imaginatorium are working as a group for a common purpose in order to back up each other whether they are right or wrong.

• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Circular_millimetre
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Northern_districts_of_Sughd
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Western_Khatlon
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rest_of_Groningen

These people are always trying to delete articles: I really do not know what is really going on with them (sometimes they are right and sometimes they are wrong collectively) Shevonsilva (talk) 21:27, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

What I care about is errors in articles, particularly errors that are not easy to find. Please respond to the point in my comment above at 07:56, 29 May 2019. That is one small point from the large number of issues that have been raised—why not respond? Either explain that it was not an error, or acknowledge the problem and undertake to avoid similar problems. Editors must be able to communicate when problems are raised. Johnuniq (talk) 01:41, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

I have not been working in collaboration with any other users. I, like they apparently, only want to ensure that article subjects are both recognized as official places and have notability and content warranting articles. The rapid-fire mass creation of hundreds of one-line permanent sub-stubs is not a positive contribution to the encyclopedia, especially when they are simply phrases used in sources, not official regions. You need to slow down and put content in articles you create, not leave them as as pages that provide nothing at all to the reader and are redundant to the main article and could be expanded within the main article. If “sometimes [we] are right collectively”, what are you complaining about exactly? Reywas92^Talk 06:52, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Ugh. Why is it that whenever several editors individually notice errors in a source or in a series of articles, they must be somehow colluding inappropriately? Reyk _YO! 06:52, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

When one says (sometimes they are right and sometimes they are wrong collectively), doesn't that usually mean one's view is not matching up to the consensus? --Blackmane (talk) 00:39, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

I dropped a wiki email to Imagitoriun: hope things can be resolved nicely; I like to pause the discussion. Shevonsilva (talk) 10:16, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Public collaboration is a requirement of editing at Wikipedia. Why is there a problem with responding on your talk page to the issue I mentioned above at 01:41, 30 May 2019? Refusing to collaborate is disruptive, and being unable to collaborate at the English Wikipedia is unfortunate. Both mean an editor is not a good fit for this project. Johnuniq (talk) 01:43, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

thanks for your reply. There is nothing to collaborate with regarding this matter until any further issues raised. I want to pause the discussion. Thanks. Shevonsilva (talk) 14:13, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Let me add a little bit of context to this topic. Shevonsilva has been presented at this noticeboard before, last time in February by me: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1003#New articles by Shevonsilva. I must say that the issues we had in February (creation of subdivision articles with obviously wrong information) did not repeat, however, we now have the new ones. At this point, I believe Shevonsilva is acting in good faith and is trying to help the project, but indeed some sort of issues do exist, and one has to have this in mind while taking a decision. I do not really know what this decision should be.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:45, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

As the creator of this post, I think I really want to pause the discussion for now. Thanks. Shevonsilva (talk) 20:31, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Unsourced edits despite numerous warnings, no communication

Mustard a response?

-EEng

I counted ten previous warnings for unsourced material on Dieter Mueller (talk · contribs)'s talk page, along with several other warnings for disruptive editing, unexplained deletion, etc. - none of which he has seen fit to respond to. Indeed, despite making over three thousand edits, he has never once used any talk page.

I left a "disruptive" warning for yesterday's edit: [101] which is not only unsourced but obviously false. He hasn't responded, but has since made about twenty more edits, including this unsourced one: [102]. Could someone get his attention? --IamNotU (talk) 13:42, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree. Dieter Mueller (talk · contribs)'s behaviour is a problem. - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:47, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

I second that. At any case, they now have 2 days to master a response. El_C 15:56, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Just speculating if this would count as block evasion? A very serious charge, I know. Location is Indonesia and there are historical contributions particular to Indonesia by Dieter Mueller (talk · contribs).

List of presidents of Indonesia Lembata Javanese calendar [103] [104] [105] [106] Public holidays in Indonesia

Surely I'm wrong? Hey, they're also interested in Finland, besides all the racing edits. Shenme (talk) 01:57, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

They appear to have waited out their block, then continued editing, while never responding. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:34, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

I see the same thing. Not good. ThunderChunder! | Talk to me! | Walk with me! 00:45, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Reference falsification at Cantonese

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.

---

Jaywu2000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) believes that Cantonese has over 100 million speakers, but instead of finding a sourced figure, continues to replace a figure that has a supporting source, thus misrepresenting the cited source. I would like them to stop doing that. Kanguole 08:49, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

He seems to revert every day or two. I've edit-confirm protected the page for four days, in the hopes that that will bring him to the Talk: page (or here) to discuss this. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:30, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Just to clarify that that is extended-confirmed. I've no idea if the two are usually synonymous, I just went to look for my own clarification. Nosebagbear (talk)

I dropped him a bit of advice, perhaps they'll listen to a fellow Cantonese speaker. Blackmane (talk) 01:56, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

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

Sky UK's IPv6 ranges and underestimating the collateral effect of rangeblocks

I didn't quite know where else to put this, so it's gone here. If it would be more appropriate in WP:VP/P or something, please just let me know.

When I found myself a affected by @NJA's block of 2A02:C7F::/32, I did some sleuthing and found out that 2A02:C78::/29 (which subsumes that range) is the entire allocation of IPv6 addresses to Sky UK, the country's second largest ISP which accounts for 22% of the UK's internet traffic. Sky has completed its IPv6 rollout and few if any Sky connections will show up as IPv4 addresses.

This means that NJA's rangeblock should have affected one eighth of Sky users (or 1 in 36 UK residents), which already seems pretty high. Emphasis on should: A cursory glance at contributions for each of 2A02:C78::/32, 2A02:C79::/32, et cetera, reveals that only 2A02:C7D::/32 and 2A02:C7F::/32 are currently in use. This means NJA's block affects half of all Sky IP addresses, amounting to 11% of UK connections. This is clearly far too much collateral damage.

This isn't a complaint about NJA, as others have previously (and recently) rangeblocked both 2A02:C7F::/32 and 2A02:C7D::/32, and this degree of disruption to UK users obviously wasn't intended. I thought this worth bringing up here to make sure blocks like this don't continue to happen.

Blocking half of the IP addresses of the second largest ISP in a large country isn't a sensible way to deal with vandalism. Yes, blocking 11% of the UK from editing Wikipedia anonymously will obviously lead to reduced vandalism, but then we might as well just turn off anonymous editing altogether. It's by sheer coincidence (Sky's allocated range and manner of allocating IPs) that so much of one country's traffic is even crammed into a blockable range (since /32 is the maximum rangeblock), thus creating far more collateral damage than should be considered acceptable.--Newbiepedian (talk · C · X! · L) 21:10, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

• As the blocking admin I will say this and only this (in-law coming in an hour, will be sporadic for a while): See my talk page here on this discussion. I will add the block is not recent and expires Fri, 31 May 2019 14:05:41 GMT and was initially for 72hr, it is anon-only with account creation disabled. It was the second such short-term block to the exact range this month. If there’s a narrower range that will be as effective then I am more than happy for another admin to revise this. I do not however buy in to the sense of alarm about blocking “11% of the UK”. Apparently 100% of those “11%” had no ill effects (except Newbiepedian of course) as I’ve seen nothing on UTRS about the IP (and plus it isn’t using Autoblock). N.J.A. | talk 21:24, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  • A lack of UTRS tickets isn't equivalent to "no ill effects", it just means no one has reported any. Most people who would casually edit a Wikipedia article anonymously, say to fix a typo, are not familiar with these procedures. There has been another complaint, just not via UTRS – see User talk:2A02:C7F:BAC5:7800:B414:B48E:1054:DCCC.--Newbiepedian (talk · C · X! · L) 00:27, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
    • For a long while, WP:SIP required us to notify the Foundation whenever we blocked the IP address(es) that represented virtually everyone in Qatar. Per Demographics of Qatar and Demographics of the United Kingdom, Qatar had about 2.6 million inhabitants as of early 2017, while According to the 2011 census, the total population of the United Kingdom was around 63,182,000. If this rangeblock affects 11% of Britons, that's just short of 7 million people being affected, or nearly triple the number of people affected by a block of Qatar. Barring a weird emergency (e.g. someone's spending weeks operating a vandalbot that's changing IPs every couple of seconds), I can't imagine a good reason to issue such a wide rangeblock for more than a short period of time. Of course, we admins make good-faith mistakes, and I think it would be out of bounds to complain at NJA, who clearly wasn't aware of the number of people affected by this block — thank you, Newbiepedian, for explicitly disclaiming such a thing. However, I do think we ought to remove this block and ought to be careful to avoid something similar in the future. But how does one remove it? I don't understand rangeblocks (especially for IPv6s) and have never removed one, and neither User:2A02:C7F::/32 nor User:2A02:C7F:0:0:0:0:0:0/32 has a block log. Nyttend (talk) 00:51, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
      • Thanks Nyttend. Do you not see a block log for the range here? --Newbiepedian (talk · C · X! · L) 01:48, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
        • I saw nothing. I wonder if I entered the wrong IP? But I do remember doing one rangeblock (someone supplied the precise numbers, which I copy/pasted into Special:Block), so I just copy/pasted the range you supplied above (2A02:C7F::/32) into that page and blocked it for one second. (Only the latest block matters at all, so if a later block expires before an earlier block, the earlier one won't "take over" when the later one expires.) Both the resulting page and the link you just provided have the log with entries by Materialscientist, NJA, and now me. Nyttend (talk) 01:52, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
• FYI Nyttend has removed the block (I just checked). I still think it was an appropriate block and could not see a less perfect range to block for a short period. Two complaints and none through UTRS is hardly millions of people, but I’ll leave it alone as truthfully no one can say how many people were bothered and didn’t report it. Anyhow if this range remains an issue something else may need considered. Good evening all. N.J.A. | talk 02:39, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
• Also for anyone interested EdJohnston posted this on my talk page Some more details on the /32 range used in question. N.J.A. | talk 02:47, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Hey, NJA, you may have misunderstood my comment. I can't imagine a good reason to issue such a wide rangeblock for more than a short period of time means that I'm normally opposed to a longer block, but a short block (maybe 12-24 hours) isn't too bad. I'm sorry if I confused you. I'm just concerned that the size of the range is skewing what we're seeing — the wider a range and the more people using it, the more vandalism we're going to see from it. (A massive amount of vandalism is committed by ::/0, but as that covers 340 undecillion short scale addresses, blocking it would be a really really bad idea.) In my opinion, if you know how to calculate the number of addresses affected by a rangeblock (I don't), it's important that you consider that number when setting block length, and block a really big range only for a short while except in those really rare situations. Nyttend (talk) 02:53, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

It looks to me like IPv6 users from Sky tend to stay within the same /64 for months at a time. A single vandal switching to a new subnet during a vandalism spree could conceivably just be switching from one device in his house to another, or hopping on his neighbor's wifi, giving the appearance that his IP is dynamic over the entire /32 when it is not. It's also conceivable that an admin might see a bunch of vandals all over a /32 who are individually confined to /64s, and think they are one vandal. When casting a net that large (almost 1% of the English speakers in the world), it's very likely you'll notice more than one vandal with common interests or behaviors, since they are usually pretty basic. I have occasionally dug into the vandalism behind some broad range blocks and sometimes found that it was really just a handful of people who could be blocked individually without much difficulty. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:48, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

This. A thousand times, this.--Newbiepedian (talk · C · X! · L) 03:56, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Long-winded elaboration of the problem

As I briefly mentioned on NJA's talk page, I think the primary issue (and something I feel folks aren't quite understanding) is that this is a specific problem with this specific range which has served to demonstrate a larger (and unfortunately highly technical) issue with how people are estimating potential collateral due to unfamiliarity with IPv6. I'm going to split this explanation into several paragraphs because otherwise it will end up totally illegible. I hope this makes some semblance of sense; if not, there's a bit of a TLDR at the bottom.

IPv6 ranges currently are mostly very spread out. The /29 range assigned to Sky contains capacity for 34,359,738,368 (over 34 billion) end users. The C7F and C7D sub-ranges each contain capacity for one eighth of that, i.e. 4,294,967,296 (over 4 billion) end users. "End user" here refers to a subnet, i.e. the internet connection of a home or small business router, each having capacity to serve 18 quintillion distinct hosts. But those numbers are totally meaningless, because capacity at the moment isn't easy to relate to actual usage due to the sheer breadth of IPv6 allocation.

Sky UK has been allocated a range of 2A02:C78::/29, which as stated contains capacity for over 34 billin users. Sky UK has a market share of roughly 20% in a country of roughly 60 million people, so there are 34 billion /64 subnets to allocate to approximately 12 million people. By contrast, Comcast (US) has a market share of roughly 40% in a country of roughly 320 million people, so that's 128 million users. But how does their capacity relate? Well, Comcast has the ranges 2601::/20 (17,592,186,044,416 end users), 2603:3000::/24 (1,099,511,627,776 end users), 2001:558::/31 (8,589,934,592 end users) and 2603:2000::/20 (another 17,592,186,044,416 end users). This means Comcast's total capacity is for 36,292,473,651,200 users – over 36 trillion. Clearly, these numbers are all pretty meaningless.

Now, at a glance, Comcast has about 10 times as many users as Sky UK, but over 1,000 times as many available addresses. But it's not quite that simple. These allocations are to what is reserved to the ISP, but currently neither of these two ISPs are allocating users across their entire allocated range(s). Sky UK is only allocating across 2A02:C7D::/32 and 2A02:C7F::/32. I'll call these /32 ranges "MR" (maximum range) for convenience, since that's the maximum size for WP rangeblocks. So, Sky allocates users across 2 MRs. What ranges does Comcast actually use? 2601::/32 through 2601:102::/32 (103 MRs), plus 2603:3000::/32 through 2603:3027::/32 (28 MRs), plus 2001:558::/32 and 2001:559::/32. So, in other words, Sky UK is allocating 12 million people across 2 MRs, while Comcast is allocating 128 million people across 133 MRs.

So, TLDR: IP ranges of the same size do NOT necessarily have the same level of collateral effect. As this example shows, blocking a Comcast MR will affect up to about 900k people, while blocking an MR belonging to Sky UK will affect up to about 6 million, almost 7 times as many. Currently what it looks like to me is that there is a broad-brush approach to figuring out the level of collateral effect which is to just assume that ranges of the same size can be treated the same, but that is unequivocally false. Before blocking an ISP-level range (which is what the /32 maximum range is; no normal organisation would be assigned one), administrators should research:

• to what ISP that range belongs
• how many other ranges the ISP owns
• what parts of those ranges are actually in use
• how many users the ISP has (roughly, from market share × population)

Then, and only then, have you obtained a picture of the potential collateral effect of your rangeblock with any semblance of accuracy.--Newbiepedian (talk · C · X! · L) 03:52, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Precedent

There's precedent for long-term blocks of ranges this wide that are used by miscreants. 2607:fb90::/32, a range widely used by T-Mobile, one of the largest mobile providers in the US, has been blocked on-and-off for the past two-and-a-half years. My major blocks were due to the dog and rapper vandal, but there were and are others. Pinging other recent blocking admins who have dealt with this range: @DeltaQuad, Oshwah, Drmies, and TonyBallioni:. Desperate circumstances require desperate measures. Graham87 04:17, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Graham. My entry in the block log was to temporarily lower the account creation block per a valid request from a steward in private. When the reason for that was done, I restored the former block settings. In general I’m pretty conservative with IPv6 range blocks, though there are valid reasons to make wide ones. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:25, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Graham, this just to let you know that I ran into two longterm rangeblocks this week while trying to vandalize Wikipedia from my phone. ;) (Does your reader do that winking emoji?) Drmies (talk) 04:27, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

But yes, there is ample precedent for long and wide rangeblocks. I cannot calculate whether the woof, rap block is as wide as the UK block discussed earlier. I'll add that, like Tony, I am conservative (or like to think I am); in woof, rap case it is clear that I am guided also by earlier blocks. I also remember that a couple of months ago I was asked to make a range block more narrow, which I did. I really cannot comment on the UK block: much happened on that range and I don't have the time or the inclination to pick through a bunch of them to see how justified the block (and the range) is, but I trust my fellow admins to be as conservative as possible. Drmies (talk) 04:37, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

@Drmies: Fair enough. I use precedent as a guide re blocks as well. Re winking emoji: yes, it does, but I couldn't detect it in your message at first because I have my punctuation level lower than the default, for various reasons. Graham87 04:49, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

I think, though, you have to be careful in deciding that something is actually "desperate" rather than "completely ordinary". If one person is vandalizing a wide variety of pages from a wide range of IPs, then yes, absolutely, those are desperate circumstances. I estimate that non-bot admins make, what, 1000 blocks a day? By numbers alone, you expect that we should be blocking 10 or so Sky users every day. That's not a desperate circumstance. Vandalism on 10 different subnets of Sky, all on articles related to British popular culture, well, that should just be a daily occurrence. Back in ancient times when vandals didn't have a choice but to use IPv4, if we saw 10 obviously distinct vandals on 10 different static IPs belonging to the same ISP, we didn't nuke the whole network. And we shouldn't be nuking an entire network just because each vandal now has a /64 instead of a single address. We also shouldn't be assuming that two vandals are the same person because they have very vaguely similar interests and live in the same countryohmygodhecanchangehisiptoanythingwhatsthechancesomanypeopleinenglandwouldbemadattheresamay? But anyway, I think I totally understand the impulse. You're manning AIV, reports keep coming in, vandal after vandal. Oh, here's clearly changing his IP, better do a range block. Oh, this vandal has a very similar address. Hmm. Not the same article, but also targeting the same topic area. And another one, and another one? Anyway, my 2p, don't block an entire ISP just because a bunch of vandals use it, if those vandals can be individually blocked. Rangeblocks are for people who can't be stopped otherwise, not for stopping several different people at once because it's faster than figuring out their individual ranges. Honestly, I think this probably needs a software solution. Most residential hookups for many ISPs have a relatively stable /64. If the MediaWiki software defaulted to treating every address in a /64 as having a unified identity - one contributions list, one talk page, one IPname - but still gave the option to see deeper in case this is wrong, I think it would clear a lot of confusion. It would also help make it obvious that what might seem like a nest of vandals is actually several individuals. Blocks would default to that subnet, and often work. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:57, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, tools need to treat all of an IPv6 /64 as though it were a single user, AFAIK. No, I don't think it is confusing this particular conversation, but it does makes people do a lot of extra work and it would be nice if things were improved. @Newbiepedian: there are calculation mistakes above. 2601::/32 – 2601:102::/32 = 0x103 = 259 MRs, not 103. 2603:3000::/32 – 2603:3027::/32 = 0x28 = 40 MRs, not 28. Comcast is allocating 128 million people across 301, not 133 MRs. Blocking a Comcast MR will affect up to about 425,000, not 900,000 people :) —[AlanM1(talk)]— 08:42, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Count edits instead of editors?

Instead of trying to count users (whatever a user is) that would be blocked, or whatever it is you're trying to do, why not have a gizmo that tells you, as you contemplate a block of range R for H hours, the number of distinct edits that would have been blocked had that block been in effect during the H hours immediately past (or at this same point one week ago, or ...)? That's unambiguous, and I think it's the true measure of collateral damage. EEng 08:25, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Or not, I guess. EEng 23:52, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Yoo hoo! Over here! EEng 13:06, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

You'd need to propose that on Phabricator rather than here, as it would mean rewriting MediaWiki. My gut feeling would be that for all but the smallest ranges, it would gum up the servers to an unacceptable level (checking a range of 10,000 IP address would mean carrying out 10,000 checkuser investigations to figure out which logged-in editors would be affected), so the WMF would probably refuse to permit it. ‑ Iridescent 13:15, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Charles01 behaviour

Charles01 condescending and bully-esque attuide towards me

I'm at a breaking point with Charles01. Since January he has been formally bashing about me for the past few months. He constantly making callous remarks of my editing even though I kept asking him to help me of how to edit collaboratively on around 2-3 occasions which are included in the diffs but comes out nothing but more condescending comments and antagonising. He tend to call my editing "Vauxford Vanity Project" and create made up phrases such as "Vauxfordy". Almost every edit he does he would at least include something personal about me.

Diffs of cases where he has taken his edits personally over a user rather then on the content:

Slipping in personal comments of me e.g "Then again, where a picture taken and uploaded and linked by the one and only Vauxford is involved" [107]

Another revert which mostly include grievance towards me rather the a practical reason why he reverted my edit [108]

More personal comments and remarks within his comments about me, including accusation that I god rid of a editor from the project even though that was never my intention. Described my personality as "narcissistic and arrogant" [109]

Respond after I told him that it isn't a "personal vanity project" [110]

The personal revert and warning template I put in his talkpage [111] [112] His reply to the template message [113]

Reply after I told him again that it isn't a personal vanity project [114]

Audi A2 reverts including more conscending mention about my "vanity project" and using the word "Vauxfordy" as something negative [115] [116]

Another RfC he created which include a number of personal remarks in his sentence about me [117]

One of his RfC edit that include many of his personal grief against me [118] [119]

I do want to come forward that I did called Charles01 "a bully", at the time, I was simply fed up and upset with the brash and condescending commentary he leaves when something to do with me but at the same time I ask and plead many times for him to tell me how to be collaborative which he doesn't, most of the time when I do leave a message on his talkpage asking this, he just dumps everything (including the warning template that I left because I found his revert summary about the Audi Q3 unacceptable) I said onto my talkpage even though it was all addressed to him. [120] [121] [122]

The Audi Q3 discussion I find unfair and Charles01 wanted my picture gone because it was taken by me. Despite the fact Alexander-93 who made the talk page discussion does the EXACT same type of editing as I do, yet he does get scruntised and made to feel degraded about themselves as Charles01 and other people does to me. Hence why I reverted the edit even after a "consensus" was reached Just to clarify, this wasn't me edit warring or even slow edit warring, at the time I thought the action was justified but after thinking over it a bit more, I felt the purpose was more then a disagreement over a photo replacement. I even added a alterntive photo to try and see if they agree on that because I really disagreed with the picture was being used for that article, but was simply ignored, shortly followed Charles01 added his unheartfelt message which consisted 20% of why the other photo should be used and 80% saying how How I "constantly create edit wars", how my photos are "mediocre", what I'm doing is just a "personal vanity project", saying I am "damaging Wikipedia" and simply saying how much a disruptive person I am and any photo I proposed on these articles should get voided, simply because they were by me.

I'm not innocent myself and I did messed up a few times but even after trying to improve my way of editing and seeking consensus with people rather then straight out reverting if someone disagree with my edit. It almost feels like Charles01 is simply talking me down with a chance that I would break down and possibly quit Wikipedia or something even though what I'm doing isn't disruptive and even if it was disruptive I had no awareness it is and formally apologise for it. I'm also not doing this to oust Charles01 in any way, I just believe the way he has been treating and approaching me like this is wrong and no editor whatever position they have on Wikipedia should go through that. --Vauxford (talk) 19:07, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Comment: I looked through all of the diffs and I see your frustration with the removal of photos etc. I agree that the editor was terse, however probably annoyed by your failure to get consensus first. My best advice is to get consensus on the talk page. The editor was blunt, but probably not a bully and probably not wrong on the edits. Often editors here (especially on automobile articles) feel like they have to protect every edit and photo on the article. Simply placing a photo without consensus on an auto article will likely always be met with a speedy deletion and a terse remark. I myself have added photos to BMW and to 5 series. The one on BMW was kept the one on 5 series was deleted. I thanked the editor and moved on. So short of it is: get consensus on the talk page before adding anything. I hope that helps. Lubbad85 (☎) 21:27, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

So removing ones photos because they are "Vauxfordy" and calling it a "personal vanity project" and bringing up a person I used to interact in the past almost in every respond isn't condescending? Half the things he ever said when it comes to me (Spanning from about January 2019) is more of how much a burden I am to everyone rather then the images themselves, and when it is the image, he simply call them my "blind spots" or medicare" it getting to the point that I'm the one to blame simply because I did it, if it any one else such as the user who created the Audi Q3 discussion, they wouldn't get this ridicule at all. As I provided on the diffs I did ask at times to cooperate with me so we don't get in to a mess, despite being long paragraphs they get lead to nowhere or he just simply paste the whole lot back onto my talkpage. --Vauxford (talk) 22:46, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Editor Interaction Analyzer

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

---

Editor Interaction Analyzer doesn't seem to be working. I need it for something. Is there another bit that's working? - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 22:11, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

CorbieVreccan, I imagine it probably has something to do with the recent schema changes. Seems to be open on the author's talkpage here: User_talk:Σ#Editor_interaction_too SQL^{Query me!} 22:15, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Mark says it worked earlier today. But now it's not for me. No idea why. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 22:20, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

CorbieVreccan, In that case, I have no idea. SQL^{Query me!} 22:23, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I have also pinged Σ. I guess we just wait, for now. Thanks anyway :) - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 22:27, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

CorbieVreccan if the Editor Interaction Analyzer isn't working you can try Interaction Timeline. It duplicates mostly the same functionality, but it was built by the WMF. It's nice in that you can click on a listed edit to pop open a diff right on the page, on the other hand (in my opinion) it suffers from the WMF's standard habit of overblown web2.0 design and low information density. It's good for tracking the interactions between two people over a short timespan such as harassment, but poorly suited to larger quantities of longer term editing examination. Alsee (talk) 22:32, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for this. There is a problem, however. It doesn't seem to register new accounts. I'm putting in the account of the person who's doing the WP:FOLLOWING, and the program isn't recognizing the account. I'm assuming because it's a new-ish account, which has 113 edits. To put it all in in diffs would be very time-consuming.

Never mind, the second bit is working now. Thanks again!

But I'm not figuring out how to make it show the overlap in edits the way EIA does. When one person is editing a lot, it doesn't show the relationship, that I can see. I see what you mean about it being best for short-term, intense interactions. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 22:52, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

EIA is working again. Maybe it also had an edit threshold? - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 22:55, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

You might want to reread WP:FOLLOWING because my edits don't seem to fit the criteria. SolarStorm1859 (lostpwd) (talk) 22:57, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

You just followed him here though. 2001:4898:80E8:3:EA0D:C14:20AB:DA9 (talk) 23:16, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

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

Could someone please restore this article while it is at AfD...

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

---

Could someone please restore William Cussans while it is being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Cussans? I'm not going to argue with this editor... --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:28, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Elmidae - You did not notify Cygnis insignis about this ANI discussion you created. I left a notification on his user talk page for you. Just remember to do this next time, okay? ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:32, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

@Oshwah: I was hoping that this was going to be a quick housekeeping action rather than an extended exercise (i.e., I was trying to avoid "a discussion about an editor") - but you are right, I probably should have. Sorry. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:17, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Which one, I removed the redirect.Slatersteven (talk) 14:29, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Which leaves us with a blanked page with an AfD banner; just as undesirable as a cross-space redirect. The article should have been left in place until that AfD was finished. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:32, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Sorted by Oswah, thanks; restored AfD banner. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:34, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I should point out I did not remove the article, just the redirect. The article content was cut and pasted to user space.Slatersteven (talk) 14:58, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm aware, sorry if this was unclear - just thought it wasn't a good solution to the original C&P. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:02, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough, I accept it was not the best solution. I have never been confident with doing page moves, and was not sure if a cut and paste would work. But I did know that a back door AFD avoidance like that should not be permitted (and that is how I see it, move the article to user pace and keep a redirect in main space). It does not help I find the user...trying at times.Slatersteven (talk) 15:08, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

The article was moved from the mainspace to Cygnis insignis' user space, then somebody tried to make a copy of the article's content and paste it to the article's original location after it was moved. I performed a histmerge while moving the article back to its original location in order to resolve any issues created with the copy-and-paste attempt. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:30, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

That is exactly the kind of thing I thought I would screw up.Slatersteven (talk) 15:33, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Slatersteven - No big deal. It's all fixed; nothing to worry about. ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:40, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've moved the article and talk page back to the main space and under its original title while the AFD discussion is open and ongoing. Both pages are also move protected for one week. I've also left the user a note on their user talk page here regarding the page move they made. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:36, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

• I've closed the AfD and deleted the article. Quite apart from the fact it almost certainly qualifies for speedy deletion per A7 and it's copied verbatim from a book, it's snowing already and there's no point in wasting anyone else's time. Black Kite (talk) 15:43, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

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

User Gmortaia vandalizing pages with guerrilla advertising

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 this article for an explanation: https://adage.com/creativity/work/north-face-top-imagens/2174261

The users in question should probably be banned, all changes reverted: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Gmortaia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Adamjonnes80

I have not tried talking to them because they work for a marketing firm, and are not good faith editors.

These pages still have branded advertising in their photos: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guarita_State_Park https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cape_Point https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pico_das_Agulhas_Negras&oldid=894745899

I'm not sure if other pages were affected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.190.47.11 (talk) 19:56, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Are you suggesting removing decent photos because the people in the photo are wearing a particular coat a person could only identify if they know the manufacturer? Do you not believe that these photos are the editor's own work? I will admit the ADAGE article is galling. 209.152.44.201 (talk) 20:16, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Some links: Gmortaia (talk · contribs · block log), Fhpatucci (talk · contribs · block log), Flanobre (talk · contribs · block log), Gabriel F A Rodriguez (talk · contribs · block log), Adamjonnes80 (talk · contribs · block log). -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:33, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

The users have no declaration of their affiliation with the marketing campaign or the comapny on their userpage, on the talkpage of the articles they edited, or in the edit summaries. In direct violation of the Terms of Use as per WP:PAID. The edit summaries say things like "Add a recent photography that was taken last month". The Video in the AdAge article describes their actual motivation - "we hacked the results" and "we switched the wikipedia photos for ours". The images are indeed pretty. But they are undisclosed paid advocacy. The images should be kept on commons of course - we can be quite certain they're uploaded as free-licensed works by the copyright holders! - but the users who edited them into articles are in direct breach of the undisclosed paid advocacy policy and should not be allowed to continue. Wittylama 21:07, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Not to mention: "According to the agency, the biggest obstacle of the campaign was to update the photos without attracting attention of Wikipedia moderators to sustain the brand’s presence as long as possible.". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:18, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)Problem: I'm not certain these are, in fact, decent photos - I suspect there's some photoshopping going on. Compare File:Pico_do_Agudo_Santo_Antonio_do_Pinhal.jpg and File:Vale_do_paraiba_montanha.jpg, for example. If that's the case, that completely taints the photos as far as I'm concerned, and I have to wonder if they do in fact have the rights to those images. creffett (talk) 21:24, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

They photoshoppped their backpack into the shot? OK, nevermind, they got to go. 209.152.44.201 (talk) 21:35, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Since these are freely licensed on Commons, we could keep the images, but subtly photoshop the text "Patagonia" or "Columbia" on the clothing or backpack over the "North Face" logo every time we find it. This is better than removing the image from the articleor cropping out the human, because (a) it disincentivizes the ad agency from doing it again, while (b) doing no damage to the article. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:11, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't think that the root issue here is the fact that the images have company logos on clothing or products within these images. The root of the issue here was the intended purpose that these images were uploaded and added in order to serve, which was clearly not to improve the encyclopedia but to inject advertising in a deceptive fashion and in order to avoid scrutiny and sneak it past the typical patrols and checks that are made in order to detect and remove such violations. Sure, we can use the licensing to remove the logos and we'd be completely fine in regards to copyright. I guess the questions that I'm asking myself are: Do these images serve an encyclopedic purpose? Would removing the logos serve to be beneficial? Are we rewarding bad behavior and inadvertently opening the door for more abuse in this area by leaving the images as-is and keeping them to use on articles? I don't think that we should keep the images as-is and use them on any projects by principle, because of the original reason that they were uploaded here (by "here", I mean to Commons) in the first place. However, it could be easily argued in rebuttal that we've kept content and articles that have been added by banned and blocked sock puppet users in numerous instances in the past and despite "the principle". Sorry... just rattling off my thoughts here... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:07, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Also at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#North Face product placement. This is troubling, but we need to not throw the baby out with the bathwater; I've had one or two companies provide us with good images of their products, and intend to try more. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:20, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Too bad ADAGE does not take comments or we could add, "GOT YA! - Wikipedia editors" to the end of the article. The company rep sound so smug. 209.152.44.201 (talk) 21:31, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

They do, however, have a facebook page where I've already left several comments on the thread about this article: https://www.facebook.com/AdAge/posts/10156105251185880. Wittylama 22:01, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

See also this category over on Commons. I identified at least one additional accounts involved from pt.wikipedia, Ligiamendes04. --Krinkle (talk) 22:58, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

We ran a CU in Portuguese Wikipedia and, as expected, all the accounts involved are sockpuppets. JMagalhães (talk) 23:35, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

A note about Commons: Wikipedians should appreciate that Commons does not make editorial judgements about how, whether or where images are used on Wikipedia. Likewise, Wikipedia should not make curatorial judgements about what Commons hosts. By all means comment and vote on Commons, but do so as a Commoner, appreciating what that project is about and its different values, not with your outraged Wikipedian hat on. Commons is not just a repository for Wikipedia. I see people voting delete or recommending the images be blurred or cropped because some editors have misbehaved on Wikipedia. Commons has lots of photos donated by companies, organisations, agents, etc. Many will include a brand name or logo and we do not blur logos. Commons isn't censored for logos. If the files are believed to be copyvios then they'll be deleted by normal policy.

The suggested vandalism by Floquenbeam could lead to a block and could even result in a legal complaint by the rival firms they are suggesting to use -- trademark logos are not playthings for wiki wars. Commons policy on overwriting files disallows editors making controversial changes if overwriting. Blurring out a logo because you are pissed off about the ad agency is not acceptable. I'm sure you can find other images to use to illustrate articles. -- Colin°^Talk 13:08, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Don't ping me just to make sure I see your fuckwitted accusations of vandalism. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:16, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't think that is an acceptable response, on any level, from an administrator. Next time you have a bright idea to vandalise images on Commons, or abuse a company's logo for revenge, please keep it to yourself. -- Colin°^Talk 13:20, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Yikes, agreed, that is absolutely not an okay temperament from any Wikipedian, let alone an admin. I'll also note that the proposed swapping is a terrible idea not just because of the Common's rules, but also because of Wikipedia's. The goal here is to be neutral, not to retaliate against any entity that violates our ideals, and not to introduce inaccuracies of any sort. - Sdkb (talk) 21:36, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree that the comment wasn't necessary on Floquenbeam's part, but I also don't see any evidence behind the accusation you made towards him with vandalism to images on Commons... where has he actually done this? Discussions or proposals regarding the modifications to images - even if the ideas are bad or even terrible - do not constitute vandalism at all. Please do not use such words to point fingers at other editors like this unless they've actually committed such edits and you have the evidence to show that they did so and with that intent or purpose. It only makes discussions like these become heated and angry (as it clearly did), which degrades everything that we're trying to work together as a community to resolve. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:33, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Yeahhhh... I have to step in and agree that this wasn't a comment that complies with Wikipedia's policy on civility and the principle with treating others with respect... The accusations of vandalism may be completely unfounded and silly (I haven't looked into it myself yet), but regardless - we shouldn't stoop to anyone's level and respond with incivility and heated remarks like this. It degrades the discussion as a whole and it puts a negative mark on everyone involved here. :-( Remember that this discussion involves an issue regarding a very large corporation and is gaining media attention and coverage externally... this discussion can easily be linked to from these external sources given some digging, and comments that are uncivil are definitely not things that we want to be adding to such an involved discussion... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:49, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Oshwah *sigh*. Do your homework before commenting. -- Colin°^Talk 11:41, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Colin ?? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:01, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Oshwah, not one of the claims you make about what I wrote are true. I said Floquenbeam "suggested vandalism" and "[had] a bright idea to vandalise images on Commons". The proposed changes "we" were incited to carry out, replacing the North Face logo with one of a competitor constitute COM:VANDALISM. Such an edit has the malicious (albeit naive and childish) intention of harming North Face and benefiting a competitor for revenge over the behaviour of one agency they use. It would certainly lead to a block on Commons if carried out at any scale or persistency. Please, do your homework, before criticising others. It is beyond tedious to have to waste time countering criticism that is clearly unfounded to anyone who takes some care to read. It distracts from important point, perhaps that is your intention, that any admin suggesting Wikipedians go to Commons to vandalise images for revenge, deserves the strongest possible criticism. -- Colin°^Talk 09:13, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Colin - Please accept my apologies. I believe I misread your statement, which led me to respond with the comment that I made. My intention is definitely not to try and distract people or pull them away from important points in this discussion by flooding it with non-important or non-relevant ones. Your response here has helped clear up what you were trying to say, and I appreciate it. Thank you. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:18, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Oshwah thanks. -- Colin°^Talk 11:57, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm tempted to ask for a community ban for the accounts involved, given the comments about the pt.wp checkuser results above and the fact that they were doing this because nobody on any project was paying any attention. We can't sstop it now, but this should send a strong message to anybody else considering black-hat SEO: We will make your ability to edit Wikipedia very difficult if not impossible if you refuse to act ethically. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 04:34, 30 May 2019 (UTC) \

I count six accounts that have been indeffed on both en and pt for WP:UPE violations, and one of them was also indeffed on Commons for sockpuppetry. - Eureka Lott 20:10, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Oh boy, that's not good to hear. I think we should keep an eye on this and see if more developments surface regarding sock puppetry and whether or not any of this continues. If it stops like The North Face said that it would, then it stops. If that's the case, then perfect... we can hopefully put this down as a really crappy incident on their part and begin to move on from this. If it doesn't and more issues surface, or if more accounts are created and used in this fashion, then that's obviously a completely different story and considering a formal ban would definitely be reasonable. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:45, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

• Note to TNF spammers: I currently own several TNF products (two jackets and a sleeping bag). I can't say I was likely to buy more any time soon (I'm happy with what I have), but now I'm definitely not going to. 173.228.123.207 (talk) 08:35, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

• While we're on the subject of things that look suspiciously like promotional/advertising content, may I direct some eyes to review Honda Ridgeline? -sche (talk) 00:07, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Article on The Verge

North Face tried to scam Wikipedia to get its products to the top of Google search

The company published their own video about how they used these photos to manipulate Wikipedia as a way to promote their products. They're basically bragging about it. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:28, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

The Register's headline is Egg on North Face: Wikipedia furious after glamp-wear giant swaps article pics for sneaky ad shots – and even brags about it in a video and the subhead is "'We hacked the results to reach one of the most difficult places: The top of the world’s largest search engine'". 92.19.26.27 (talk) 22:35, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Coverage has spread to many other outlets today, including The New York Times, The Guardian, and opinion commentary at places like Fast Company. - Sdkb (talk) 21:38, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Community ban for Gmortaia and any other employees or subcontractors of Leo Burnett Tailor Made (and the North Face)

Considering the blatant breach of trust here and the fact that they did their damnedest to try and fly under the radar as undisclosed paid editors, alongside the sockpuppetry here (to say nothing of Commons and Portuguese Wikipedia) I am proposing that any and all employees of Leo Burnett Tailor Made (and, per Javert2113 below, The North Face), including temps and subcontractors, be banned from editing the project in their official capacity, regardless of their disclosed status, with Gmortaia as the putative sockmaster. This is beyond unacceptable, and I don't trust them not to try it again given that it worked the first time around. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 20:51, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Support, with modifications: Quite frankly, I still believe our policy regarding any sort of paid editing (aside from Wikipedians-in-Residence) is far too lenient. If we are a volunteer project, shouldn't everyone be, you know, a volunteer? But that's a discussion for another time. In this case, matters like this indeed warrant a community ban. If I may offer an expanded version of the CBAN, as follows, as an alternative, perhaps: [A]ny and all employees of Leo Burnett Tailor Made and The North Face, including temps and subcontractors, be banned from editing the project in their official capacity, regardless of their disclosed status, with Gmortaia as the putative sockmaster. Is this acceptable? (Though it was Leo Burnett that orchestrated the ad campaign, it was done at the behest of The North Face, after all.) —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 22:25, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

I have little objection to it. After all, the North Face did specifically commission them for this. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 23:08, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

• Close this thread and stop giving the ad agency more attention. They did the stupid thing, they got their 15 minutes, it's been cleaned up, it's over, let's move on. – Levivich 04:16, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
  • No let's not. "Move on" is what politicians say when they've been caught with their hand in the cookie jar, while anyone else doing that would face consequences. There should be consequences here. 173.228.123.207 (talk) 18:34, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support a ban, but I'd prefer a ban to be cover a) the miscreants here in any capacity, and b) any and all employees of Leo Burnett Tailor Made and The North Face in an official capacity. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:16, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support a ban per BrownHairedGirl's line of reasoning. This is worth a community ban. SportingFlyer T·C 07:42, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

UTC)

• Support a ban. This was blatant, deliberate misuse of editing rights, done with no potential benefit to an encyclopedia. Simple COI posts often provide a useful inside view of a company or organization, for instance, and yet we routinely throw that baby out with the bathwater. Here, there ain’t no baby, and there never was intended to be. Qwirkle (talk) 15:27, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support a ban, if only for the symbolism. We need to tell other PR agencies and the outside world that this is not acceptable behavior. MER-C 20:31, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

• Go further, nothing against the ban proposal but I'd want us to take other measures as well. The Ad Age article implied that Wikipedia and Commons images automatically got boosted to the top of Google image search. Does anyone know how that happened and how we can make it stop? If we can't, then Google is abusing us too. We started delivering external links with rel=nofollow quite a few years ago after we got sick of SEO linkspam but apparently there is a similar issue with images that stayed quiet til now. We should find out how to get images out of Google and do it. There will be tons more of this otherwise.

  I'd also urge deindexing (for at least some months) of any mainspace articles associated with those brands, like we now deindex new articles. Wikipedia's web interface is supposed to be wikipedia.org and not Google, so we should treat search rank in these situations as a toxic byproduct (perverse incentive, attractive nuisance) rather than a valuable asset. We should be willing to eliminate it when it gets abused like this, to disincentivize the abusers. 173.228.123.207 (talk) 23:22, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

• The images are going to be on Commons' door, so there's nothing we can do on that front here. You'd have to discuss this at Commons. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 00:47, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

• Bori (or anyone), any idea how the North Face matter is being perceived over at Commons? I know they have more of an anything-goes culture than we do at times. Dealing with this search rank issue will probably make more difference than the (de facto symbolic) en.wp editing ban being discussed. Thanks. 173.228.123.207 (talk) 08:34, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

• It turns out that this dishonest bunch of spammers were, unsurprisingly, dishonest about the copyright status of the images as well. See c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by User:Fhpatucci and c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:The North Face Wikipedia advertising campaign. MER-C 09:43, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

• Support this proposal AND a Global Ban – The involved accounts are already Globally Locked for cross-wiki abuse (they targeted other Wikimedia sites as well), so might as well go for a Global Ban (though this will require a separate proposal on Meta wiki). The cross-wiki abuse and the extent of their manipulation/campaigning is absolutely unacceptable. The actions of The North Face accounts have completely violated the heart and soul of Wikipedia's core principles - there's absolutely no reason to let these guys hang around any longer. I support a Global Ban on this entity and any individuals associated with the likes of them. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 23:27, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
• Question does this proposal mean that any Wikipedian who is otherwise in good standing and an employee of either company is affected? Mjroots (talk) 16:49, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

  The ban would only affect them editing in their capacity as employees of LBTM or the North Face. In other words, they would be barred from editing on those companies' behalf or as part of a job assignment, but they would not be barred from editing in their personal capacity off company time. (And, of course, if those companies try to view this as a loophole, we'd be more than happy to topic-ban or block them once it became clear they were attempting to exploit it.) —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 18:30, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

  Support as clarified. Also support a global ban. Mjroots (talk) 08:20, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

  Those topic bans should be in place from the start. Otherwise the bans don't mean anything. They still won't, but at least they won't have such a huge hole. 173.228.123.207 (talk) 08:38, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Support also support a global ban And if we give them attention, fine. What we cannot do is ignore this.Slatersteven (talk) 10:04, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

• Support - so what if they are getting media attention, any benefit for the unethical company will be temporary and in any case should be irrelevant to Wikipedia. Blatant abusers such as these need to be community banned. --bonadea contributions talk 12:17, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
• Wishful anecdote I sometimes look at a big forum about a certain niche tech sub-industry. Lots of users are there buying and reviewing the industry's products (some positive reviews, some negative, all influence buying decisions), lots of vendors are there, and vendors are free to pitch their wares as long as they identify themselves. Sometimes a vendor will conceal their affiliation, pretend to be a user, and post glowing reviews of their own products or get users to shill for them. If a vendor is caught doing that, all the positive reviews of the company's products get deleted while the negative ones are left standing. Once that happened a few times, vendor behaviour tremendously improved.

  We probably can't quite do that here on Wikipedia, but it would sure be nice. That's the general effect we should be looking for. 173.228.123.207 (talk) 06:36, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

  This isn't a matter of improving their behaviour. This is a significant breach of Wikipedia's trust on par with what Wiki-PR did, if significantly more compressed. And, again, the campaign ultimately worked, if only briefly. (Their goal was to manipulate GIS, which they succeeded in doing.) It's highly unlikely the Wikipedia community writ large, and especially on pt.wp, Commons, and here, will ever have any significant level of confidence that they will actually adhere to Wikipedia's policies. The mea culpa is not enough, and to me comes across as "sorry we were jerks about it" as opposed to genuine contrition. We've seen this song and dance once before. We have no tolerance for a reimagining of a routine that pissed off the community so thoroughly the last time. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 07:56, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

  Yeah I understand about GIS--see my comment further up about wanting Commons to de-index those images from search engines. The point of the anecdote is that vendors who had their positive reviews nuked took a big enough financial hit that other vendors became far less likely to risk having that happen to them. We can't mess up our own content neutrality like that, but I'm all in favor of withholding search rank from TNF-related articles by deindexing them (that doesn't affect our content), as described above, to inflict some loss of search traffic on them. However, as you say, image search stuff apparently mostly has to be done at Commons, which confuses itself with Imgur enough to be unlikely to do anything. Oh well. 173.228.123.207 (talk) 08:19, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

  I would go further and say what it reads like is "sorry we were caught". It s also hard to see how we can have that kind of impact. Its not as if we can do anything that actually would hurt the company, beyond writing a really shiry article about them.Slatersteven (talk) 10:00, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

  Considering they boasted about it, I would not characterise it as a "sorry we were caught". —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 21:25, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

  I was referring to the subsequent "we are so sorry and will not do it again" comments.Slatersteven (talk) 22:07, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

  Oh we can, see further up. I'll write something more detailed tomorrow. I have to leave for the day shortly. 173.228.123.207 (talk) 15:37, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

  If you mean a boycott I could not support something akin to politicsing Wikipedia. We should not try to influence the real world.Slatersteven (talk) 15:46, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

  Agree with Slatersteven. In the 140 months I’ve been here, there are four months where I made zero edits. They were just after WP had a one-day protest over SOPA. I discussed this politicization of WP with the foundation and they assured me it would never happen again. We document – we don’t interfere. O3000 (talk) 15:58, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

  While individual editors may choose whether or not to boycott The North Face over this, under no circumstances should we attempt to influence everyone else into doing so. Promoting a boycott of a brand is just as non-neutral as any other sort of politicking, and unlike SOPA this isn't an existential threat to Wikipedia. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 21:28, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

  Of course we should try to influence the real world. And of course we already try to do that. We are an activist project with a radical agenda, to give a free encyclopedia to everyone in the world, overthrowing the traditional gatekeepers' control over knowledge. We were founded as part of the free culture movement which itself was radical in those days (more accepted now). NPOV is mainspace only. The SOPA blackout was the right thing to do (not everyone agrees, but quite a few do). If the traditional publishing lobby got legislation introduced in the US Congress to ban free encyclopedias, our articles about the legislation would have to stay scrupulously neutral, but it would be fine to repurpose the Main Page to urge people to march in the streets against it. Anyway I'll try to write a proposal tomorrow. Obviously it will have opponents, probably including you two. Maybe it will have some supporters besides me, maybe not. We'll see. 173.228.123.207 (talk) 09:03, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

  I think 173.228's suggestion of de-indexing the TNF (and ad agency) articles so we do not contribute to their Google ranking (if I understand the effect of de-indexing correctly) is a very interesting idea that the community should consider. It does not alter the content or neutrality of the article. It may actually have a deterrent effect. (And it's better than an entirely-symbolic site ban of some accounts that are already blocked and who's owners won't care about editing wikipedia anyway.) – Levivich 03:39, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

  Deindexing straight-up removes it from Google's (and all other engines that honour robots.txt) search results. And the main search wasn't what was being manipulated; Google Image Search was. Deindexing the article proper does nothing here. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 03:47, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

  I'd be interested to know whether the TNF article gets much placement in searches for ski equipment, parkas, camping gear, that sort of thing. If yes, de-indexing would drain some traffic from them. Re suggestions below: no we should not write a non-neutral article or "hit piece". I wouldn't want us (institutionally) to call for a boycott either (as crappy as this situation is, they are two-bit hucksters and we have bigger fish to fry). I hadn't thought of writing an article at all, but now that you mention it, there might be enough documentation by now to write a well-sourced and neutral article about the incident that passes GNG. That might be worth doing. 173.228.123.207 (talk) 09:22, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

  That there is enough sourcing is beyond question, but I would rather not have the article immediately, while everyone is still incensed about this, aince that will likely result in a hit piece. Hence my suggestion below to wait a bit before writing it, so there's distance between the event and the article, to allow people to calm down. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 20:09, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

  I'd rather have it sooner or later. I don't feel particularly incensed and don't particularly want to pound TNF out of anger toward them over the incident. They're just one more spammer (yawn), albeit one that discovered an interesting new vector. I want to pound them because I philosophically believe we should be more militant about this type of thing in general, and that showing our willingness to pound abusers will lessen the amount of such abuse we get. There was a similar thing with link spam (described further up), and implementing rel=nofollow some years back made a huge difference in lessening it. As Tom Lehrer once sang, "I am never forget the day". 173.228.123.207 (talk) 20:59, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

• Question/Suggestion Put special effort into making sure that North Face's gaming of the Wikipedia "system" gets well-documented in their Wikipedia Article[[123]], as a warning to other companies that might try it. The reason punishment is still around is because it works.Tym Whittier (talk) 04:15, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

  We're not going to write a hit piece to spite them, nor are we going to make this an outsized part of the articles on TNF and LBTM. This falls into the same issues as issuing boycotts in Wikipedia's voice; it's completely unacceptable. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 04:37, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

I suspected something like that, so thank you for citing exactly where/how it's wrong. It's why I put the word "question" in there. Is what they've done just natually notable?Tym Whittier (talk) 05:09, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

What they've done is already covered on Conflict-of-interest editing of Wikipedia, and frankly speaking given all the news articles it's likely it could become its own article once the emotions stop running so high, in the same manner as Wiki-PR editing of Wikipedia. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 08:42, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

• "Special effort" to emphasize a particular topic in a wider article is called WP:Undue weight and it conflicts with NPOV. We should not do that. The incident may be notable enough to deserve its own neutral article though. The relavant guideline would be WP:GNG, or maybe some more specialized related one. 173.228.123.207 (talk) 09:34, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

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

"Actresses" in "actors"

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 apologize, is the mass replacement of "actresse" for "actor" approved? [124] [125] [126] [127] [128] [129] [130] [131]

Earlier, I opposed a similar replacement at the request of a Third Opinion here User_talk:DalidaEditor#Dalida_actress/actor_revert. But I doubt the validity of my opinion because English is not my native language..--Nicoljaus (talk) 19:40, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't harm the encyclopaedia in any way; in English, a female actor is more likely to be called "actor" than "actress", though different national varieties of English may differ. It is not incorrect in any case. To me, that kind of systematic change doesn't seem to fill any function, but again, no harm done.

And it is not an administrator issue, since it's a content question, not a behavioural question. --bonadea contributions talk 19:55, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi Nicoljaus! The word "actress" is typically associated with a person who self-identifies as a female, and "actor" is associated with those who self-identify as males... but I'm also getting into "gender identity territory" as well as "national varieties of English" territory, which I'm by no means perfect at - especially in specific areas like this ('actor' vs 'actress'). In fact, I'd trust Bonadea's response over mine... :-) See Wikpedia's manual of style sections for established norms regarding gender identity, gender-neutral language, and national varieties of English for more information. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:58, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing by Aqooni

Aqooni has violated 3RR [132] [133] [134] [135] despite warning [136] and continues to reinstate misquoted and unsourced material. Aqooni has a long history of edit warring which led to them being warned by @EdJohnston: [137], and they were eventually blocked twice for violating 3RR [138].

The same editor has also engaged in WP:CANVASSING by selectively notifying a single editor and requesting them to provide support to their stance [139]. Shortly after being contacted on their talk page, MustafaO responded on Talk:Dilla Massacre and sided with Aqooni [140]. Koodbuur (talk) 13:00, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

• Edit warring and canvassing - I looked through your diffs. This does look like both have occurred: 3RR warning was ignored and then sympathetic user was canvassed. What is next after a user ignores 3RR warning? WP:3RR states:"Editors violating 3RR will usually be blocked for 24 hours for a first incident" Regarding the canvassing - a warning is likely in order for WP:VOTESTACK Lubbad85 (☎) 21:41, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Aqooni here, you can see the interaction between the Administrator Oshwah (talk)

( that blocked Koodbuur (talk)), and myself, here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Aqooni#Dilla_Massacre, the Administrator recognized that I was acting in good intentions, and made attempts to communicate. Afterwards, I also asked another well known user to provide consensus towards the page in question as seen here consensus 1 , and just now, asked a second user, here consensus 2. These are 2 random users, I seen editing Somali pages and thought their insight could help with the talk page discussion. I'm not sure who else I was supposed to ask regarding this issue.

I highly suspect I am just being reported now, as a type of tit for tat, because this user Koodbuur (talk) was blocked for 36 hours. During Koodbuur (talk) edit warring, which he was blocked for 1, I indicated to him on my first edit to use the talk page 2, which he did not do, and left a message on his talk page about his edit warring here 3, and then finally reported him to Wikipedia here 4 , when he was then since blocked. I acted in good faith to the best of my ability. Aqooni (talk) 05:19, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Legal threat made by editor who identifies as a lawyer

Can someone please let Quaerens-veritatem know that telling an editor (me) that my "attacks" (?) are "actionable libel" is unacceptable, particularly from an editor who identifies as a lawyer on their User page? Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 12:06, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I am not sure how much of a threat it was, but I have left them a note about the policy.Slatersteven (talk) 12:22, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

However I think there may be other issues, their obsession with removing a wikilink seems odd and misplaced. They do have some attitude problems.Slatersteven (talk) 12:26, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

The term "actionable libel" comes from the statement made by Quaerens-veritatem with their edit here: "In my view, your unseemly, horrid, unnecessary, and bizarre attacks are so far beyond Wikipedia's standards as to need quashing through a minimum of blocking, if not actionable libel as folks know me by my online name." In this context, I would say that the "actionable libel" term used in the comment implies that it means or refers to libel that is legally actionable via a lawsuit. I don't believe that the user blatantly crossed the line and directly made a legal threat that's actionable beyond a warning (as of the time of this writing and assuming no other comments are made by the user that adds more NLT concerns), but the statement could definitely leave a chilling effect and be interpreted by some (if not many) to be intending to do this. I'll also leave a warning for this user regarding WP:NLT and set expectations with them that this not continue. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:51, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done. The diff of my warning message is here. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:02, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Off-wiki attacks and meat puppetry by User:Fwaig

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.

---

WP:PW has been the subject of various controversies both on and off Wikipedia. Many from [REDACTED - Oshwah] have participated in wrestling discussions in the past. User:Fwaig has created multiple posts on [REDACTED - Oshwah] recently attacking Wikipedia editors and encouraging others to do the same.

• [REDACTED - Oshwah]
• [REDACTED - Oshwah]
  • "Some asshole moderator on a power trip"
  • "Stop being cunts wiki mods, you've already wrecked plenty of the wrestling section you absolute wank pheasants."
• [REDACTED - Oshwah]
  • "Give them pages you cowards!"

JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:00, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Let them complain on [REDACTED - Oshwah] - unless they do something beyond the pale, such as dox people, there's nothing actionable here beyond making sure the meatpuppetry doesn't become a major issue. (And there's a few people on those threads who are trying to be a voice of reason as opposed to just raging.) —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 00:33, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Nobody ever called me a pheasant before. Is that a compliment or an insult? I will keep an eye open for hunters with shotguns, at least during pheasant season. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:49, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

lol User:Cullen328 I agree it makes sense to ignore. Lubbad85 (☎) 19:30, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

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

Is WP:FOLLOWING only limited to editing in direct opposition? Isn't following another around the 'pedia, when in conflict, also creepy and inappropriate?

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.

---

Resolved

New, but experienced-acting account, SolarStorm1859 (lostpwd) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) initially came into conflict with myself and Indigenous girl on the Indigenous intellectual property article, editing under a few different IPs. He then followed some of my edits with those IPs. He did not edit in direct opposition, but it was a bit discomfiting to see him following me around the 'pedia like that, editing in my wake. More recently, he has followed over to conflicts on Order of the Arrow. Now he is following myself, and Indigenous girl around the 'pedia to totally unrelated articles, editing shortly after us.

Editor Interaction Tool: CorbieVreccan followed by SolarStorm1859 (lostpwd)

Editor Interaction Tool: Indigenous girl followed by SolarStorm1859 (lostpwd)

The edits are not in violation of the strict letter of WP:HOUNDING, in that he is not reverting either of our work. Most of the edits so far are filling in references. Filling in refs is helpful, so initially I said nothing. But it really has become excessive and now it's crossing the line. It is creepy to be followed around the 'pedia this way, especially by someone who is currently in active conflict on other articles. Someone else's contribs should not be a user's watchlist. Today, he followed both of us to an essay that a small handful of us from the Indigenous wikiproject are building - a page that isn't even in mainspace yet - as well as to obscure articles like Leslie Feinberg where a small group of us are sorting out pronoun issues on the 'pedia. None of this would be known to him without hounding our contribs. I think all of this violates the spirit of WP:HOUNDING and he needs to stop. I also think we should put something in the policy about this kind of WP:FOLLOWING, while technically neutral editing, still feeling like surveillance and potentially stressing out other editors.

I went to his talk page and asked him to stop. He not only refused to stop, but promptly escalated the behavior, played dumb, and then wikilawyered. I would like an uninvolved admin or other experienced editors to step in here. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 23:24, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

SolarStorm, maybe don't follow those two around from article to article? It's just a bit much. El_C 23:38, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Just like any other policy or guideline that exists on Wikipedia, we follow the spirit of the rule, not just the letter of the rule. SolarStorm may not be violating the letter and written form of the policy by reverting edits in a disruptive manner, but is definitely violating the spirit of the policy by following others around. Abiding by the letter of a policy or guideline while violating its spirit or underlying principles constitutes gaming the system, and users can be held accountable and blocked for this. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:53, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I'll stop going through the contribs of these two. But next time I want to improve an article and it happens to be one that CorbieVreccan or Indigenous girl edited earlier, should I not touch it or should I just go ahead and improve the encyclopedia anyway. SolarStorm1859 (lostpwd) (talk) 23:52, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

SolarStorm1859 (lostpwd) - Edit the article as you would and improve the encyclopedia. Just don't actively follow editors around from article to article and edit them because they're doing so. That's where you're crossing the line... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:54, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I was just looking for articles that needed improvement. I was using their contribs history as a list of random articles to check for errors/possible improvements. I wish there was some feature where I could be redirected to a random page without having to use someone's contribs history. SolarStorm1859 (lostpwd) (talk) 00:06, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

SolarStorm1859 (lostpwd) - You're in luck, because there is a feature that does that! See Special:RandomPage. :-) It's also a link located on the left navigation labeled "random article". It will take you to a random article every time you go there. :-D ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:09, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Yup, it's in the left-hand column of every page on the 'pedia. Fifth hotlink down from the WP logo. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 00:15, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Or just a little further down, the "Recent changes" link. Meters (talk) 00:18, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

"Recent changes" (as Meters said) definitely works too if you want to shoot around to random pages from a list of changes that happened recently. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:20, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 4) Even better and more random than anyone's contribs! Don't know how I missed that link on the side of the page. Thank you! SolarStorm1859 (lostpwd) (talk) 00:23, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

SolarStorm1859 (lostpwd) - Now that you have some links and resources to explore Wikipedia on your own, can we consider this matter closed? Will you promise to keep out of trouble and stop with the shenanigans? :-) CorbieVreccan - If SolarStorm1859 agrees, would you also consider this matter resolved (with the condition that SolarStorm1859 doesn't continue of course)? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:25, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

yes SolarStorm1859 (lostpwd) (talk) 00:30, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Great. CorbieVreccan? What about you? :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:34, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I am wary... SolarStorm has been like this for quite a while. With the initial IP editing, he would seem to be implying he was different people, then when I saw the same patterns, make an about-face and admit it was him and pretend he'd always admitted it was all him. He has been very difficult to deal with. I don't think this is the last time we'll be here. I hope he'll listen to you, but he hasn't listened to anyone else he's disagreed with. As long as other admins help us keep an eye on him, I'm willing to move forward with caution, BUT...

I actually forgot to put the ANI notice on Indigenous girl's page until just a few minutes ago. She doesn't seem to be on the 'pedia right now, so I've dropped her an email. As this has effected her, too, I would prefer we wait to close this until she has had a chance to weigh in. I think she will make an effort to get online before too long. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 00:41, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

I was just about to close it, but okay, I'll wait. I'll tag it as resolved in the meantime. El_C 00:46, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

I just got home and read an email from Corbie directing me here due to SolarStorm1859 (lostpwd) following us around. I have not gone to see which or how many articles they did this with. In going through our contribs I'm sure they at least looked at the Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women article where they would have seen that this week ended a long term investigation into the treatment of indigenous women in Canada and the release of a very long, indepth two volume report. It is so unbelievably disturbing that they would time this creepy behavior pattern at this time. This isn't simply looking for random articles to edit. One can easily come up with articles if one is unable to find the random article generator. How about harpsicord, cordoroy, Air Force, Ford Motor Company, meteor shower. That was pretty easy. This to me feels like very intentional intimidation on order to harass and potentially drive two editors from Wikipedia. Indigenous girl (talk) 00:57, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Well, it's a good thing you're both made of sturdier stuff! Anyway, they promised not to do it again. If they do inexplicably continue, please let us know again on this board, or drop me and Oshwah a line, personally. We will deal with it post haste. El_C 01:04, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Yup, I second what El C said above. If this unambiguously continues at any time from this point on, file another ANI report or let El C or myself know and we will be happy to put a kibosh to it. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:17, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

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

Simple case

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.

---

Longer ban needed for 107.77.161.11 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), obviously WP:NOTHERE per previous blocks. Cards84664 (talk) 02:01, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

why?Slatersteven (talk) 09:42, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Because almost all the edits, over years, are vandalism--Ymblanter (talk) 12:12, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done, blocked for a year.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:12, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

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

Delay at Oversight?

I emailed WP:OVERSIGHT over an hour ago. The offending edit is still visible. DuncanHill (talk) 14:21, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Sandbox Fixation Sonicfan200530/JohnSmith13345

I have concerns about the fixation editors User:Sonicfan200530 and User:JohnSmith13345 have with the sandbox. You may remember that Sonicfan200530 had an Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents post a few days ago (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1009) complaining about vandalism in the Sandbox. This seemed unusual to me as the point of the Sandbox is to test edits and nothing placed there remains for long. I observed their edit history and JohnSmith13345 who appear to be regulars and both have the majority of their edits in the Sandbox, multiple times edit-warring over changes. Neither editor, JohnSmith13345 especially, have extensive edits outside of the Sandbox. I have no proof, but the interactions between the two editors seems to indicate that they know each other in real life, and perhaps are younger editors. I posted a request on Sonicfan200530's talk page to not try to police the Sandbox and got my comment changed to "Harassment" and then reverted. I am not the only one with concerns, as User:Ponyo and User:Davey2010 have also tried to talk to Sonicfan200530 and have been met with hostility and claims of vandalism. I do not have a sanction request in mind, only that this behavior have more eyes on it and maybe somebody could mentor them. 2001:4898:80E8:3:EA0D:C14:20AB:DA9 (talk) 17:26, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I was just crafting another message to Sonicfan200530 when I received this notification. They continue to blank editors and bots in the sandbox almost exclusively to any other edits that actually serve to improve the encyclopedia. At first glance I thought that they were perhaps making the bizarre edits to game EC-protection, but their responses to concerns raised regarding their edits lead me to believe this is more of a CIR issue.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:32, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I do not physically know any Wikipedians in the real world, nor do I have any personal connections with any Wikipedians. I cannot make any statements about User:Sonicfan200530. JohnSmith13345 (talk) 17:35, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I've indeffed Sonicfan200530 as NOTHERE. I already told them in the last ANI thread to stop doing this.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:36, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Was just to support this with diffs etc but no need now, Many thanks Bbb23 for doing the honours & thanks 2001 for the ping.. –Davey2010^Talk 17:40, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate the prompt response @Bbb23: but I would also look at JohnSmith13345's edits, as they are almost entirely on the sandbox as well. 2001:4898:80E8:3:EA0D:C14:20AB:DA9 (talk) 17:50, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Do you see any similarity to Sonic's edits? After all, editors do edit the sandbox.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:03, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, otherwise I would have not brought it up. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/JohnSmith13345&dir=prev&offset=20190603131138&target=JohnSmith13345 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/JohnSmith13345&offset=20190603131406&target=JohnSmith13345 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/JohnSmith13345&offset=20190524114235&target=JohnSmith13345 I do not know how to look at the percentage of edits an editor edits a particular page but it appears to be the majority. If you do not feel it is actionable, I will not object. I am just concerned. 2001:4898:80E8:3:EA0D:C14:20AB:DA9 (talk) 18:10, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Sorry but that doesn't show any similarity in their edits. I already know that they both edit the sandbox.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:24, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Understood, I will not continue this. 2001:4898:80E8:3:EA0D:C14:20AB:DA9 (talk) 18:31, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

This is strictly coincidental and I have absolutely no affiliation with Sonicfan200530. JohnSmith13345 (talk) 18:20, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

User:WikiUni - WP:CIR issue?

WikiUni (talk · contribs) has been editing Wikipedia since 2009, but apparently still doesn't understand its rules, especially around WP:COPYVIO and non-free images. WikiUni's talk page is a giant wall of warnings, which would have been much longer, had WikiUni not deleted many warnings:[141][142][143][144][145]. WikiUni may have also edited as 112.201.85.147 (talk · contribs · WHOIS); WikiUni deleted similar warnings from that IP's talkpage:[146] WikiUni was blocked for non-free uploads in 2010. Today, WikiUni created an article that had to almost immediately be moved back to Draft space. WikUni then recreated the article in main space. Both the draft and the article had to be purged of copyright violations, which were most of the article(s).[147][148]. WikUni has made perhaps a half-dozen talk page comments. I submit that WikiUni is a WP:CIR issue. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:23, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Jayjg - Wow... that's a lot of copyright warnings for one user to receive. I also see that this user was blocked back in 2010 for repeated copyright violations involving the uploading of non-free images. I believe that the best solution to this is to start holding WikiUni accountable for each violation of copyright that they add to Wikipedia from here on out, and beginning now. These are serious violations that have been ongoing for years; we just haven't been enforcing it with this user and with proper actions in response. Because of the numerous warnings this user has received in the past for copyright violations, I applied a 24 hour block to this account for their creation of Tiyanak (film) today that included text copied straight from external sources that were copyrighted. I think that from here on out, any further violations to Wikipedia's copyright policies should be met with longer blocks (24 hours - which I've applied now, then 72 hours, 1 week, 1 month?, indefinite). This user has had many opportunities to learn the policies, ask questions, and receive help. I'm absolutely willing to help the user if they ask; otherwise, we need to stick to strict enforcement with WikiUni moving forward and without any further warnings... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:17, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

@Oshwah: The second copy of the article appears to still be in mainspace? Should I just redirect it to the draft? (Sometimes I rescue these things, but I haven't the time right now to look for sources.) Yngvadottir (talk) 19:41, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Yngvadottir - Whoops! Forgot about that other article... Yes, please do! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:51, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Adding false information to articles

Last month user:Forest90 was adding false information to international politics-related articles. It looks like he's at it again (replacing "Iraqi" with "Baathist", which is not supported by the sources):

• [149]
• [150]
• [151]
• [152]

User was also previously warned to stop [153]. Alex-h (talk) 23:14, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Okay, that's clearly wrong, but it's been two days and they haven't reverted back to it. El_C 23:20, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi. I don't understand why @Alex-h: make everything's personal? I tried to improve some article in wikipedia but it's look like @Alex-h: don't like anybody comes here and work on article, specially the article that I have worked. I had a problem about using correct phrase with some user's. The Baathist and Saddam Hussein's Army is equal in many Article and book and sources. But I finally decided to use Iraqi Army as the sources said. So, in this discussion about using better word inside the Article, user Alex-h had never participated and I can't recognize why he/she trying to open for me a subject here and for solved problem??? It is not fair for daily problem and issue which happen for every user, start a fight here...Forest90 (talk) 08:25, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Forest90 - The reason that Alex-h created this discussion here about your edits to Operation Forty Stars is because the references cited in the article do not match what you're repeatedly changing the content to state. This is problematic, as your changes not only contradict the references that are already cited in the article, but your edits don't cite any references or sources at all to support your changes. Doing this repeatedly is disruptive, and if done repeatedly despite numerous warnings and requests asking you to stop - can lead to administrative action (usually blocks). Please assume good faith and don't jump to believing that Alex-h is doing this to be personal or to give you a hard time (unless you have diffs to show concrete evidence of this). Instead, you should continue to discuss the content-related matter with Alex-h on the article's talk page properly and respectfully, and come to an agreement. Until an agreement is made, please don't edit or revert the article and add the same content back. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:06, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

As you, ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)}, can see, in article the user Alex-h never participated and he/she suddenly decided to create a subject here, he/she did this act before too. Is it usual? he didn't talk to me about article changes and suddenly comes here and open a subject to open a fight against me... Is really normal Wikipedia user act?!!! Because I have never seen a user like Alex-h. All his/her work against me is an emotional response, this user, if you go and see Article history, never participated in discussions or helped to improve the Article or something else, but he/she had a strong resume in many article and places in Wikipedia for fighting against another writer or editor or user. I hope you understand me, I tried to expand that Article and somebody frequently changing my work. First I think they tried to change facts, but after opening a new subject in Article talk page, I found that I was wrong and I changed my mind. But it's very weird that a outside user, without any comment in main subject, open a subject against me here. I hope the Administer group, see the Alex-h act as a vandal and punish him/her. I changed my viewpoint about Baathist and Iraqi army as the sources said (I added that sources and expanded the article), but I can't understand Alex-h role in this subject. He/she only make everything personal and quickly open a new subject here for what?Forest90 (talk) 10:52, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Forest90 - If Alex-h did not discuss this with you (either on the article's talk page or on your user talk page) at all before creating this ANI discussion, then yes - I would say that going straight to an ANI before doing so is premature. We always encourage and ask users to discuss issues and problems directly with the other(s) involved before coming here and after such discussions have shown to be to no avail. However, making accusations toward Alex-h about his actions being an "emotional response", him having a "strong resume in many article (sic) and places in Wikipedia for fighting against another writer or editor or user", and his edits being attempts to "change facts" - and without any kind of evidence, links, diffs, etc is not acceptable to do. All accusations must supply sufficient evidence in order to support them. Alex-h, did you discuss this issue with Forest90 directly at all before coming here to create this ANI report? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:08, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)}, He never discussed me about this subject or last subject that he/she opened here. And this is not fair, I'm a Wikipedia user, I'm not a newbi, I always tried to improve Wikipedia Article and I created some Article before. I saw many user in many sensitive subject, but this kind of behavior of Alex-h is really weird. He/she twice opened to subject directly here without any discussion in my talk page or the article talk page. If I make a mistake in any of my work or article, it's not personal or I do this for my pleasure. It's only a mistake, when an user didn't say why deleting my work, I will revert it (because I don't know why he/she did that and I consider it as vandal), but many of my mistake or other user mistake solved after they discussed about that, as you can see I didn't revert the Article word to Baathist after had heard the other user (who frequently deleted my work and didn't explain why) reasons. But I beg you, saw the Article history, please search about the last subject that Alex-h opened against me here, he never discussed me or speak out about that with me. He/She comes here and open a subject against me to persuade you to act against me or block me. I don't know, but it's obvious vandal against another user. That two user which were reverting my edit and I reverted their edit, never opened a subject in article talk page to explain their reason for their revert, finally I opened and after discussion I found their right and I have not revert the Iraqi Army to Baathist since 3 days ago. But Alex-h wasn't there, never commented there, directly comes here and opened a subject against me. It's completely unfair.Forest90 (talk) 11:34, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Last month I noticed Forest90 adding false information to articles about Middle East politics, a subject I edit on Wikipedia. The information Forest90 was adding was false and, at least to me, of slanderous nature. I brought this to ANI (which I wasn't sure was the right noticeboard for this at the time). Instead of accepting or repenting, Forest90 accused me of "personal attacks". This led to several editors explaining to Forest90 that adding false content to Wikipedia was not ok: [154] [155][156]

Now, I noticed Forest90 also adding false information to the Operations 40 Stars article, and saw that user:PersianFire had [157] warned him to stop, but Forest90 continued, so I didn't see a reason to pile on to PersianFire's warning. The user was aware that what he was doing was disruptive, and continued to do this repeatedly. Alex-h (talk) 12:06, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} can you Check out the Alex-h claim. I beg you. This is really vandalism. He/She attached four link in his/her claim, in non of them he/she never opened a subject in my talk page or article talk page, even he didn't participate in non of them, only directly comes here and open a fight against me. It's not Wikipedia way, I know. He used some of my discussion with other users to condemn me!!!! That's the correct way which I used, I opened a RFC in related article, because I taught for a well sourced subject should exist at least a paragraph inside the article, but the other users said no and I respected them and finished the discussion, it's a normal manner inside Wikipedia. Alex-h mentioned the user, PersianFire, discussed with me and I accepted this user reason, but before this discussion that I had created it, the user only removed my edit, and didn't explain why, it was his/her mistake that without any reason deleted my edit, finally I opened a subject in Article talk page to communicate them. If you look and think, you will see the Alex-h never participated on them, only comes here and open a fight against me, he/she comes to Wikipedia to see what I am doing or where I am speaking with another user, harshly comes here to open a fight against me and make it completely personal. I didn't open this subject But I ask you to consider my comment seriously and knock up the real vandalism user. When I'm working to write a new Article or thinking how to improve some article with adding phrase or sentences or paragraph or adding needed citation to article, Alex-h looking me to find a subject and comes here and open a fight against me, without speaking with me before. Please, I beg you to open All of links that Alex-h sent here, you will understand what am I saying. It's second time which this user trying to use another user emotion against me, and I have not understood why? But I hope you find me and let me to ask you see the Alex-h user as a Vandalism.Forest90 (talk) 12:50, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)}, I forgot to say something. If you look, the user, Alex-h, pinned the other user who I discussed them inside the talk page of article, user:PersianFire, to invite him/her to comes here and comment against me. You Are the ADMIN, You can recognize who is real vandal and hurt Wikipedia. Thanks.Forest90 (talk) 13:14, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Forest90 - I need diff links, man... You can't just make accusations toward another editor and ask me to go searching through that editor's contributions in order to find what you're accusing him/her of... You need to provide links to the actual edits that support exactly what you're trying to say. What policies and guidelines have Alex-h violated? What diff links can you list that support your accusations? Keep it short and simple so that I can easily follow what you're saying... Else, I (as well as any other admin) won't be able to help you... If you're confused at all about what I'm asking you to provide, let me know and I'll be happy to explain. :-) Thanks - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:24, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:24, 6 June 2019 (UTC), what link should I give you. The Alex-h opened the fight subject, which I wasn't agree, if he don't like my article or my edit, or see I made a mistake in my edit, he should open a new subject and discuss me in my talk page or article talk page, not here. He/she inserted four link for his/her claim, look them, in non of them he/she never participated. He opened a fight here against me and inserted four link which show I spoke another user and accepted other user comment. NOW, it's me who should find diff link to show he/she never spoke with me about the subject. You find the Alex-h claim usual? He/she must spoke with me in my talk page or article talk page, not coming here and open a subject against me. If all another user do this and for every subject comes here and call you, is it correct one?! He/she inserted four link which show in non of them he participated and I spoke with other user and accept their comment and idea. So why am I here?!!! Where was Alex-h, the user who opened a fight against me if he bothered or was against my edit?!!!Forest90 (talk) 13:37, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Forest90 - If you're making accusations including the ones I quoted in my response above, then yes - you need to provide evidence for that. You obviously can't show diffs to support a lack of edits. :-) There are issues with what you're trying to say in rebuttal here... The argument you're making that Alex-h didn't edit the articles or pages involved in the diffs he provided in this ANI report doesn't matter at all and is completely irrelevant. Why would he have to do that in order to file a report here and express concerns to the community? That doesn't make sense. The other argument you're making that Alex-h didn't discuss these concerns with you directly first before creating this ANI, while discouraged (if this is true - Alex-h has said otherwise in a response above), doesn't automatically nullify the ANI report and cause it to close without a further look. We sometimes do this, but that's a judgment call by the patrolling or responding administrator and it's made on a case-by-case basis... Yes, I understand that it's frustrating to suddenly see an ANI discussion created about you and while feeling that you weren't talked to first. I get that... really, I do! But we need to move past these arguments and talk about the issue itself. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:50, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I understand you, ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)}, But I ask you How can I provide a diff link to show the Alex-h didn't talk to me in my talk page or article talk page when it's never exist?He/she claimed I edited and added false information and given you four link, which you open them you will find I had started a RFC in a talk page and finally accepted other user comment. The only claim that I say against Alex-h is the user who should noticed for vandal is Alex-h not me, because He/she must talk about my edit or article in my talk page or article talk page, but he/she open a subject here, give you some link that you can find for every other user in Wikipedia and call me vandalism or some body who try to insert false information inside Wiki Article. He open a subject against me here for second time, maybe he/she like to open against all of my work a new subject here. I typed here near one or two Article length, without doing anything, and now asking you stop this user, Alex-h, maybe he decided to open a new subject against me every month. It's not fair I come here and explain you that I didn't do anything or vandalism and he/she seat there and watch me. It's not fair. I don't have any link against Alex-h or I didn't try to accusing him/her, I just said this user act for opening a subject here against me is more look like vandal not my act that added some information or started a RFC.Forest90 (talk) 14:13, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Alex-h, Forest90 - Now that you're both here, why don't you two take this discussion to another place and sort this out between yourselves? Forest90 feels that he wasn't contacted first before this ANI report was filed, and I believe that Alex-h just wants to resolve this matter and for the issues and problems to stop. I think that this is the perfect stopping point for continuing the discussion here, and the perfect opportunity to move this to a relevant talk page. Where do you two want to continue this discussion? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:27, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I always ready to speak with other user about my work and edit or my mistake. This is Alex-h who open a subject here. I respect you admin, ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)}, but I'm not sure it's work, because if Alex-H wanted to speak with me, he/she did it. It's second times he comes here to solve some usual problems in a weird manner. I was hoping this time you do something that stop this kind of Alex-h act against me or other user...I always ready for negotiations with another user and Always accept my fault. Thank you Admin.Forest90 (talk) 14:38, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Forest90 - Let's not hold grudges or doubt against Alex-h and assume that he'll do what's asked here (unless he has reasons against it, which he would add in a response here). Talk this over with Alex-h, find a location to discuss this matter that works for the both of you, and work together to resolve this in a civil matter and without any negative assumptions or grudges about the past. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:45, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

OK,Thanks ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)}.Forest90 (talk) 14:49, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Last time Forest90 spinned his adding false information to Wikipedia into it being a "personal attack" against him, and it worked for him, so is doing the same thing here again. Nevermind he falsely represented the sources repeatedly, that's surely not the problem here. Alex-h (talk) 15:10, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Alex-h - Try and discuss the issues and work things out with Forest90 as I suggested. If things don't come to a resolution and if Forest90 continues repeatedly making the same edits with issues after this discussion attempt, let one of us know and we can take action from there. I'm trying to suggest a solution that is mutually acceptable to both of so that we can at least try to work together and toward helping Forest90 to stop making the problematic edits you described in this discussion. Can you try and do this? Please? So that there's no room for push-back if the issues continue? :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:36, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Of course. Thank you for your advice. I will follow it. Alex-h (talk) 23:20, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

• I have seen Forest and tried to help him with spelling and grammar. I can say he is editting in good faith. Alex made this report without discussing the issue with him in the talk page or in his talk page. If Alex-h made a similar report again I would suggest a one way IBAN for Alex per WP:Boomerang.--SharabSalam (talk) 15:25, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

• Okay, that's not gonna happen. Good faith is not a license to edit in a manner that is disruptive or incompetent. There was already another Incidents report (archive) about this user's subpar editing. Hopefully, this one will resonate. El_C 17:13, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, your suggestion is wayyyy far off as El C said above... :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:30, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Editor trying to link Musylimah with Hanifism + personal attacks + inflammatory language in the 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.

---

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

Hanif (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This editor is trying to link Musylimah and Hanifism using a self-publishing source. He also put a tag saying the article has Muhammadan/Islamist POV. I reverted his edits and he said something like "returned tag removed by bad faith editor" [158] I sent him a warning but then in the talk page he said this "I can see a couple of edits I made on Hanif related topics to lean them away from the current heavily biased Muhammedan/Islamist point of view (to which yuo have restored them) in some such articles have offended your fundamental religiosity for which I apologise. At the same time the heavy Muhammedan/Islamist POV will eventually have to be edited out of such articles. If not by a coward like me then by someone with more backbone. Unless of course Muhammedans come to dominate the world, in which case wikipedia will become the principle propaganda tool for that agenda. But hopefully that time is still very far away yet." He also added pagan to the short description and there is almost nothing related to Paganism except that in Syriac inscription the term Hanif meant worshipping idols. There is no relationship between Hanif and Musylimah. Musylimah was from a tribe called Banu Hanifa that should not be confused with Hanif. there is absolutely no source that support that. He also misrepresent the sources. After the discussion he reverted saying "restored deleted content" I reverted saying that there is no consensus, he then said "Reverted Islamist censorship" Special:Diff/901034013.. See the here Talk:Hanif#Heavy POV Bias for more references.--SharabSalam (talk) 07:52, 9 June 2019 (UTC) (Edit conflict)

I also want to note that I am going to travel right now to a place where there is no network. I will be back after 18/June/2019 as I noted here I didn't want to start this thread but because of personal attacks I couldn't stop. I might not be able to resposd.--SharabSalam (talk) 08:09, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

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

User:ArtistH - COI, CopyVio, and unsourced BLPs

Apologies if this is the wrong place - I've not used this noticeboard before but spotted a pattern of behavior which I am not sure I can keep up with. User:artistH is creating a lot of short, unsourced BLPs of artists. From checking a couple, they seem to be direct copy-pastes of artist profiles from here https://kristinhjellegjerde.com/artists/. I suspect there is a connection between the 'Artist H' and the owner of that site, given the initial. So it seems that aside from the copyvio, there is also a problem with a COI, and of course the fact of creating a bunch of BLPs that almost certainly do not meet notability standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hugsyrup (talk • contribs) 16:13, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Just policed a page that has these very issues Christina Banban, but I am not sure any more then a warning is needed about COI..Slatersteven (talk) 16:19, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, you may be right - just conscious that these pages are being created literally by the minute. Three more just since I posted this discussion. Hugsyrup (talk) 16:21, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

(ec) You are right here. I have yust taggedAndrè Hemer for speedy deletion as acopyright infringement andChristina Banbanfor WP:BLPPROD.Looking at his talkpage, these arenot the only one. This has to stop, because both copyright infringements and BLP violations can lead to legal problems. I suggest a temporary block for BLP violations and violations of the copyright policy.Jannik Schwaß (talk) 16:26, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Given the lack of prior warning (and AGF) it may be they are not aware this is an issue.Slatersteven (talk) 16:29, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) User appears to have been blocked 31 hours by Sphilbrick. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 16:46, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Edit-warring at RT (TV network)

RT (TV network) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

While on holidays, I noticed (I do not remember how to be honest) the edit-warring whoch started with this edit which I believe to be pointed. The topic is very sensitive, and was discussed multiple times (though not this particular formulation, just merely a general propaganda issue) multiple times at the talk page (search archives for "propaganda"). When I was there, Galassi already had two reverts, and Ahrtoodeetoo was at the initial revert plus two. I reverted them inviting to the talk page discussion. That was pretty much the only thing I could do on an ipad and without much time available, but in the hindsight it was a bad decision, since Ahrtoodeetoo now believes I am a party in this content dispute (though I never made my position clear, and generally I prefer making administrative actions in EE area rather than participating in disputes). Still, my edit was reverted by El komodos drago, they were reverted by Galassi, and they were reverted by Ahrtoodeetoo. Apparently, Ahrtoodeetoo and El komodos drago before starting the reverts has a discussion on the talk page, which did only attract them and one IP who disagreed with them (see Talk:RT (TV network)#Misleading wording about misleading content). Today, noticing the development, I went to the talk page Ahrtoodeetoo, asking to self-revert and have a proper discussion at the talk page (possibly opening an RfC). The summary of their response was that they believe consensus has been achieved at the talk page, and they are reverting to establish this consensus. They refused to self-revert. They also took my warning as "threats" and said they will ask for a boomerang, which I am sure they will do after I notify them of this topic. Still, I find the situation completely unacceptable, and it has to be resolved somehow.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:17, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Not sure why this isn’t at AN3. Seems that El komodos drago and Ahrtoodeetoo have discussed on the TP and Galassi’s presence has been repeatedly requested to no avail. I would think the proper course would be to ask Galassi to participate at their TP. O3000 (talk) 18:37, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Technically none of the users made four reverts within 24h. AN3 admins routinely decline such requests.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:47, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Three reverts over a five day period to enforce a talk page consensus is "completely unacceptable?" Really? This is truly a black-is-white allegation. I don't understand how such an experienced editor can have a simple situation like this quite so upside-down. For some reason they refuse to acknowledge that this issue has already been raised on the talk page at Talk:RT (TV network)#Misleading wording about misleading content. They come to my user talk asking that I discuss this matter at article talk, citing as evidence one of my diffs in which I refer to the existing talk page discussion ("See talk."). Huh? On top that, they're the one reverting while not discussing. Yet they insist they're above the fray and ask me not to "drag" them into this content dispute....double huh? I'm totally baffled. R2 (bleep) 18:50, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

So I should have protected the article and blocked you for edit-warring rather than reverting to the pre-war version? As a hindsight, this seems indeed to be a better solution.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:10, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

I really don't understand this escalation. As you say, no one even broke 3RR and Galassi is the editor that refused to discuss. O3000 (talk) 19:13, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Ymblanter, even if I broke some rule, which I didn't, you could not block me over this because you are involved. R2 (bleep) 19:19, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Look, seriously. A second before I made that edit I was not involved. The very fact that after having made four reverts in this article you still think that your behavior agrees with our policies is the very reason why I brought you here.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:32, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Sure, and Even if you were not previously involved, you became involved the moment you made that revert. Now, I want diffs of my four reverts, please. R2 (bleep) 19:48, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

One edit and two reverts before I edited the article, and one more after I edited this. I am sorry to say this but you are wikilawyering right now. This might be understandable in your situation, but does not help. If you have said in the very beginning "I am sorry, this was not my best behavior, I will (for example) revert my edit, wait for two days until Galassi responds at the talk page, reintroduce the edit if they do not, and if they revert again without responding take them to ANI", you have not even been here.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:08, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Diffs please, or else this is just harassment. Because there were only 3 reverts. And I engaged in exemplary behavior, thank you very much. It's inapporpriate to let the aritcle be held hostage by editors who revert but do not join the existing discussion. That includes you. And speaking of less-than-best behavior, you know as well as anyone that you don't come to ANI with meandering complaints that do not include diffs of misconduct. R2 (bleep) 21:42, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)On 30 May there was said "Galassi, this is where you explain why El komodos drago and I are wrong, instead of edit warring" (00:16, 30 May 2019). I see no explanation, but revert again: 21:09, 2 June 2019--Nicoljaus (talk) 18:56, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

This is not a proper notification. I am not responsible for Galassi, but for example they are under no obligation to have pings enabled.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:08, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Jesus Christ, Ymblanter, do your homework before you make accusations like this. R2 (bleep) 19:12, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Good, I stand corrected on this issue. Note that I mentioned Galassi in this thread and notified them.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:17, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

---

I've fully protected the page for three days and added an edit notice, putting 1RR DS into effect. El_C 18:54, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Full prot makes some sense while this dispute is being resolved, but is 1RR really necessary here? It seems like overkill. Aside from this minor dispute it doesn't seem like there's been much disruption in recent months or years. R2 (bleep) 19:02, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, maybe you're right. Let's see what happens with this dispute first and we'll go from there. Remind me. El_C 19:05, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

I endorse the 1RR DS there. Seems reasonable looking into the history of the article and the talk page. Also and this might not be related, it'shard to track Ahrtoodeetoo comments as their signature and their username are completely different so I was puzzled a bit while looking into the talk page.--SharabSalam (talk) 19:21, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

OMG I'm having a Wikipedia nightmare. Someone wake me up please. R2 (bleep) 19:26, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

---

If you are able to demonstrate WP:POINT, I will consider taking the rare step of restoring the status quo ante for the remainder of the protection. El_C 18:57, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't understand what WP:POINT has to do with it, but we have a 2-on-2 edit war here between El komodos drago and myself, both of whom have discussed the matter on the talk page (we actually discussed the matter before making any edits), and Galassi and Ymblanter, neither of whom has commented on the talk page at all. R2 (bleep) 19:05, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

(ec) When the only content being added is insertion of "on one occasion" to become "found on one occasion", I would find such edit pointy. However, this is not my main point, my main point is that here edit-warring is apparently being promoted as a means of resolving an editing dispute, and it is being justified by a party who wants to insert content to a long-established version. Thanks for protecting the article, though I am still concerned that content dispute resolution has not been properly followed here.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:06, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm not seeing that — I'm seeing a content dispute concerning whether the article should read "broadcasting" per se., or "on one occasion found it had broadcast." I realize that it replaces longstanding text, but I'm not sure I see how WP:POINT applies. Feel free to sharpen. El_C 19:12, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

This is fine with me. I think the editing dispute should go back to the dispute resolution. In the end of the day, I do not care what is written in the article as soon as proper process have been followed.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:16, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Ymblanter, but what the fuck are you talking about? What "proper process" did I not follow? R2 (bleep) 19:22, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

You're supposed to discuss the disputed change on the talk page instead of edit warring. 173.228.123.207 (talk) 19:35, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

That's not helpful. We already know they've been edit warring and they have been discussing their changes on the talk page. El_C 19:44, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Not really, they first discussed and then tried to add the edit to the article, based on alleged consensus. Then Galassi reverted. Up to this point, everything was fine. The dispute resolution procedures should have been subsequently followed. This did not happen, instead, edit-warring started.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:03, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

What "dispute resolution procedures" should I have followed after Galassi reverted? WP:CONTENTDISPUTE doesn't make sense when the other editor refuses to discuss at all. R2 (bleep) 20:20, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

I outlined one example above. Definitely not to continue edit-warring.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:24, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Are you referring to your suggestion of starting an RfC? R2 (bleep) 20:38, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

This one. Opening an RfC would be indeed another option.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:54, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

---

At my end, I was under the impression that Galassi had recognised that their edits were in error (the mistake was easy to make as I have explained on the article talk page) as they had not reverted R2's edits for 19 hours or offered an explanation on talk. I was under the impression that, given they said Go to the talk page and discuss, Ymblanter wished the version arrived at on the talk page to stand. I was unclear how else to proceed given that Galassi was not responding on the article talk page and was deleting R2's comments on their talk page. I am sorry if this was unreasonable. El komodos drago (talk to me) 20:46, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

---

I'm not involved but I had some time on my hands, so...

1. The text at issue is that a UK gov't regulator ... has repeatedly found RT ... of broadcasting "materially misleading" content. This text was added on 23 January 2016 and remained until 29 May 2019. It is the longstanding status quo language.
2. On 12 May 2019, El komodos drago posted on the talk page about changing the language "to show that there was only one case".
3. On 28 May, an IP editor replied on the talk page, disagreeing based on the sources suggesting multiple instances. Up to this point, nobody changed anything in the article yet.
4. Later on 28 May, Ahrtoodeetoo (R2) posted on the talk page agreeing with the suggestion to change the language.
5. On 29 May 2019, R2 changed it from "of broadcasting" to "on one occasion found it had broadcast". The edit summary included "See talk." This was arguably a WP:BOLD change to longstanding (3+ years) status quo language without consensus on the talk page (two editors-to-one, only 24hrs since the second editor in favor posted).
6. Later on 29 May, Galassi reverted R2's change. This was arguable a proper revert under the bold, revert, discuss policy. The WP:ONUS would be on those wishing to change the longstanding language to establish consensus before changing it.
7. R2 restored it later on 29 May. That's out of BRD process; it's 2RR.
8. Galassi reverted again on 30 May. That's 2RR for Galassi.
9. 10 minutes later on 30 May, R2 posted to the talk page pinging Galassi and saying he should come to the talk page instead of edit warring.
10. R2 also restored the content on 30 May. That's 3RR for R2, though not in 24hrs, but 48hrs. R2 at this point is not following WP:BRD, by changing longstanding text without consensus. As of this point, there are two editors in favor of the change (El komodos drago and R2) and two editors opposed to the change (the IP editor and Galassi), so still no consensus.
11. Ymblanter reverted on 30 May with edit summary "Go to the talk page and discuss." This is the only edit Ymblanter has made as far as I can tell, which does not make him WP:INVOLVED. An admin restoring the status quo with direction to get consensus on the talk page is like page protection; it's an admin action, not an action as an editor involved in a content dispute. Ymblanter did not post about this on the talk page and expressed no opinion on the underlying content dispute, as far as I can tell.
12. On 2 Jun, El komodos drago restored the text. There had been no additional talk page discussion.
13. Later on 2 Jun, Galassi reverted, which is 3RR for Galassi (though not in 24hrs, but the third revert in four days).
14. R2 restored the text. Not 4RR because it wasn't within 24hrs, but the fourth revert.
15. Finally, on 3 Jun, El_C protected the wrong version :-), the one with the change to longstanding text that does not have consensus.

Both Galassi and R2 are edit warring, but R2 is edit warring from the wrong side of BRD, by changing longstanding status quo text without consensus. I think this version (the same as had been in the article since 2016) should be restored, and it shouldn't be changed until/unless there is consensus on the talk page. Hopefully the full protection will allow time for that consensus will form one direction or the other. – Levivich 21:07, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

• I object to this chronology. It is both inaccurate and incomplete, see below. R2 (bleep) 22:12, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

As I understand it, it's not about votes, it's about sources. The claim was unsourced and the IP editor did not provide a new source or even a specification of which source was in question. Additionally, Galassi has proved more than capable of reverting within a few hours but has yet to provide a comment on the week+ old talk thread. El komodos drago (talk to me) 21:20, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

EKD, I agree it is about sources and not about votes, and it's "not a good look" when an editor reverts without joining the talk page discussion as Galassi has done. Yet, that doesn't mean there is consensus for the change, at least not yet, and as one of two editors on one "side" of a content dispute, you shouldn't be unilaterally discounting the other "side", you should seek further input instead. There are dispute resolution mechanisms in place for this situation: WP:3O, WP:DRN, and holding an WP:RfC. Practically speaking, all you need is to have one or two more editors look at the sources and give their opinion, and you can get that with 3O or DRN. If that doesn't cement the consensus, launch an RfC. Only once the consensus is clear should the text in the article be changed, though. – Levivich 21:36, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Levivich, you have a lot of details right but some key details wrong. First off, my May 29 edit was not a revert. I reverted 3 times over 5 days. Second, you missed the fact that after Galassi reverted without discussing, I invited them to join the discussion (1) in my revert edit summary, (2) an their user talk page, and (3) by pinging them on in the article talk page. The article can't be held hostage by an editor who refuses to participate in the discussion. No offense but this is pretty basic stuff. R2 (bleep) 21:35, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Ahrtoodeetoo, your May 29 edit wasn't a revert, it was a WP:BOLD edit–a change to longstanding status quo language without consensus. Galassi's first reversion of that BOLD edit was proper within the WP:BRD process. It was a proper revert, even without discussion. After that, both of you are engaged in reverting multiple times over a short period of time (i.e., edit warring). Yes, you did your part in terms of posting on the talk page and inviting the other editor to discuss, but you don't get to make a BOLD edit and have it "stick" while there is discussion. That's not how BRD works. Your BOLD edit stays out until there is consensus, not "stays in while we discuss it". That's basic stuff, too. The proper course of action, after Galassi reverted your BOLD edit, if Galassi didn't join the talk page discussion (or even if they did and gave their reasons for opposing the change), would have been to pursue dispute resolution (3O, DRN, RfC), not to revert Galassi's revert. One side in a content dispute can't unilaterally decide to discount the other side of the content dispute and just charge ahead with the change. You need to seek out additional input from other editors to cement consensus before making the change to the article. – Levivich 21:45, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

You're largely correct there. And if Galassi had commented on the talk page then I wouldn't have reverted after that. But that's beside the point. You said I reverted 4 times, when in fact it was 3. Over 5 days. And you excluded important details from your chronology. R2 (bleep) 21:50, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

I think we all need to stop playing 'the blame game' calm down and (in the case of me, R2 and Galassi) apologise (as I have done above). Then we can look for a constructive way forward. Right now I'm going to sleep. El komodos drago (talk to me) 21:47, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

I want Ymblanter to lay the fuck off so I can do some productive editing. I apologize for using some salty language. R2 (bleep) 21:53, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

My suggestion would be to start a thread, "should X be changed to Y", on the article talk page, lay out the sources supporting the change, and even see if anyone !votes oppose at this point. If consensus isn't clear after a few days, post a link to the thread on the relevant WikiProject talk pages to get additional editor input. If that doesn't work, maybe try WP:DRN, and if that doesn't work, a full WP:RfC. (And R2, you're just digging yourself a hole at this point. Take the "out" offered by EKD.) – Levivich 22:00, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Please stop lecturing me. My behavior has been exemplary. There are two editors willing to engage on the talk page, and they agree on what the content outcome should be. If someone comes along and lodges their disagreement, then fine, we have a bona fide content dispute. But that's not what has happened. No one has defended a contrary position on the talk page. Your WP:DRN suggestion is nonsensical. There is literally no one to go to WP:DRN with. R2 (bleep) 22:10, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

You have a bona fide content dispute. An IP editor has lodged an objection on the talk page, and Galassi has lodged an objection in edit summaries. – Levivich 22:21, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Dispute resolution is for editors who are willing to talk. Those two editors aren't. I did everything I could possibly do to get those two editors to discuss the subject matter, yet neither would respond. At some point you revert back to WP:BOLD for the good of the project. Remember, the goal is to build an encyclopedia, not to bury ourselves in bureaucracy. R2 (bleep) 03:28, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

R2, you are not being accurate about what happened. Here, on May 28 you posted a talk page message expressing support for a change another editor suggested, which was opposed by a second editor. You chose a side in a content dispute, as it were. Nothing wrong with that. The next day, on May 29, you changed the article text to what you thought it should be. Also fine. WP:BOLD is not a problem. Your change was reverted. That's also fine. That's the R in WP:BRD. A reason was given in the edit summary. At that point, it's 2-to-2 whether it should be changed or not. There is no consensus. A little more than an hour later, you restored your BOLD change. Not fine. You did not attempt to engage in talk page discussion between your BOLD insertion and your restoration of that BOLD insertion after it had been reverted. An hour after you were reverted, you just clicked the undo button, you didn't engage in the D of the discussion cycle before pressing the undo button. So it is not true that you "did everything" before edit warring. Edit warring was your instant and repeated response, and you edit warred before pinging Galassi to the talk page. What happened was: you came across a talk page discussion, picked a side, changed it to what you thought it should be, and when someone reverted it, you edit warred. This is not "exemplary conduct". It's not a huge deal, but you persist in maintaining you did nothing wrong, when you did. And your treatment of Ymblanter–who you said you wanted to "lay the fuck off" but then you went and posted again to his talk page continuing the dispute–makes matters worse. – Levivich 04:15, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I understand you; at this point you're just repeating yourself. Clearly we have a disagreement about best practices. I am willing to continue this on my user talk, but further discussion on this specific topic isn't appropriate for ANI. R2 (bleep) 17:40, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

• Can we save this as an example of why people call ANI a dramaboard? Meanwhile, allow the protection to go to expiration and then sanction the first editor to revert without a TP resolution, and close this. O3000 (talk) 22:16, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Editor R2 misrepresented the given source as a mere single instance of RT news faking, while the source clearly said "twice in a 2months period".--Galassi (talk) 22:57, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I have no opinion on the content of the edit one way or the other, and this is not where one goes for content disputes. That would be the article TP. O3000 (talk) 23:07, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Talk page of the article is wating for Galassi. His obvious mistake is already explained there.--Nicoljaus (talk) 07:24, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

We'd be getting somewhere if Galassi were merely to confirm that their source was the Press Gazette at this point.El komodos drago (talk to me) 07:47, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Please can we only allow the protection to expire once the discussion is resolved as people have mistaken whether it was resolved in the past. Very happy to allow it to be either wrong version in the intervening time. El komodos drago (talk to me) 11:52, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

As with nearly all of my full protections, the protected version is in place randomly. I will need to hear convincing arguments about reverting it while the article is fully-protected. El_C 17:44, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

The crucial issue of disruptive behaviour here is not the reverting as such, but the fact that Galassi kept reverting (on 29 May, 30 May and 2 June [159]), when there already was quite incontrovertible evidence on the talkpage that his edit was misrepresenting the source (posted by R2 on 28 May [160]), plain for everyone to see, and Galassi did nothing to counter that observation or otherwise engage with the criticism. That makes his reverts disruptive, the other side's not so. I also note (again, as a few weeks ago) that Galassi has actually been under a strict revert limitation that includes an extra requirement for him to discuss and wait before every revert he makes. He seems to have routinely disregarded this restriction for years (see User talk:Galassi#Revert limitation for background).
Under these circumstances, I plan on imposing a lengthy block on Galassi shortly. I'm open to suggestions as to length or further conditions etc. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:48, 5 June 2019 (UTC) Addendum: Let me also add that, unlike some of my colleagues above, I find R2's behaviour in this dispute faultless. Contrary to a frequently-peddled myth, reverting in and of itself is not necessarily disruptive. In the face of stubborn unreasonableness and failure to engage in discussion, as displayed by Galassi here, reverting is, unfortunately, often unavoidable to protect encyclopedic integrity. Some people don't like to hear that there are such cases, but yes, in some edit-wars the faults are entirely on one side. This is one such case. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:12, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Speaking for myself, I have neither objections (to a block) nor suggestions (as to duration). I simply did not have enough time to investigate this with enough detail and my protection (and application of DS — if you think that was overkill, please feel free to undo) was intended to curtail immediate disruption to the article. Anyway, naturally, I welcome someone else stepping in and taking the lead on this. El_C 19:04, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Galassi's edits can be assumed to be a mistake under AGF so blocking them seems unreasonable. El komodos drago (talk to me) 07:56, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Nobody doubts that Galassi was caught in a good-faith error in understanding the source; that error was understandable and in and of itself is not a problem. The problem is, first, that he failed to correct this error, which he certainly would have if he had made an effort to engage with you and R2 on the talkpage (where things were laid out clearly enough for anybody to understand); and secondly, that this behaviour is part of a larger pattern that has been a problem with him for years, and that he was ignoring an existing arbitration enforcement sanction that was specifically designed to avoid exactly this. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:34, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

@El komodos drago: FYI Galassi was under a 2011 Ukraine-related 1RR restriction, and of course the content he was reverting (the "materially misleading" violation "on 13 and 14 July 2014 which concerned the policies and actions of the Ukrainian Government towards the population of eastern Ukraine" [161]) was about RT's coverage of Ukraine, and there were also reverts at Ukrainians in March and April. Last block was for 48hrs in 2014, so the 2-month block duration is a bit surprising to me, but I think the block is within admin discretion in the circumstances. – Levivich 19:20, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Well shit Fut.Perf., if I had known about that restriction this dispute probably would have been resolved ages ago. Thank you so much for digging back through ancient history and resolving this. R2 (bleep) 23:57, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

@Future Perfect at Sunrise:, a jump from 48 hours to 61 days after 5 years with no blocks still seems high to me. I would have thought a week or two more appropriate. Would you consider reducing it? Jayjg ^(talk) 15:18, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Well, the five years without blocks is hardly a merit. If he wasn't blocked, it's not because he wasn't disruptive, but because he just wasn't watched carefully enough. He was in breach of that limitation continuously, and there is no shortage of complaints about his style of reverting spanning all those years. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:21, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough, but this long a period without sanction might have given the editor the impression that their edits were not violating the terms of their restrictions. I think such a large escalation after such a long period seems excessive; are you sure you won't consider a reduction to, say, three weeks? Even four weeks? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:50, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Error-strewn lists of ambassadors - users Veinas and Bata via

I have just spent some time correcting many of the British prime ministers mentioned in List of ambassadors of Romania to the United Kingdom, and in List of ambassadors of Thailand to the United Kingdom. The extent of the errors to me suggests that nothing else whatsoever in those articles can be relied upon in any way. The Romania article was created with the errors by Veinas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who has created many "Lists of ambassadors" pages, and the Thai article by Bata via (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who has also create many such pages, but who appears to have stopped editing in December 2017, a few months before Veinas began. I am concerned that many of their other lists and articles may be full of errors, which I do not have the time to investigate. Please could this be looked into? I shall post the usual ANI notice on both their talk pages. Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 10:54, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

List of ambassadors of Nepal to the United Kingdom is another one, lots of errors. I'm not sure if this is a competence issue or long-term vandalism. DuncanHill (talk) 23:55, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

sock who trolls its own checkuser page and is way ahead of anyone interested

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Manda_1993 regularly trolls its own investigation page, and even trolls itself, often with messages about its own presence

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:HEFM

It seems so loopy that it is hard to where to know to go with this, and the editor is obviously from Indonesia with the phrases:

O Channel Medan UHF Televisi di Media? di Medan is a standard phrase and a few nonsense words in Indonesian are dead giveaways on the usually socked articles.

To go on the usual process to checkuser is usually accompanied by the sock...with comments, not in english.

It is also in accompanying cross wiki abuse as well. It almost seems self defeating to have to compete with the sock at checkuser, and the delays sometimes allow the sock to play again while it is not investigated. I feel stumped by this as I watch it in process.

I realise that https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:CentralAuth/HEFM has happened at Meta, but I am wondering whether the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Manda_1993 page might be protected in some way, or even the usual locations of the sock behaviour JarrahTree 10:56, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

The SPI page has been protected since 23 May. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:38, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Indefinitely, which is a bit much in my view.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:44, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

That explains the astonishing self reporting at the HEFM talk page - the editor couldnt get on to play with the SPI page - all makes sense now - thanks for responses, appreciate that JarrahTree 11:45, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

JarrahTree, can I suggest that, no matter how troublesome a person is, you should never refer to anyone as "it"? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:36, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

fair enough I have no problem with that at all - the word for he or she in Indonesian is dia - which is determined by other contexts as to whether the word relates to a gender, and in the case of this editor who has now been at it for two years incessantly User_talk:Manda_1993#January_2017 and has never expressed anything in english in that time, to identify their status as to their gender to english using editors JarrahTree 14:52, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Sure, but in English, "it" is not an acceptable gender-neutral pronoun. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:07, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

For the record, "they" would be the proper gender-neutral pronoun in English. "It" refers to inanimate objects, so folks may take offense to that. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:44, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses - I indeed am aware of the level of implied offense and unreservedly apologise to readers and the sock, he she, or ... is probably in reality a very nice person, but on wiki is a damned nuisance, having spent two years leaving an incomprehensible mess JarrahTree 00:33, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Most experienced editor did unknown reason revert my expand with reliable sources

I've expand this article Y-Zet and added issues with reliable soures; but most experienced editor WikiAviator; did unknown reason revert i added infos (reliable sources proved) and did edit wars. See Talk:Y-Zet and Check source [162] Princess of Myadaung (talk) 11:37, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

{{uw-3rr}} to both editors. Cabayi (talk) 12:03, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, three reverts without an explanation is problematic. WikiAviator should be explaining the reason behind their reverts. I'm not sure the uw-disruptive2 they left at the IPs talk page counts as sufficient explanation. The expanded section is not ideal, either, but some guidance is to be expected as to any correction or removal. El_C 12:06, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I already give reasons in edit summary. And User Slatersteven also did reverted without reason. Princess of Myadaung (talk) 12:10, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Please read wp:brd, you a user objects to your addition you have to make a case for reinsertion, you do not just reinsert.Slatersteven (talk) 12:14, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

The user need to explain why they reverted, in the first place. El_C 12:18, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

It would be good practice yes. But you still should not just reinsert. As others have said, this is two users not playing the game.Slatersteven (talk) 12:22, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, in theory, they should have gone to Wikiaviator's talk page and asked: "why did you revert me? — why did you place the uw-disruptive2 template on my talk page? Sure, that would have been ideal. El_C 12:37, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Restore my expand or not?. Princess of Myadaung (talk) 13:17, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

This is about user conduct, not the validity of your edits (or theirs).Slatersteven (talk) 13:20, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

---

What is up with all these unexplained reverts? El_C 12:12, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I did give an explanation [[163]] "if it is reverted you do not reinsert it.".Slatersteven (talk) 12:14, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

That is not an explanation. El_C 12:17, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Its not? How is telling them you should not reinsert contested information not an explanation of why I reverted?Slatersteven (talk) 12:19, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Because the original reverts remain unexplained. El_C 12:20, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

SlaterstevenPlease see the talk page of the other involved user for the detailed reason of reverts.WikiAviator (talk) 12:21, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

He nominate AFD for the singer; i don't understand; the singer is clearly meets WP:NMUSICIAN... and sources are very reliable from Myanmar strong media. easily pass WP:GNG. Princess of Myadaung (talk) 12:25, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Sorry but I cannot comment on why another user might have reverted, only on why I reverted. Thus my edit summery explained why I was reverting contested material.Slatersteven (talk) 12:30, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

But you don't know why it's contested, yet you feel confident to revert it on that basis? Okay...? El_C 12:32, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, as I said on the talk page, I could not see why it was inserted in the first place As I say below, I could see why I would object to it. The fact it was being edit warred back in (however) was for me the main issue.Slatersteven (talk) 12:39, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

---

I'm at a loss here. User expands the article, then they are reverted without an explanation save for uw-disruptive2 — then there's an edit war during which at no time is an explanation offered as to the revert. Am I the only one who is finding this a bit puzzling? El_C 12:27, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Personally I'm finding it puzzling that an editor who's been here 3 hours is citing WP:NMUSICIAN, WP:GNG, and bringing cases to WP:ANI. Not their first visit to the dance floor I think. Cabayi (talk) 12:38, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

They were editing as an IP beforehand. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 12:41, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

WikiAviator, what do you mean Changing the wording without community consensus — it was a bold expansion. What specific fault did you find with it? El_C 12:31, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

To be fair I agree, I cannot see a real explanation of why it was removed (I can see a reason why I would remove it). But it does not alter the fact that the onus is on the person wishing to include to make a case.Slatersteven (talk) 12:33, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Not if they don't know what they are arguing against! El_C 12:40, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Second. The user reverted must provide an argument at least, using consensus as an excuse is basically saying "I don't like it but I don't have an argument/don't want to find one", as if we're discussing every change we make to an article, that's not how Wikipedia works. Viztor (talk) 12:50, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Please note, My expand or edit is not attack to the singer; i added facts base on per sources. it is not WP:IDONTLIKE. Thanks Princess of Myadaung (talk) 12:58, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

• Thirded (just because I've seen this misuse / misinterpretation of WP:ONUS before.) Consensus is required... but it's also presumed until someone raises a specific objection, per WP:EDITCONSENSUS. Removing something without giving a reason (or by merely citing WP:ONUS) isn't raising a meaningful objection. The objection doesn't have to be strong or detailed, but it does have to at least notionally be backed in policy - outside of cases of clear vandalism, reverting an edit without explanation is improper (and saying "get consensus" or "go satisfy WP:ONUS", in the absence of any other standing objections, isn't an explanation. How can they get consensus about your objection when you refuse to articulate it?) --Aquillion (talk) 04:24, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

I know we aren't supposed to discuss content here, but anyway... part of the revert cycle seems to be that the article called "debut album Pyaw San Par" a "duet album", which the former IP wanted to change to "duo album" instead. Looking at the details of the album at myanmar music store, it seems as if it isn't a duet album, but a hybrid split album, with three collaborative tracks ("duets", if you like), 4 songs by Oasix without Y-Zet, and 4 songs by Y-Zet without Oasix. While "duo album" perhaps isn't the best monicker, I can certainly understand what the IP is trying to improve, as it isn't a "duet" album either (which brings to mind something like Duets (Frank Sinatra album) of Forever Cool). Fram (talk) 13:03, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

If you check the talk page it seems to be about the killings at the concert more then anything else.Slatersteven (talk) 13:21, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

After looking at these edits, I am also at a loss here:

1. The first edit corrected grammar (e.g. changing "collaborations" to "collaborating", removing an unnecessary "to" and "that song") which is objectively an improvement.
2. The second edit added sourced content about a brawl at one of the subject's concerts that led to a death (and changed "duet" to "duo", explained by Fram above, and added a detail about the subject's education "at the second year"). No comment on the content issue of whether that should stay or go, but it's clearly the addition of sourced content (sourced to Coconuts Media and The Irrawaddy), plus wording clarifications, which are at least possibly an improvement.
3. The third edit moved a source from one paragraph to another paragraph, in an obvious improvement to text-source integrity.

WikiAviator's explanation for reverting, posted after making three reversions in 24hrs (3RR), was The edit is not relevent because this is just an unneccesary change of wording, which is not constructive. These uneccessary changes are disruptive. This explanation does not appear to be substantiated by the edits, nor do the multiple warnings posted on Princess of Myadaung's talk page appear to be justified. – Levivich 17:39, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Levivich~ Thank you very much for your fair. Princess of Myadaung (talk) 02:40, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

• This is ANI thread is just Emily Khine (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) being disruptive. I'm not closing because if there are behaviour issues that need to be addressed, they should be, but I'd urge another admin to figure it out quickly. She's a drama queen and this just adds fuel to the fire. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:28, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Unacceptable behaviour by Ybsone

Ybsone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) I would like to report about the irrational behaviour of Ybsone. He edits pages without a source and when asked, behaves rudely. I would add links supporting my claim:

• https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:History/Ferrari_575M_Maranello (here, it is seen how he refused to add a source when inquired and admitted he was just lazy to do so)

• https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:History/Maserati_Coup%C3%A9 (another source highlighting his rude behaviour and non acceptance of sources when added. Also a violation of the three revert rule)

• https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maserati_Coup%C3%A9#/talk/3 (here he tells me to contact Maserati myself while being rude and only presents a self centred blog in his defence)

• https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:History/Maserati_Quattroporte (again, refusal to add a source and instead this rude message being posted on my talk page claiming that he is right when he has no proof backing up his theory)

I'm willing to put an end to his as I'm fed up with this user's behaviour. He has been the source of discouraging others to edit pages on Wikipedia by having a "I am always right" attitude. I request the admins to take appropriate action.U¹ _quattro TALK 18:57, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

• Hmmmm.... When I look at the histories and talk pages linked above, I see two editors being rude, two editors edit warring, two editors threatening to report the other to "the admins", and two editors arguing about the quality (or existence) of the other's sourcing. And to be honest (though I am not a car guy) it looks to me like U1Quattro is coming off as the worse of the two. I also note U1Quattro's recent blocks for similar behavior with another editor (see here), who he is still feuding with as of a few minutes ago ("until a consensus is reached, the edit I made stays"? That's not how it works....). It would be appreciated (and wise) if @U1Quattro: and @Ybsone: both dialed back the pointless aggression and edit more collegially, so you don't waste other people's time. But User:U1Quattro, you're getting pretty close to a significant block yourself. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:42, 21 May 2019 (UTC

Floquenbeam I have tried to reason with this user before but all he does is act rude for no reason when asked for sources for his edits. You may have already seen how he comes off on my talk page and has been pocketing evidence against me by threatening to report me.U¹ _quattro TALK 19:51, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Um, did you read what I wrote? --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:58, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes I did read that Floquenbeam. I'm not feuding with Vauxford as of now. I wrote that comment as he tends to revert edits back to what he personally thinks is right without seeking concensous on the subject matter's talk page. I don't know how am I getting close to another block as I have just been out of one. Also, administrator intervention was necessary as Ybsone continues to edit without source with no change in his behaviour.U¹ _quattro TALK 20:02, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Although I'm taking great care to not start up what happen in the past between me and U1Quattro but I'm not impressed that shortly after his block he has already reverted a edit I did and done the usual "I'll take the matters to administration" threat on my talkpage, as pointed out by Floquenbeam. --Vauxford (talk) 06:55, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

I will state my case, and would like to point out at this time that I am constantly being harrassed by User:U1Quattro. My edits were reverted at least 19 times over the past 9 months and not once was it necessary, and not once was it correct.

1. 612: Special:Diff/855578814 My edit was reverted just on occasion of rewriting the article. With this correct engine links were reverted. Vandalism of my work.

2. 575M: Special:Diff/879639849 My correct, and later, sourced edit was reverted, even though previously there also was no source. Special:Diff/880025334 Here I presented that my claim was sourced but it was deleted not improved anyway Special:Diff/880107734 and User:U1Quattro begun a conversation accusing me of being lazy. His rude behaviour and unwillingness to improve an article. And so I inserted a source Special:Diff/880427587, which was deleted maliciously Special:Diff/880566579 and replaced by a "credible" source, ie. a forum... Special:Diff/880569080. My later update of dividing production numbers into two completely different models (practice very common) was just deleted Special:Diff/894035517 because it is, quote: "Too confusing.", whch will be a very often defense mechanism for User:U1Quattro, so he deleted it from infobox altogether. Again I see this as vandalism of my work.

3. 599: Special:Diff/880107892 A very long engine size was shortened as is common in any other Ferrari model but this edit was reverted because User:U1Quattro deemed it: "Not needed." It was then reverted yet again Special:Diff/880566293. User:U1Quattro then begun edit warring Special:Diff/891852265 and Special:Diff/891870862 about a picture clearly inserted into wrong place and was deaf to any constructive arguments. Especially frustrating when they are correct and with a little attention I would not have to waste my time to do one edit three times.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:U1Quattro#Ferrari_599 When I tried to peacefully point out what are we talking about he accusses me of being rude.

4. EB 112: Source I presented is the highest authority on Bugatti EB 110 and 112, but: Special:Diff/881425458, Special:Diff/883089248 Here he states that source shows 2 cars (it shows 3) Special:Diff/883134358 Still stubbornly argues that he only sees 2 cars. Special:Diff/883136624 Here he claims he added a more reliable source, that just proves my point further but after 4 revertions. Time surely wasted. Also see talk page for EB 112: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bugatti_EB_112 where he claims that this "unofficial registry" is... "confusing" when it isn't. I even posted three separate links to three chassis numbers Special:Diff/883138743.

5. F50: Special:Diff/885645951 I was not asked for a source my edit was just reverted. He could have just followed the link.

6. Coupé: Special:Diff/893820486 Special:Diff/893818480 Special:Diff/893802825 Special:Diff/893778756 Special:Diff/893739643 Special:Diff/893737761 Special:Diff/893736904 Special:Diff/893716503 Special:Diff/893710908 Special:Diff/893710349 Special:Diff/893606976 Special:Diff/893606872 Special:Diff/893606503 Special:Diff/893606228 Special:Diff/893349542 (other members of the community also helped providing proofs of facts stated by me, to no effect)

Coupé talk https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Maserati_Coup%C3%A9#Maserati_Spyder_90th_Anniversary_name

Coupé talk on U1Quattro talk: Deleted by him Special:Diff/896526399

Coupé talk on my talk: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ybsone#April_2019 with a racial outburst about a japanese trading site that showed a limited edition 3200 GT for japanese market with a plaque that said Japan Special:Diff/893720057

7. Ghibli (M157) talk (after being stuck in a ill-logic loop that an era-successor is also the successor to every individual car type) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Maserati_Ghibli_(M157)#Predecessor just a pearl of his logic:

"The Quattroporte IV was itself based on the BiTurbo so it never succeeded Amy of the Biturbo family cars."

"The Ghibli II succeeded the BiTubro and was based on the BiTurbo"

Special:Diff/895002665 he also changed one of his claims after my reply

8. Quattroporte Special:Diff/898127851 Again not asked to show a source (should I be asked for a source to prove what I see on the picture? Really?? https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2006_Maserati_Quattroporte_-_Flickr_-_The_Car_Spy_(4).jpg ) my edit was reverted just to start a war with yet another user. I showed a source anyway.

Quattroporte talk on U1Quattro talk https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:U1Quattro#Maserati_Quattroporte when I asked for him to stop reverting my contributions and he gets offended?? YBSOne (talk) 20:24, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

To that I can say I'm not rude. I'm defending facts. YBSOne (talk) 20:29, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Ybsone your proofs clearly show that you edited without a source in the first place. On the 575 page, you added a source in the edit summary and not in the article which is not how it works. You only add source when you are done arguing and I'm sorry to say, this is not how editing works on here.U¹ _quattro TALK 20:30, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

About the EB110 page, yes I was wrong but you could've been more courteous while pointing out my error which you clearly didn't do and kept on adding some unofficial registry. This was resolved once I added a more credible source. Your "defense" of the facts is not only unethical but it also discourages me to keep editing.U¹ _quattro TALK 20:32, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Ybsone I can clean my talkpage. I am not estopped from doing so especially when the discussions are not active anymore.U¹ _quattro TALK 20:33, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

You better look up estoppel. EEng 05:26, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

You claim that I don't source my work, but You don't do it Special:Diff/893710908 Special:Diff/893720240. Difference being that I am a journalist.

You claim that EB 110/112 website is just some unimportant unofficial registry. His website is THE website for EB 110 and 112. Just like mine is for the GTV/Spider: http://www.bozhdynsky.com/alfa-romeo-gtv-spider-history/ and Lancia Lybra and Maserati Coupé. Researching italian cars' history is very tough. I know it and You clearly don't.

You claim that I asked You to contact Maserati. If You did: http://www.bozhdynsky.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/maseratispyder90thanniversary.jpg http://www.bozhdynsky.com/cars/interview-with-maserati-heritage/

You claim that I incorrectly sourced 575M manual transmissions. But You reverted that edit... to my edit that was before Special:Diff/818782708 and yet lack of source didn't bother You at all.

You claim that I didn't source that Quattroporte V intake is plastic and black. I don't have to source every single fact that can be, with open eyes, clearly seen on the picture and I won't be bullied to do so.

You claim that You can clean Your talk page, yet 599 talk is still there and was older than Coupé talk. Interesting.

You claim that I should accept any sources, any time. Nothing furthest from the truth. As I told You many times be inquisitive not repetitive. You have presented countless sources and all of them were wrong and unacceptable.

You claim that I should encourage You to edit and be more courteous while pointing out Your errors. Yet You don't have to adhere to Your rules. YBSOne (talk) 21:11, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Oh so you're a journalist what would you now claim next? That you are a historian? It's that behaviour of yours which is the most repulsive of all. You are repetitively stating a personal blog as a source which is run by you and you hae basically "ordered" me to use this source. Who do you even think you are? Some kind of a dictator? I think that Ferrari owners, who own the cars and are in contact with Ferrari are more reliable sources than a personal self researched blog-site which has been forcefully used here. Yes I did contact Maserati and they got back to me with the owners manual. Frankly, I don't have any blogs to post the records there. Yes you do have to source every other "fact" that you think is right, otherwise it is just self research. I only see a lack of understanding to the policies which are followed here. FYI, a talk page is a user's personal name space and he can use it the way he wants. You don't have any right to direct me what should I keep and what I shouldn't. This kind of behaviour is unacceptable and I wouldn't let this slide.U¹ _quattro TALK 03:34, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes I am a historian. I have researched automotive history with many successes and published my findings on my personal website mainly. My historical research of type 916 Alfa Romeo GTV and Spider is unparalleled in the world and widely respected in it's community. It was even commended by Cenrto Documentazione AR. You on the other hand were tasked by community and me to research one simple fact, like a name of a limited edition, and failed. You asked wrong questions and got same answers. I asked right questions, again, and received a confirmation of facts I already knew. Consensus was reached and You were still stubborn. You claim You needed sources, but when I provided credible and primary ones You change them to Yours. You don't want facts You want Your facts.

I was very patient over the months of harassment. Even didn't participate in recent actions against You from other user, although I did reply to what I was asked to provide. You wanted to start this fight by provoking me with vandalism Special:Diff/898127851 and You got it. Now You manipulate opinions that You are the victim. You are not a victim but an agressor. First thing You do afer block is lifted You harass all of Your "enemies", undoing work of at least 5 different users. Admins can see Yours and mine contribution history. You are the dictator because You don't care about consensus nor facts. You claim to respect policies yet You constantly vandalise my work, replace primary sources with uncredible secondary ones, attack personally, threat, edit war and for this I expect User:U1Quattro to be blocked by Administrators.

Should Administrators have any further questions towards me I am at their disposal.

With regards, Yaroslav Bozhdynsky, historian. YBSOne (talk) 08:33, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Do you even know what harrasement is? I think you need to have a look at the definition of what harrasement is before you start to act as a victim of harassment. That is a very bold claim that you're making about your research and everything else which was "successful" and has recieved "acclaim". Infact, I don't even see a mention about you in the automotive press let alone the Italian automotive press and I haven't seen any proof where this is verifiable. Wikipedia isn't about you or your facts where you go on to claim that your "work" is vandalised. I have now found solid evidence that your website is in violation of the policies here as pointed out by 72Dino and hence cannot be used as a source in the articles here. Yet you had the audacity to come out on my talk page and force me to use the site. I wasn't tasked by anyone to do research on the sources, I did it on my own free will and shared the response which I got in return. You on the other hand, posted your own blog in which it was highly unclear about the said conversation you were pointing at. I do care about concensous when it is actually reached, I do not care about self researched facts because those aren't allowed here. I have provided my evidence and that shows how you behave and force others to stay along at work and act like this site is all about you. That's all I have to say.U¹ _quattro TALK 08:45, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

You were using ferrarichat.com/forum Special:Diff/818411451 that clearly violates policies as being self-published and uverifiable. Also the production sums are way different from official Ferrari claims. Yet in 2018 You had absolutely no problem with it what so ever, because of double standard. My note: "Please do not use this source in the future" is not an order nor forceful. You are manipulating facts to Your advantage and blowing them out of proportion. YBSOne (talk) 10:02, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

There you have it. Does the manufacturer who is manufacturing the car knows better how many were produced or some self proclaimed historian and journalist who has no sources on where he got his information? I will let the admins decide.U¹ _quattro TALK 10:32, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

And as usual whenever is convenient You manipulate Your own positions: Special:Diff/893874280 Special:Diff/880569080 Double standard. YBSOne (talk) 10:42, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

On the Ferrari 575 page, I just changed wording of a sentence, that doesn't change its meaning. Just accept that you're out of justifications now. Plus about the Maserati talkpage, I talked about my doubts but accepted the name as is.U¹ _quattro TALK 11:06, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Both of you, stop. ANI is not for content disputes, it's for behavioral issues. And all you've managed to do is prove that you're both fighting, instead of collaborating. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:03, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, I reported him for his odd behaviour which is clearly showing here.U¹ _quattro TALK 18:57, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

You should consider your own behavior as well. Your abrasive discussion style and apparent tendency to hold grudges doesn't make anything any easier. You criticize YBSOne for using a self-published source while you try to use an online forum as one, which is equally unsuitable. Your comment here is completely unacceptable, and given that you just came off a week-long block issued in part for such behavior, you should know that. Misconstruing someone's opinion and then accusing him of "lack of knowledge" is a personal attack. You criticize YBSOne for not seeking consensus, yet change images in the midst of an ongoing discussion about them - one of which, there is no indication whatsoever of consensus for.

The greater dispute here is quite difficult to follow and I don't know that YBSOne is entirely blameless in this, but the personal attack noted above is concerning, especially given the timing. --Sable232 (talk) 22:19, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Shortly after the week block U1Quattro left this message on my talkpage, already threatening to take "matters to administration" when no form of conflict hasn't started yet. As pointed out by Sable, he made a edit replacing the infobox when there was an ongoing discussion about it when a consensus haven't been reached. --Vauxford (talk) 23:04, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Vauxford you are assuming on the same talkpage that you should put the 'White on on the infobox while the red one in the ZL1 section' so you get an equal blame for assuming things that way. Also, you had already mentioned about your talkpage discussion earlier on, so I see this as an attempt to side with the accused in order to oust me from editing which you had been doing ever since you have been feuding with me. Sable232 if you see how Ybsone has behaved above in this thread as well as accusing me to stop the "flow of knowledge" and everything else, I consider these personal attacks as well. Also, Ybsone comes to edit pages when I have edited them as you can see on the Ferrari 575 page. Where was he with his reliable source before? And why did he completely refused to add a source in the article? That is the question.U¹ _quattro TALK 02:23, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

In general, I'm fairly disappointed with how these two editors namely Vauxford and Ybsone behave with others while violating WP:CIVIL and WP:ETIQUETTE multiple times. I don't know how one would behave nice with them when they behave repulsively with others. Since we are diverting to point out the flaws of each other, I think Vauxford should also be held accountable for his behaviour with Charles01, 1292Simon and Alexander-93.U¹ _quattro TALK 02:43, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

U1Quattro this is proof of Your manipulation: My quote: "You claim that You can clean Your talk page, yet 599 talk is still there and was older than Coupé talk. Interesting."

Your response blown out of proportion: "You don't have any right to direct me what should I keep and what I shouldn't. This kind of behaviour is unacceptable and I wouldn't let this slide."

And this is proof of Your uncaring about facts nor consensus: Your claim: "I do care about concensous when it is actually reached, I do not care about self researched facts because those aren't allowed here."

Your actual behaviour on Coupé talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Maserati_Coup%C3%A9#Maserati_Spyder_90th_Anniversary_name

Manufacturer sourced data was provided on the first line of dispute yet it took more than 2 weeks not to teach You or show You gently the errors of Your ways. It took 2 weeks to wear You down. Not only that but reference to Maserati website and Spyder 90th Anniversary was there all the time, since 2012, You didn't take time to read it (number 61: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maserati_Coup%C3%A9#References). But I read it when it was active.

Another intersting fact about Your dictatorial behaviour: "Also, Ybsone comes to edit pages when I have edited them as you can see on the Ferrari 575 page." So is it forbidden to correct Your mistakes? Is it forbidden to edit pages that were marked by You? Who do You think You are? YBSOne (talk) 09:53, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Ybsone and who do you think you are? If you have researched about cars so much go and improve pages instead of sitting back and degrading others. Where were you when you researched about the Ghibli and it's successor? That's right, you came to edit and fight with me when I had edited the page. Where were you on commons when you thought the photo of the suspension system of the Ferrari 599 was wrong? That's right, you were coming right after me after I had edited the page. Where were you when you had researched about the Maserati Coupé and the Maserati 3200 GT? That's right, you were after me when I had edited the pages. Your edit pattern suggests that you're indeed a stalker who is targeting other editors in order to degrade them.U¹ _quattro TALK 10:17, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

And for your kind information Ybsone you cannot dictate any user to keep or delete content on their talk page which is their personal name space. Just like I haven't told you to keep or delete content on your talk page. About manufacturer claims, the Ferrari 575 incident happened before the Maserati Coupé incident. So you failed to put the blame on me, yet again as edit history is present to back that up. And as for "dictatorial behaviour" I think you need to look up what that behaviour is when you try to blame someone next time.U¹ _quattro TALK 10:19, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Pattern You see are Your own paranoidal assumptions. I have nothing to do with them. I care about the pages You mention and when I see a blatant error I will fix it, whoever edited it before. You are not that special to me as You claim to be. YBSOne (talk) 10:22, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Your contribution history says otherwise. You have started to target me ever since the Ferrari 575 incident. You have been following me on pages as soon as I edit them.U¹ _quattro TALK 10:24, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

How about an IBAN, then you go both get on with productive editing?Slatersteven (talk) 10:25, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

And how about actually going after that disruptive user for his vandalism and personal attacks? YBSOne (talk) 10:31, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Slatersteven I was trying to productively edit before I came across this abusive user.U¹ _quattro TALK 10:30, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Ybsone so you are actually going to dictate the admins now?U¹ _quattro TALK 10:32, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

U1Quattro Are You still going to blow things out of proportion and manipulate admins? YBSOne (talk) 10:34, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Ybsone I'm just presenting facts about your editing history and your repulsive behaviour which is showing here. Thankfully, you won't be able to manipulate any of this.U¹ _quattro TALK 10:36, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

No, You are mistaken, I and other user are presenting facts about Your abusive behaviour and personal attacks even though You try to manipulate the sense of it. YBSOne (talk) 10:39, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Your current behaviour here is abusive Ybsone. You personally attacked me when you said "who do you think you are" so I will let the admins decide who is the more innocent one here.U¹ _quattro TALK 10:42, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Also you and Vauxford are trying to form an alliance to oust me from editing.U¹ _quattro TALK 10:42, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

I am not an admin, and any user is allowed to challenge an suggestion. If this feuding continues it will be more then just an IBAN, for the pair of you.Slatersteven (talk) 10:43, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

U1Quattro Are You sure You want to use this argument? Special:Diff/898214744 YBSOne (talk) 10:47, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Slatersteven As I posted above I'm defending myself agains constant attacks from U1Quattro, I'm not feuding. I'm here because he filed an action against me, because he vandalised my work. This is the ill-logic I have to deal with. YBSOne (talk) 10:50, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Slatersteven I'm ready to bury the hatchet but I demand an apology from him for how he behaved with me.U¹ _quattro TALK 10:48, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

I think others have suggested you are both at fault. I have no idea who is at fault (or who started it), nor do I care. This is wasting a lot of time with the pair you you throwing insults back and forth. The only solution now (as far as I can see) is either an IBAN or you both get blocked. I suggest that the pair of you drop this now before it become a block for the pair of you.Slatersteven (talk) 10:51, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Ybsone no, you're actually trying to prove that you're above everyone else when you aren't. Your "work" is just as relevant as the works of any other editor. It is neither superior nor inferior. Any editor, including me, has the right to edit a page after you have edited it. You're trying to say that you own a page after contributing to it, this is the behaviour I'm against.U¹ _quattro TALK 10:51, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

And I actually filed this claim because I'm done with your behaviour and envy against me.U¹ _quattro TALK 10:52, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

U1Quattro And how exactly am I behaving? All You do is claim and still noone sees any actual proofs. I have proven Your vandalism and personal attacks. YBSOne (talk) 10:54, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Ybsone I have presented my proofs and others in this discussion. This is another attempt of yours of manipulation. Your behaviour? It's narcissistic and repulsive.U¹ _quattro TALK 10:55, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

And Ybsone I'm still waiting for the proof of praise of your work by the automotive press.U¹ _quattro TALK 10:56, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

No You havent, You invent causes and claims and move on to manupulation.YBSOne (talk) 10:57, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Can someone please block the pair of them for tendentious editing and close this? This really has gone on for two long.Slatersteven (talk) 10:59, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry Ybsone, but the proof of disqualification of your website as a source and the sources I presented along with the behaviour you have shown here isn't something that I invented. But go on and keep trying to shift the blame. I don't say I'm innocent, but you aren't either.U¹ _quattro TALK 11:01, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Anyone who does not agree with You is automatically called rude by You and is suddenly in violation of policies. Even presenting facts does not matter because You shift Your position from pro-manufacturer to anti-manufacturer whenever it suits Your current needs. You use forums when You need it and simultaneously devalue an automotive blog when it suits Your needs. You do not allow others to check Your work, change Your work or even do their work after You. You bury Your opponent in an avalanche of seriously sounding phrases and have nothing to back them up with except Your opinions. I am not envious of You and never will be and You will never be apologised to by me. You start the fight and then act like a child and scurry behind someone who You think You can manipulate and do Your bidding for You. When pointed out a simple thing You turn it's meaning around, blow it out proportion and then use as a weapon. You are not interested in learning, You are not intersted in policies you claim to protect, You are not interested in facts nor in consensus. Everything must be as You want it to be and we all are just in Your way. You are narcissistic and parnoid and You think everyone is after You and they are conspiring to oust You. You are very, very, very tiresome and actually disruptive to this community. We wouldn't be here if You wouldn't maliciously reverted a simple edit. You wanted all this attention. You needed to blame someone for Your shortcomings. You crave to act as a victim when someone endangers Your position. And don't worry I will soon publish my first book. I can be a very good editor but You will never be as good a historian as I am. I surely hope Administrators will see through Your facade of lies and manipulations and block You for good. Best. YBSOne (talk) 11:34, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

"You will never be as good as I am." Proves how big of a narcist you are. Your "Automotive blog" doesn't qualify to be a source on Wikipedia which has already been said proven by other users. We are here because of your disruptive behaviour, not because of me as a victim. I never said I was a victim neither am I trying to be one. I have said why I filed this claim and I hope you also get dealt by accordingly. I never said that others are not allowed to check my work, statement like this from you "He is vandalising" my work is a proof that you don't allow that. This site isn't a place to have opponents like you put it. It's for collaborative contribution and you refuse to do so. I just see blame shifting here.U¹ _quattro TALK 11:48, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

And by the way, calling me paranoid is a personal attack. I'm still waiting for proof of your praise by the automotive press as I write this. Statements like "I'm going to write a book very soon" wouldn't make anyone believe in your credibility. You are right about learning. I'm not interested in learning from you.U¹ _quattro TALK 11:49, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

"You will never be as good as I am." is based on experience of You trying to research a simple fact and failing miserably. I am not disruptive, edits that I did, sourced or not, were correct. We are here chronologically because of Your revert of my simple edit and shifting blame on me for that incident. I have yet to wait for You to correctly check my work. You don't know the meaning of collaboration and You of all people should not use that term. Paranoia is a mental illness when someone sees threats where there are none, like secret alliances etc. I don't have to prove to You my credibility, community checks it. My website is just some of my automotive knowledge and still is unparalleled on 916s alone. You are not someone I have to prove myself to. YBSOne (talk) 12:33, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

"Edits I did, sourced or not were correct" these statements just prove my point more of why we are here. Never said I was going to research anything so didn't fail, another blame gone wrong. I am waiting for you to show me the praise you received by the automotive press, you blank accusations are not going to change the claims you have made. Yes I do collaborate with others and appreciate their work but I won't do none of that for you. Oh yes you have to prove yourself here because your website is incapable of being used as a source and unlike you, I never tried to establish hat I am right and the others are not. Give WP:ETIQUETTE and WP:CIVIL a read.U¹ _quattro TALK 12:51, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

You are mislead about the source of my contributions. And as for my website it can be used as a source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_self-published_works#Self-published_doesn't_mean_a_source_is_automatically_invalid Because as I proven, facts were checked with manufacturer and are based on their publications and sources. Example: http://www.bozhdynsky.com/alfa-147-156-166-gt-production-dates/ So taking my website out of running You Got Nothing on me! YBSOne (talk) 12:54, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

No you do not get to decide your website is an RS, the community does. SPS is clear that to use an SPS certain requirements must be met, in the case the only applicable one is 2 "Self-published sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.", you do not appear to meet his. Frankly I think you are heading for a TBAN.Slatersteven (talk) 12:59, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

This part is something to work on in the future it is not relevant now. YBSOne (talk) 13:06, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

The use of your website, and your instance that it is an RS is at the heart of this.Slatersteven (talk) 13:09, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

No it isn't The 4 points he made at the begining and 8 points I made later have nothing to do with my website. YBSOne (talk) 13:11, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Who is being manipulative and avoiding to use proofs now Ybsone?U¹ _quattro TALK 13:11, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Then why is it being banged on about here?Slatersteven (talk) 13:13, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Because of his manipulations!!! YBSOne (talk) 13:15, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Ybsone yes it is relevant as it is you who claimed to be a journalist and a historian by the use of your website. You also used your website at the Maserati Coupé incident you pointed to multiple times. That makes it relevant here.U¹ _quattro TALK 13:15, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

I never tried to manipulate anyone here. Stop your empty accusations.U¹ _quattro TALK 13:16, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Maserati_Coup%C3%A9#Maserati_Spyder_90th_Anniversary_name No it isn't I posted manufacturers claims first. Then proved that I am in contact with Maserati. Just that no sourced were used from my website. Stop manipulating. YBSOne (talk) 13:17, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

You claimed that you contacted Maserati Classiche in edit summaries before a talk page discussion was opened and you used your website as a source which is unreliable as per WP:SPS. This is not manipulation but a fact.U¹ _quattro TALK 13:21, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Your accusation that I used my website as a source for Coupé, prove it in diffs...YBSOne (talk) 13:25, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

There you go Ybsone this is before when you started a talk page discussion and I never said that you used it as a source in the Maserati Coupé page. I said that you used it as a source that you contacted Maserati like you said in the article's edit summary.U¹ _quattro TALK 13:39, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

This is not an edit summary for Coupé, this is not a source for Coupé, this is just Your talk page. No proofs still? YBSOne (talk) 13:43, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Then I see no problem if the website does not meet WP:SPS if it is on the talk page. Any more problems to solve? YBSOne (talk) 13:45, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

"Because I contacted Maserati Classiche" there you go with the edit summary. When asked for a source, you presented your website, which is unreliable.U¹ _quattro TALK 13:46, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Ha! The website was not used as a source! The source was there since 2012. And is still there. YBSOne (talk) 13:47, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Do you actually get what I'm trying to say? I said that you used your website as a source that you had contacted Maserati. The fact that you also tried to promote your website as a reliable source on my talkpage isn't hidden either.U¹ _quattro TALK 13:59, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Again, my website was not used as a source on the points specified. I see no further problem to discuss. May please Administrators step in and ban us already. YBSOne (talk) 14:05, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes it was. I have presented my proofs. Yet you deny them. Proves who is being manipulative now. You have no right to dictate the admins on what to do.U¹ _quattro TALK 14:35, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

"please" is uequal to "dictate". Stop manipulating. YBSOne (talk) 14:45, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

You telling them what to do is dictating. Stop accusing.U¹ _quattro TALK 14:51, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

http://www.citethisforme.com/topic-ideas/english/History%20of%20the%20Alfa%20Romeo%20GTV-19284871 My website as source and citation used to research history of the Alfa Romeo GTV

https://www.mlsclassiccars.dk/cars_sale/alfa_romeo_spider_3_v6.html Me and my website noted as an expert on the subject

http://www.squadra916.com/history/ Me and my website noted as an expert on the subject

https://www.ferrarichat.com/forum/threads/4200-production-numbers.537650/ My website noted as a source and a compliment: "This is a great resource, one that slipped past my radar previously. Thanks for the link! "

https://automotiveviews.com/2015/02/10/gandinis-shamal-a-controversial-maserati/ My website noted as a source

https://www.sportsmaserati.com/index.php?threads/4200-production-numbers.24306/ My website noted as a source

http://www.carstyling.ru/en/car/1956_ferrari_250_gt_coupe_corsa/ My website noted as a source

And a rather established Petrolicious: https://petrolicious.com/articles/the-designer-s-story-battista-pininfarina

YBSOne (talk) 16:37, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Four sources are forums (which you consider unreliable yourself) one source used only photos from your site. So this doesn't change the fact that your website is considered unreliable here. And I only saw praise from one Ferrari Chat forum member of your source which is certainly not the automotive press.U¹ _quattro TALK 19:38, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Also, read this from WP:SPS "self-published media, or user-generated sources, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), content farms, Internet forum postings, and social media postings, are largely not acceptable as sources." Your website is not used by established publications. Petrolicious is a new publication (established circa 2016) and is not as established as Car and Driver and La Stampa etc. So still, your website is not in conformity with WP:SPS.U¹ _quattro TALK 19:42, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

As of 31 May 2019 U1Quattro is still edit warring with my edits. Almost all Ferrari articles have production quotas in an infobox, that is an established practice. Yet U1Quattro removes this quotas from two articles that I have edited, because they are "unnecessary" or there is "no guideline" and leaves them on every other Ferrari article. This behaviour is clearly bias. He is not interested in an established layout but in reverting my edits and provoking a response. Here You have it.
Special:Diff/899606215 Special:Diff/894035517 Special:Diff/893049371 Special:Diff/894035442 Special:Diff/899606108
Partial list of articles with production quotas in the infobox. See for Yourselves. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:U1Quattro#Ferrari_production YBSOne (talk) 13:29, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Ybsone I didn't touched them after you mentioned those articles on my talk page. Look at the definition of the three revert rule, then come here. You are just spicing up the issue.U¹ _quattro TALK 16:07, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

48 hour block for both users

Enough is enough, it is clear neither user is interested in working with each other, its also clear this is going to drag on. For the peace of ANI I therefor think the pair of them need as cooling down period. Please can we stop this now?Slatersteven (talk) 13:17, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

I might well have done this if I'd come along a while ago, but as the last edits in this section were two hours ago, I think it would be more punishment and less preventive. Of course, I'm saying this only regarding the argument immediately above, and maybe there's something else that warrants blocking. Nyttend (talk) 21:48, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

A block wouldn't be out of line in my opinion but I'd question whether it would help now.

That said, both editors are clearly not getting it, and this dispute is spilling over to other parts of Wikipedia and becoming disruptive, such as the bludgeoned discussion at Talk:Chevrolet Camaro (sixth generation)#Infobox. Long-term, I think a two-way IBAN is unavoidable given the behavior by both parties. --Sable232 (talk) 22:08, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

This block was only to stop the ANI war, hopefully it is no longer needed (and it is not just a case of Sleepy Bobo's). I suggested a two way above, and still think this is needed.Slatersteven (talk) 07:59, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

At this rate it seem fruitless to defend myself against U1Quattro since he just going use anything I ever said past or present as a form of accusation such as ousting or conspiracy even when its not, as he done here and here. This name dropping he did while venting with this IP user. I did repeated myself twice because I thought that comment could be used further down the discussion, I was thinking of removing the initial comment but then what the chance of him making another accusation against me that I'm trying to cover up my mistakes? Currently I'm not in any edit dispute nor planning to any time soon with U1Quattro but I believe that something should be done by now with these personal attacks against other users. --Vauxford (talk) 14:13, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

[164] He now went on my talkpage again saying that I was "name calling" when I didn't say that. At the time I thought I did say that and got my words mixed up so I made this respond, I reverted after realising I didn't say "name calling" at all and redone the message. U1Quattro took offence and said I was being "manipulative". He made further accusation that I'm trying to "oust" him because I brought up two users in a past ANI who was involved in the same incident as I was.

[165] He is taking the phrase "anytime soon" literally in a sense that I'm planning to edit dispute against him when most people use that pharase as a figure of speech. This has already proven my point that whatever defence or comment I make, U1Quattro simply take it as some form of attack or accusation and seem to be threatening to use what I said above against me despite the fact I already provided the diffs from my talkpage. I'm trying my best to be neutral and calm about this situation but I don't know what else to do. --Vauxford (talk) 16:53, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Comments made by this user clearly suggest that he plans edit disruptions and involves me. He is also being manipulative here while accusing me to be so.U¹ _quattro TALK 16:47, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

I was wrong.Slatersteven (talk) 17:02, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

I think this is now the only solution to this, but extended to three users, this is just getting silly.Slatersteven (talk) 13:17, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

The below disruption is appalling. How have there not been blocks issued for this yet?!--WaltCip (talk) 13:26, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Cool-down blocks are not to be used per WP:CDB. If a block is to be applied to either user, it should be for repeated disruption that's actively occurring and in progress or happened just recently, or it should be after expectations are set with both editors by the community after discussion and consensus (it doesn't have to be a formal ban), and following the violation of those expectations or conditions. Otherwise, this will just continue (and more heatedly so) after such blocks expire. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:19, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Then it needs to be (as I ask for below) IBANS.Slatersteven (talk) 09:25, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

[166] U1Quattro just left a message on my talk page commenting about a edit I did last month, saying it was a recent edit, along with a personal remark between me and another user that he isn't involved in. --Vauxford (talk) 14:59, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Vauxford complaining as always.U¹ _quattro TALK 15:05, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

U1Quattro Because you just made that message out of the blues, putting your nose into something you weren't involved in. Before you say it, the difference with me talking about your behaviour on this incident is because it all related and involved with you and other users (including me). You had no known involvement with this user so all you did was thrown fuel on the fire, you had no other reason to put that message on my talk page other then to harass other users. --Vauxford (talk) 17:35, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Vauxford yes I had a reason. I disagree with your edits on the article I mentioned so I discussed it on the talkpage. Now if you want to complain about everything I post on your talkpage, be my guest.U¹ _quattro TALK 04:11, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Iban between U1Quattro & Vauxford

No idea what created this one, but its clear its more of the same.Slatersteven (talk)

Slatersteven It because of past incidents which were already solved and done. U1Quattro has been holding a grudge against me since that 1 day block we got for edit warring. Anything I seem to say he takes as a form of attack and threaten to use it against me. I am not directly involved whatever Ybsone and U1Quattro got themselves into. I believe this situation can't go on for any longer, U1Quattro has already gotten a 1 week block for the things he doing right now and what he left on my talkpage which I provided diffs for. I'm sorry if that sounds threatening but I don't know how else to put it.

*Support I think a IBAN between me and U1Quattro would be helpful. I'm tired of getting all these talkpage messages from him just because I'm giving my own testimony unrelated to this Ybsone incident. --Vauxford (talk) 17:05, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Since when you were asked to give a testimony Vauxford? I opened this discussion because of my greviance against Ybsone. You didn't had anything to do with it.U¹ _quattro TALK 17:18, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Support.U¹ _quattro TALK 00:36, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

• Comment Although I do support this IBAN I believe U1Quattro's recent behaviour towards users in general should be look at by a administrator. --Vauxford (talk) 14:23, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

• Support. The disputes between these two will clearly flare up again and again otherwise. Vauxford's inserting himself into this one, given the recent history, was out of line. --Sable232 (talk) 15:44, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

• Comment Sable232 How was speaking out about someone was out of line? I thought it was appropriate to have my said about the problem? This user has been under hot water and dispute with several users, not just me and this Ybsone user. I inserted what I said above because I believe something really need to be done U1Quattro can't go on with this sort of behaviour towards others. --Vauxford (talk) 15:51, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Because you've had significant disputes with U1Quattro in the very recent past, and bringing that up here in an unrelated matter gives the appearance of "piling on" and only makes things worse, as you can see from what resulted above. At times like this it's better to exercise the discretion to stay out of it unless your input is asked for (in my opinion). If YBSOne had started this discussion about U1Quattro instead of the other way around, it may have been appropriate; but as it is, I don't believe it was. (I could be wrong in that assessment though, if anyone wants to change my mind). --Sable232 (talk) 16:10, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

• Decline Scratch that, this IBAN seem to me is just a attempt sweep the problem under the rug, it been a week and no admin intervention has actually been done for this whole incident and the likely outcome for all of this is keeping a few mouths shut. I showed my diffs to proven U1Quattro hasn't learnt after his 1 week block with the personal attacks and combative behaviour. What I "inserted" in this incident was actually meant to be sub-incident rather then the one about U1Quattro and Ybsone. But I guess having someone have their say about the user in question is "out of line". --Vauxford (talk) 15:51, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Vauxford had given his testimony because he can clearly see who was wronged here. Just because U1Quattro preemptively struck this action against me doesn't mean that he is the innocent party. May I remind You that this action was taken after I asked him to stop vandalising my work. And in reply he reported me. This is how twisted this is. Vauxford and I do not have any alliance. We were both wronged by the same user - U1Quattro, and both our patience ran out. YBSOne (talk) 17:15, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Vauxford, you don't have any proof of what you said here. You were repulsive to me, you got the same behaviour in return. The same goes with Ybsone. If you're talking about Carguy1701, he was coming off on my talkpage hot headed. The way I see it, you inserted yourself in this matter which had got nothing to do with you in order to pile up evidence and attempt to oust me from editing.U¹ _quattro TALK 19:11, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Ybsone you also threatened me to take the matters to administration, please bear that in mind. Posing as the innocent party won't make you innocent. "Vandalising my work" sure, that smells of narcism and nothing else since you are implying that no one can correct your mistakes.U¹ _quattro TALK 19:17, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

U1Quattro Read the diffs. --Vauxford (talk) 19:35, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Vauxford I say it after reading the diffs. You had me reported on ANI so you shouldn't slip into other matters when I report someone else as you're basically over me after the decision of the admins. Sable232 is right. You were out of the line here.U¹ _quattro TALK 19:41, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

What he said also that he "could be wrong in that assessment" [167], [168], [169], [170], [171] and [172]. These diffs proven that the 1 week block hasn't change the way you treat me and other users such as Ybsone, Carguy1701, Toasted Meter, and possibility other people in the past. --Vauxford (talk) 19:47, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Vauxford you got these messages on your talk page because you decided to put yourself in a matter you had no relation with. Further, there is a reason you get this kind of a behaviour. You are yourself repulsive against me. You get what you give in return. As for the other users, I haven't interacted with Toasted Meter. Carguy1701 was also told by a user to back of because of his out of the line attitude.U¹ _quattro TALK 03:22, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

I actually found this evidence which suggests that this user is not the innocent party here and his behaviour keeps getting worse.U¹ _quattro TALK 04:31, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

U1Quattro Grasping straws, that discussion on my talkpage is something unrelated to what your doing. The situation I was having with Charles01 was way before this and most of it isn't resulting in insulting and throwing threats. To be honest, it feels more one-sided since as far as I am aware I haven't done anything that would directly provoke him to be like that to me. Your misunderstanding the take that I'm maintaining innocent when I'm not. At the end of the day, you were the one who got blocked for genuinely harassing users and already proven the block did nothing towards your attitude and I believe this should of been reviewed at over a week ago. --Vauxford (talk) 18:02, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Vauxford since you're the one bringing my talkpage into this, I would bring yours into this as well. Your own behaviour will also be assessed here which is nothing short of bad and disruptive.03:29, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

U1Quattro I don't think there anything to be assessed for me, not what I'm aware of, I don't remember making any recent personal attacks or accusation on somebody with no evidence to support, all I have been doing is putting my testimony against your behaviour since I don't think you learnt from your 1 week block while being calm and content while I'm speaking. I believe I haven't done anything considerably disruptive since my 1 day block which was a month ago but all the diffs I provided about you are all shortly after your block and it the same stuff you did that made you got it in the first place, straw grabbing whatever scrap I got with Charles01 recently isn't a reason why I am being "bad and disruptive" and unrelated to this ANI. --Vauxford (talk) 21:05, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Vauxford you haven't learnt anything from your blocks either. The recent assesement of your behaviour by Charles01 shows that. Now I have got nothing to say to you since you inserted yourself in this matter which had nothing to do with you.U¹ _quattro TALK 02:08, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

U1Quattro I got blocked for edit warring, not for personal attacks against other users. I might of got myself into a scrap with Charles01 but I didn't edit warring. I did (attempt) to discuss it on the talkpage but Charles01 did a I presumed a outburst of frustration and reverted it prematurely before the discussion was finished which I reverted back, other then that, I haven't got into any edit wars like I did to get me that block. Look, I'm sorry U1Quattro but no matter what the case with me, and Sable pointed this out, you have continued doing what you got blocked for, within no more then 24 hours after you got unblocked. That all I'm going to say. --Vauxford (talk) 02:17, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Vauxford if you have read, Sable232 also pointed out your out of the line attitude which you have adapted here. Your apologies are rejected.U¹ _quattro TALK 02:20, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

U1Quattro You are right, I misread that, however, I personally don't think it was out of line and Sable was questioning that himself. --Vauxford (talk) 02:32, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Vauxford your personal thoughts matter next to nothing. You were out of the line. Infact, you shouldn't be here arguing anyways since this matter doesn't concern you.U¹ _quattro TALK 03:50, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Iban between U1Quattro & Ybsone

This is the only solution as far as I can see.Slatersteven (talk)

Support YBSOne (talk) 20:21, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

SupportU¹ _quattro TALK 00:35, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

• Support. --Sable232 (talk) 15:44, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

As was commented before on my behalf I may not know the lingo Special:Diff/898595031. If this IBAN is a temporary solution to give Administrators a chance to come to a conclusion and block faulty party or parties, then I agree. BUT if this IBAN is the only punishment and the matter will be dropped, in my opinion it would just be a slap on the wrist and I would have to decline. I was under the impression that this two-way IBAN is just to stop us from bludgeoning this hearing and still a serious decision will be made later. I was wronged by U1Quattro and I demand justice. YBSOne (talk) 17:01, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

I decline this solution. I feel it is not serious enough. YBSOne (talk) 17:17, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

You certainly didn't gave ANI Advice a read. You cannot come out here demanding justice. The admins would do what they think is best. I whole heartedly agree with the IBAN since then I wouldn't have to deal with you anymore.U¹ _quattro TALK 19:07, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes I can. Just because You reported me does not mean that this is not Your trial. You want to accept smaller punishment beause You don't want to be held accountable for Your actions. Le me quote on the admins (or a user) Special:Diff/898595031: "It's rather clear to me that Ybsone is here to build an encyclopedia and wants this mess to be over."

And this is about You: "In all but naming the essay, they are trying to communicate that the reporting user is trying to WP:BLUDGEON the ANI thread by muddying the waters. Given the personal attacks made against Ybsone and Vauxford... My suggestion would be a one-way WP:IBAN to prevent further harassment. U1Quattro clearly has a checkered record [4] and listed themselves as semi-retired. One-way should end the disruption."

You will not manipulate Your way out of responsibility. YBSOne (talk) 20:11, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Ybsone showing old thoughts of a user about you, won't change anything. This diff is before you started to show your true self here. You won't weasel your way out of here by these tactics. By insisting that your personal website is a credible source while it's not and by showing that no one can correct your mistakes, you certainly don't want to build an encyclopedia.U¹ _quattro TALK 03:19, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

• Comment If this ANI thread is any indication of the interminable and disruptive feuding between these two, I'd say a temporary topic ban is in order for both to allow a cool down and a rethink of exactly what this project is all about. Both of them clearly have a great deal of work to do when it comes to pursuing a collaborative approach to editing. I don't think an IBAN will achieve much except business as usual plus the silent treatment, with the possibility of an increase in disruptive editing doing the talking. RandomGnome (talk) 06:57, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

U1Quattro"showing old thoughts" Those old thoughts are as of 16:45, 24 May 2019 and my last reply to the main thrad is from 16:37, 24 May 2019 (UTC) so yeah, chronology. I have proven without a doubt, even though it was not required from me, that I am seen as an expert in automotive community and that my website is cited even by an establised, from 2012 is not new (again chronology), publications. To prove to Wikipedia community that it is a reliable source will be just a formality in my opinion and I will not discuss it further here. To my use of word 'work' in substitution to 'contribution' or 'edit' You immediately propagate that: "that smells of narcism and nothing else since you are implying that no one can correct your mistakes", is just a manipulation of a simple word. YBSOne (talk) 08:26, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

"you certainly don't want to build an encyclopedia" is just Your opinion and I disagree with it. You have ran out of arguments against me and have to change the meaning of words to invent new insults. YBSOne (talk) 08:29, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

That user only posted his thoughts on the matter and you're using it as a weapon by posting it on here and on your user page. Let the community decide whether you want to build an encyclopedia or not and be collaborative. Your recent behaviour suggests that you're not in the mood to do those things. You are only considered an "automotive expert" by forum members which are themselves unreliable sources. Petrolicious (a new automotive website) posted your website only as a reference, this doesn't make you an automotive expert.U¹ _quattro TALK 09:32, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

I suggested a temporary ban above. I would support a TBAN of some kind at this stage.Slatersteven (talk) 08:56, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Comment It is rather clear that this user is on a a new level of starting another disruption by posting the thoughts of other users about this dispute on his talkpage when a decision has not been made.U¹ _quattro TALK 09:29, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

It is only clear to the person who invented yet another argument out of thin air. My talk page is clear of other users "thoughts", proof: (talk). You are still bludgeoning this thread with those fantastic accusations. YBSOne (talk) 12:42, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

• Support (Non-administrator comment) Having read this dumpster fire of an ANI somewhat thoroughly, it appears the two users will not be able to discuss with each other in a civil fashion. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 17:41, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Moving forward

While this discussion has been successfully bludgeoned to the point where few uninvolved editors are willing to comment, there seems to be agreement among those few for two-way interaction bans in each case.

I would suggest that the three involved parties read WP:IBAN thoroughly, and then read it again. An IBAN is not a trifling action; trying to goad someone into a response or obliquely referring to them in a talk page comment or edit summary is a violation of the ban and will result in a block. These disputes have disrupted the project long enough. --Sable232 (talk) 20:33, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Sable232 Just a disclaimer, I am not pointing fingers at anyone but, I think this could of been prevented if there was someone to intervene a week ago, before the first eruption. I didn't want to say anything or try to rush the process of this incident but I waited and waited for something to happen, I don't understand why no one intervened and get it done and dealt with, regardless the consequences it would be for me and the other users. --Vauxford (talk) 21:05, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

I second that. YBSOne (talk) 21:23, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

An IBAN would keep me away from these two disturbing users so I agree with it even if those two don't agree since I was the one posting about the behaviours of Ybsone here. I believe now someone moved ahead and put the suggested three way IBAN in place because these two just want to point fingers rather than solve the matters.U¹ _quattro TALK 04:14, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

All three of you (I do not care who started it) could have said "WE WILL STAY AWAY FROM EACH OTHER!", none of you really have. Instead you have continued to bicker (even now) and point fingers. As to why no one intervened, I am not aware of what started this. But Admins cannot look at or police every article. If you do not report problems they cannot know about them. But what you should not do is take the law into your open hands and engage in this kind of dispute. Can we please end this now?Slatersteven (talk) 09:10, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Slatersteven Ybsone's behaviour started this ofcourse. Don't know why Vauxford interfered here, seems to me he doesn't like to see me on Wiki due to some unknown reasons that's why he comes here pointing to talk page discussions this issue has nothing to do with. I had proposed to avoid Vauxford when I discussed the issue I was having with him with an admin but his response was "Don't know how we can avoid each other since we edit the same articles". I support the IBAN as I don't have to deal with these two anymore.U¹ _quattro TALK 12:35, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

You're right, I shouldn't of interfered with this in the first place, but that doesn't mean I can't make a separate incident discussion and just move all the evidences I provided about your behaviour, and do it before this IBAN get put into place to all three of us, it up to you and Ybsone to solve whatever this supercar sourcing dispute. "If you do not report problems they cannot know about them." The diffs of U1Quattro's disruptive behaviour was me reporting a problem (unrelated to all of this). Again I shouldn't of and I instead do it in a separate discussion. --Vauxford (talk) 16:53, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Vauxford you don't seem to know how you report a problem. You're just shoving your made up issue into this issue without a reason.U¹ _quattro TALK 04:59, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

I hate to ask anyone to wade into this disaster any further, but @Floquenbeam: and/or @Oshwah: as the only two administrators who've commented here, could either of you bring this to a close? --Sable232 (talk) 21:44, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

• Responding to ping: I'm sorry, I looked at this a week or two ago (?!) but don't have time (or the stomach), to read thru this ridiculous waste of electrons again. And even if I wanted to read this again, I wouldn't be around for the inevitable ADMINACCTapalooza appeal that would inevitably follow, so I'm not going to do anything myself. Frankly, my recommendation would be an indef block for U1Quattro for being just relentlessly obnoxious whenever anyone disagrees with them, and for not caring even a tiny bit about other people's time. I know I would NEVER knowingly edit any article they were active on; editing with them seems like it would be a horrible experience. If not, certainly a final "knock it the fuck off" warning would be in order. I get the distinct impression YBSOne behaves similarly, but at a somewhat lower intensity level; I just don't know whether an indef block would be appropriate for them too, or if they're doing it in response to U1Quattro and get along well with others. I didn't get the impression Vauxford actually did anything really wrong this time around (after a previous run in with U1Quattro a while ago) but I could be wrong. Maybe they should be punished just for being dumb enough to dive into this nightmare thread? I'm certainly not going to read this thing again to find out. I suppose the cowardly way out (but possibly the most efficient, time-wise) would be mutual interaction bans all around, and maybe 1RR restrictions all around, and being put on notice of a zero tolerance policy for obnoxiousness going forward. Doing that for all 3 seem like it would be rewarding U1Quattro for much more appalling behavior, though. But it's easy. This thread, by the way, is Exhibit #5418 for the thesis "ANI is a dysfunctional wasteland". --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:30, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) If you ask me (which you didn't) slap a three-way i-ban on all of them, topped off with some final warnings for YBS and U1, and call it a day. The sooner this mess is off the top half of ANI the better. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 02:50, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I can only really judge buy this ANI, and it seems to me all three have issues (some are worse then others, but it may just be a clash of personalities as I have never interacted wit any of them before). I have suggested a three way (well actually two two ways), that will give all users a chance to prove they are not just a annoyance we need to remove.Slatersteven (talk) 09:26, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

In that case (and at risk of overstepping bounds on my part), this discussion is closed with both proposed interaction bans implemented, and everyone can move on. --Sable232 (talk) 21:46, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

• @Sable232: Reopening this thread. Please read WP:INVOLVED, you should never close a sanction discussion where you yourself participated. Apart from the very obvious fact that there is no consensus for any sanctions here, in which case only administrators are in the capacity to impose sanctions, in case of discretionary sanctions and conditional unblocks (classified as an unilateral sanction, different from a community sanction as being discussed here). --qedk (t 桜 c) 13:12, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

• I support the proposed IBANs. I'm going to be perfectly honest, I skimmed 90% of the interactions between the feuding editors after the first few paragraphs made it clear that they were not going to stop hounding each other without an intervention. (Non-administrator comment) _signed, Rosguill ^talk 07:52, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Bmurph42069

Resolved

 – Blocked by Bbb23. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:09, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Could someone please review the contributions of the above user and see what needs to be done? Looks like mostly vandalism to me, sometimes self-reverted.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:47, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

TheOneAndOnly9000

Resolved

 – Talk page access removed --Malcolmxl5 (talk)

Obviously asking for removal of TPA. See e. g. this filter catch or this edit I'm going to revert now. Jannik Schwaß (talk) 18:54, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Joey Maggs article (COI/paid editing, multiple account use, legal threat)

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:Jmaggs9 threatened legal action here (thinks family owns the page): [173]. While you're looking, there are a number of "family members" or closely-connected individuals: User:JackieMagliano, User:Jmaggs9, User:172.3.57.102, User:Gjacobs1967, and User:DollDunn03 that seem to have a COI, think they own the content (talk page and edit summaries), or claim to have confidential knowledge of the subject (User Talk:Jmaggs9, and/or claim they have been paying subscription fees for the article for years (talk page/edit summaries). The COI edits started around 10 Mar 2019, but the undisclosed/paid contributions may date back much farther.

• JackieMagliano: "I am his sister--I pay Wikipedia monthly as Joey did when he set this page up. I and his wife own this page not you. We are correcting what people like you have changed from the original set we are putting it back. You need to leave my brothers good name alone. And leave our family alone."
• Jmaggs9: "Updates done by baby sister and wife. Please leave corrected information alone. Wikipedia did not do this page his family did this page on Wikipedia and only his family should have grounds to this page for we pay for it yearly."
• User 172.3.57.102: "I am the baby sister to Joseph Magliano. My sister in law Peppar Magliano has been trying for years to fix issues with his Wikipedia. I see she finally got his birthday corrected but is having issues keeping his billed by as well as weight and height corrected so now I’m making the attempt in hopes to get it fixed. Also need his marriage added. Which was to my sister in law his only wife Peppar from 1999 til death. Thanks"
• Gjacobs1967: "Because the information I can get ahold of is confidential and can not legally be shared by photo or anything of such. I have pulled the file of Joseph Magliano and can verify that as of September 2006 Joseph Magliano was weighted in at 227lbs and was standing at only 5foot9inchs y’all. And according to article he had he was married and spouses name to be Peppar Magliano which is also Peppar Smothers which is her maiden name. The only thing Joseph shows to have ever paid for was the tools needed to start his Wikipedia up. He at that time was the owner of page for he is who started the page in results of death it became property of his wife and or any family member that wanted to deal with it. Thank you so much but my information is confidential and can not be scanned or photo copied to be shared as a proof. But, it is the truth. Wikipedia maybe totally free today but in 1999 the tools needed to set up a page had a fee. But not the site." The current article dates from 8 March 2006 (maybe there was an older deleted article dating from 1999?)
• DollDunn03 : 5 days worth of editing, all only to Joey Maggs article with unsourced content.
  Thank you! Orville1974 (talk) 15:54, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) To the SPI-mobile! (Putting a request together now). creffett (talk) 16:05, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Opened at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Jmaggs12 - I'm extremely skeptical that there's more than one person behind these accounts. creffett (talk) 16:19, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Creffett. Orville1974 (talk) 16:25, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Just here to say this: I've taken the liberty of notifying the user in question this time; please try to do so in the future when filing here. —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 17:05, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Javert2113, I'm adding notices to the other users now. Orville1974 (talk) 17:07, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Not that it matters anymore, since Bbb23 CU-blocked the lot of them. Probably worth keeping an eye on the article in case any more socks pop up. creffett (talk) 17:14, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

This admin has had the page on his watch list since about March after seeing some of the unusual changes. Also, I don't immediately see an earlier article dating to 1999; everything I see dates to 2006, and I do not see any deleted edits. —C.Fred (talk) 17:18, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Especially as Wikipedia wasn't founded until 2001. Black Kite (talk) 17:32, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

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

User:Mike Galvin

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.

---

Requesting for an admin to intervene regarding a disruptive edit activity in the Ronin (film) article, where since June 6, this user has been deliberately adding his personal opinions without sourcing them, adding content not supported by the source, and removing reliably sourced content (which is pretty much vandalism): [174], [175], [176]. I already told this guy in the article's talk to provide citation for his claims, but all I get is nothing but more personal opinions and edit war. User has violated WP:BRD as well. Slightlymad (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:45, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

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

197.47.155.23

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:197.47.155.23 is vandalizing and attempting to vandalize right now. CLCStudent (talk) 23:31, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Blocked. FYI, you can report these to WP:AIV. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:39, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

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

Death threat by 172.56.28.83

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 IP just posted this on my talk page with a death threat to Jeffrey Beall. (I haven't revdeled it yet, soo people here can see the edit). As usual, I neither deny nor confirm whether I am this person (I never give out any private information), but either way, this is a death threat to a living person. I blocked the IP for a week (hard block, no talk page access), but I am not sure that this is appropriate (I don't often block IPs, perhaps this is disproportional if it's a dynamic IP?) so perhaps somebody here can check. In addition, I think it would be helpful to know whether this IP is connected to a regular contributor, but I guess that CU is not possible as including an IP carries a risk of outing. --Randykitty (talk) 11:29, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

I saw this earlier but I couln't get revdel to work. This is a serious issue which calls for an immediate Checkuser Block which won't out the registered account. Tony are you around? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:59, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

I've applied RD2. If an oversighter things oversight is warranted, I have no objections. I think a week hard block is the right starting point for this IP, but I agree with Kudpung that if there is evidence of this being a registered user editing while logged out then a CU should get involved. GoldenRing (talk) 12:37, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

From the big pink edit notice: If you are reporting a ... death threat ... please email emergency@wikimedia.org with the relevant diffs. See the full instructions at Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm. Geolocate tools[177][178] suggest that this is a likely static IP address in Philadelphia Pennsylvania. If so, contacting local law enforcement may also be an option. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:43, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

I see this discussion is closed and deferred without answering the question to groups who are not well known for blocking IP ranges. If I can reply to the above, it's a dynamic IP and they were on a new IP within two hours. I'm not going to dispute or adjust the block in any way, but if anything it's the /23 that needs the block. This is going to be a banned user. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:19, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

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

I know it's archived, but for context this IP hopper has engaged in low-level harassment of longevity editors for several months now. My guess is it's someone who doesn't like the mass removal of longevity cruft we've been undertaking. This morning I got a couple love letters myself, though I don't bother deleting the ones directed at me; in addition to the IP zzuuzz linked to above I got Special:Contributions/208.54.36.219. Don't know how that would factor into a rangeblock. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:54, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Ah, a longevity "fan". Didn't think of that. Because of the mention of Beall, I thought it had something to do with (predatory) academic publishing. But this is possible, too. Of course, a death threat surpasses "low-level harassment"... --Randykitty (talk) 15:03, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Yeah; I've cleaned a couple of those off Newshunter12's talkpage as well, the messages all bear striking similarity. I suppose I should have said "infrequently" instead of low-level, although it has picked up this past week. Whoever this is clearly doesn't want any of us to surpass Jiroemon Kimura! The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:07, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

The way these T-Mobile addresses often work is that there's one /23 within 172.56, one /23 within 172.58, and then one /24 within 208.54 (that's quite standard but there's some other variations). Also while I'm here, I believe a CU has taken a look. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:31, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

• A longevity fan issuing a death threat has a certain artistry, don't it? EEng 22:44, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

• I'm pretty sure there's a COI there :) Black Kite (talk) 22:50, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Account compromised and User Should be checked clearly.

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.

---

At first, to be frank, here this user [179] was last active in 2015 and he directly appeared on 2019 and try to delete Editor of Naya Patrika and tag undisclosed paid on Naya Patrika [180] like he knows everything after four years? and after that, he started to edit on the editor page of Naya Patrika [181] and then he moved a draft himself by thinking that he is moving it to namespace but moved to wiki talk page[182] than after that he/she himself put COI Tag and he again removed COI by telling that he doesn't know anything [183] than he moved vidfish five times [184][185][186] and you can see more on the history and again he voted delete and arguing another editor by telling him that Nepal News Network International is non-reliable to be on Wikipedia ? seriously? this is one of the oldest news portals of Nepal. Then again he was not stopped by that he started attacking more Nepalese journalist pages like Ganesh Dhungana , at first he proposed it for deletion [187] than after one editor removed prod he again put afd on it like he did on other many writers who are international from Nepal[188] I really thinks that this guy has some serious issues with Nepalese media network and reporter and I am amazed that he knows everything without being active on Wikipedia and appear after few years being inactive. so, we can directly see that the account is compromised and I request to review and block this account. Owlf 21:13, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The diff linked above shows that Justlettersandnumbers added the undiscolsed-paid tag, not Usedtobecool. If fact Usedtobecool removed the COI tag.

I am confused by Owlf's claim that Usedtobecool moved the page five times. I see one apparent misclick moving the page to WP namespace, and seconds later moving it to draft space. This is most easily visible in the edit history of article_talk.

Owlfs outrage over the AFD for Nepal News Network International is also rather over the top. Coincidentally, I commented there yesterday with no position yet. On one hand my first impression is that a company with apparently significant multimedia operations would be Notable, however thus far no one has been able to locate any independent sources to support Notability. This is clearly a case for reasonable AFD debate on both sides.

Regarding Owlf's charge that Usedtobecool is "attacking more Nepalese journalist pages", I suspect that this refers to certain open-AFDs.... but I assert that Owlf is required to substantiate this charge by identifying their exact allegations. I suspect the consensus here will be that Owlf is "unreasonable" in bringing any of this to ANI.

And as a final note, I came across this ANI notice because Owlf reverted me and slapped me with a "test edit" template (lolz) after I removed an unreliable source from an article. (The about page of that "online newspaper" declares it has a "staff" of two people, plus two international "correspondents". A third party just reinstated my edit.) I don't think I ever met Owlf before a few minutes ago, but I'm beginning to question their qualifications for NewPagePatrol userright.

Oh, back to the ANI topic: I see no meaningful indication here that anyone's account has been compromised. I don't recall encountering Usedtobecool before two(?) days ago so I'm not familiar with their old behavior, but I see nothing unusual about their current edits. Alsee (talk) 22:04, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I suspect this [189] SPI page, started by Usedtobecool, and referring to Owlf, may be of relevance here... 86.133.149.192 (talk) 22:08, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Being an wikipedia editor everyone has right to start an ANI discussion and yes, ofcourse i didn't slapped you or created any personal threat to Alsee cause when i created Draft: Prakash Neupane few editors removed articles which doesn't follow WP:RS and the article which he previously removed was kept and according to that i reverted his changes and really this is related to New Page Patrol right? And another thing that usedtobecool is attacking the page you can see the sources of Naya Patrika and Annapurna Media Network which is one of the oldest and National Newspaper of Nepal? We are free to express and put our views on wikipedia. And yes IP boy you can check the sockpuppet investigation and my article creation style and articles that i have created on wikipedia. I am happy to leave wikipedia if i declared as sockpuppet cause i am amazed that the dansong account was created 8 or 9 years ago when i even dont know what wikipedia was LOl Owlf 22:15, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Slapping someone, threat or otherwise, will not help your case. 2001:4898:80E8:3:EA0D:C14:20AB:DA9 (talk) 22:51, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

For starters, Owlf you have not notified the user your reported on their talk page, as is required and is mentioned in Bold red letters atop this page. Second: I reccomend you stike any mention of slapping another editor, that will get you blocked under WP:NPA very quickly. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 23:30, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I am not slapping anyone here with personal issue neither giving threat to anyone and i am aware of WP:NPA oh and yes sorry i forgot to mention the guy and i will ping about it thanks. Owlf 04:29, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't really know how I am supposed to proceed here. If there is any other similar discussions that I can take as guidance, I'd appreciate to be directed thence. I can defend myself on all allegations with evidence but I want to know how to proceed first. For now, all I will say is Owlf was nowhere to be seen when those pages were being discussed at AfD and despite that I uncovered his involvement in those pages and added him to the SPI. Then, yesterday, two of the suspected sockpuppets were banned by an admin. All I can guess is, having had both those accounts banned for a week, Dansongg22 had no choice but to come at me with this account, as this account is by far the cleanest, having amassed a fair number of edits in other unrelated pages across wikipedia in the past year and even achieved some user rights that I don't have or didn't seek. I will only respond to what other users involved in the discussion want to know from me until the SPI is completed and a verdict rendered, unless directed otherwise. I hope everyone smells the stink of undisclosed COI from Owlf and an emotional stake in this. I recall seeing on one of those a discussion, years ago with another editor about COI, by Azkord, which now redirects to Owlf. For me, I am sure some of my first articles might deserve an AfD themselves in which case I will silently copy the text to sandbox and improve upon them as I am creating articles on dead people, books, famous actors, and most recently trying to create a 1:1 gender ratio in article creation by making women blue (I came across the project after I had already started working on women related topics). I think it would also be helpful to see if any of the articles I nominated actually survive the AfD. As a starting point, my MO has been this: I have subscribed to a suggestbot and I work on those articles. Vidfish was suggestbot suggestion, IIRC. I made a lot of mistakes in the beginning and I'm sure that's nothing new. I commented on AfD articles listed on Nepal related discussions page which is also quite unsurprising, I expect. TIA for any guidance.Usedtobecool ^TALK 05:33, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

• Well, nothing is happening. Can we close this already? First, I'd request the comments/edits by nominator (about the slapping thing) be reverted and merged so that subsequent comments by 2001:4898:80E8:3:EA0D:C14:20AB:DA9 and CaptainEek don't look nonsensical. Usedtobecool ^TALK 14:50, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Owlf's accusations don't hold water. They have no basis, and this whole ANI just seems to be out of Owlf's bitterness at Usedtobecool for holding them accountable. In relations to Owlf's accusations, frankly hacked accounts are almost solely used to vandalize, not contribute positively -- and its clear that Usedtobecool is contributing most positively. Plus, there is nothing to be gained from hacking most regular accounts as they don't really have any special privileges. If any action is taken here, it should be a boomerang on Owlf with a warning on NPA. Otherwise, I'd say this is ready for a close. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:59, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

To clarify myself, the only reason I want to see it closed asap is because I wouldn't want the discussion to occur when I'm not around, as happened before I was notified of this ANI. That means, I am having to constantly check up on it; in essence, it's become a quern-stone over my head, for apparently no reasonable reason (as such, it ought not to continue indefinitely). This also might help decide, as it establishes a pattern: 25. Personal Attack. Usedtobecool ^TALK 21:38, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

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

Behavior of Roy McCoy at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Matching commas on attributive nouns in titles

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.

---

Roy McCoy has made these comments at the talk page: [190], [191] and [192].

• I observe that in these comments, they have used sarcasm to mock or ridicule. The sarcasm has been quite personally directed (eg "thankyou", "congratulations to Cinderella157" etc). An arguement (or part thereof) that attacks or ridicules an opponent is ad hominem and inappropriate per WP:NPA.

• I addressed my concerns re these comments being viewed as a personal attack here. Roy McCoy made these comments: [193], [194] at their TP.

• A further comment was made by Roy McCoy at WT:MOS here. See my post to their TP and their [195] I had genuinely assumed some degree of good faith in their post at WT:MOS.

• In the same discussion, Roy McCoy has also made these comments:

• "[Sroc] went on to exploit this purported rationale incessantly. It's comical and sad at the same time."[196]
• "... is to further express my sympathy for Dick – and, by extension, for the other hyper-grammarians here."[197]

• WT:MOS is subject to discretionary sanctions. In the case of Roy McCoy, I believe that the awareness criteria have been met by virtue of this enforcement.

• Notice has been given to Roy McCoy here.

Cinderella157 (talk) 01:33, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

• Consider the humble comma: so small and commonplace, yet the wellspring of so much sorrow and madness! EEng 03:56, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

• Cinderella157 has cited me more than exhaustively, so that I have very little to add to what she has already provided: just that I changed the cited "your inventing grammatical categories and then claiming they require commas" to "your inventing a grammatical category and then claiming it requires commas",[198] as she had done this only once[199] (later acknowledging she had created the term concerned, the more usual apposition having eluded her[200]) and I didn't want to exaggerate. I will say also that I have enjoyed my contact with Cinderella157 and hope we can relate to each other amicably in the future, a little light banter here on my part (which I believe is the worst I can be accused of) notwithstanding. My main response to her complaint was to return to the talk page and resume the discussion of the topic, and I think she would have done better to rejoin me there rather than here. –Roy McCoy (talk) 04:52, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Looking at these "insults" demonstrates to me that, once again, MOS is a world unto itself, opaque to those of us who are more used to dealing with spam, socks, trolls and editors who refuse to find sources. Reading over these diffs, I'm not even sure what you are arguing about. "Matching commas on attributive nouns in title"? Can you explain what the conflict is in one sentence? Not to rehash the dispute here but just to know what the fight is about...it's got to be about more than a comma. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:22, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Of course it's about more than a comma -- the very fate of civilization hangs in the balance. EEng 00:35, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree completely with Liz here. There is nothing for administrators to do here other than to tell all the editors involved in this conversation to stop your worthless and incessant bickering. When I read that heated debate, I cannot even comprehend what the actual issue is, since it is obscured by bizarre and pedantic jargon. The MOS is a guideline not a policy and people who obsess about it should go write and improve some actual encyclopedia articles instead. Really. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:26, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

I apologize for having unnecessarily extended the already over-extensive verbiage somewhat, but I figured some response from me was expected, and furthermore it was irresistably easy to complete the report – however minor my addition was – so that it included everything that had been said. From my side, I have no personal conflict with Cinderella157 and sincerely enjoy her posts, unique jargon and all. The content dispute is over MOS:GEOCOMMA/MOS:DATECOMMA, about which a change is presently being discussed to allow for exceptions (i.e. no closing comma needed) in the case of article titles, and possibly also of attributive nouns in general, such as "Tucson, Arizona" in "Tucson, Arizona[,] fire department". Three schools of thought on this were originally presented: that an exception be written into the rule so that titles such as "1993 Aurora, Colorado shooting" would be permitted; that the exception not be permitted, requiring forms such as "1993 Aurora, Colorado, shooting" also in titles; and that such titles be reworded so as to avoid the purported problem. Cinderella157 favors the "postpositional"/appositive/parenthetic comma but is tolerant of the exception, while I propose a fourth option, that of getting rid of the rule altogether so that no exception, violation or rewording would be necessary (this being justified at least by common usage[201]). I'm sorry this took more than a sentence, but I hope it provides the desired idea of "what the fight is about", at least as far as I am concerned. –Roy McCoy (talk) 15:18, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

It's "you're".--Jorm (talk) 15:23, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

I was going to say "Heavens!", thank you and that I'd made the correction, but when I went to do so I found that my "your" was intentional and correct: "your prose, your inventing", etc. But thanks anyway – also to cygnis, Liz, Cullen, and even EEng. –Roy McCoy (talk) 15:49, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks even to me -- the situation must be dire. EEng 18:26, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Not in the context of "your inventing grammatical categories and then claiming they require commas". That needs to be "you're".--Jorm (talk) 18:38, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

The 'context' is in the linked diff: "There are numerous question marks in regard to your prose, your inventing grammatical categories and then claiming they require commas and so forth" - 'your' looks fine to me. -- Begoon 18:58, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

I might have put a comma after "categories", to emphasise that style of oration and avoid that misread. If that doesn't resolve this sub-incident, I would hope that is at least mentioned when this is closed. cygnis insignis 23:43, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

What "misread"? How does one person incorrectly supposing that there is a punctuation error (in an irrelevant, subsequent 'aside' at a separate venue) make any material difference to the basic meaning and understanding one takes away from the statement? It was a talkpage comment, not an entry in a "perfect prose" competition. -- Begoon 04:42, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

• I had a nice chat with the user while trying to let them know there was no ill-will in my interjection and recognising the valuable contribution they might be making instead of pursuing a point that I am not sure they even remember. cygnis insignis 14:23, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

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

65.222.251.100 - COI

The IP address, 65.222.251.100, according to WHOIS data, belongs to the Bettis Atomic Power Laboratory. The Bettis Atomic Power Laboratory article, and other Naval Reactors-related articles, have been edited from there. Since it is an IP user, I don't know how this is best addressed. Psu256 (talk) 14:48, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Psu256 - There's nothing we need to do at this time, since this IP address is stale and hasn't edited for over a month. If the IP user resumes editing and on articles where a conflict of interest is a concern, we just need to warn and advise the user about Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines, and (if repeated after numerous warnings) reported to this noticeboard. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:36, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Charles01 behaviour

I'm at a breaking point with Charles01. Since January he has been formally bashing about me for the past few months. He constantly making callous remarks of my editing even though I kept asking him to help me of how to edit collaboratively on around 2-3 occasions which are included in the diffs but comes out nothing but more condescending comments and antagonising. He tend to call my editing "Vauxford Vanity Project" and create made up phrases such as "Vauxfordy". Almost every edit he does he would at least include something personal about me.

Diffs of cases where he has taken his edits personally over a user rather then on the content:

Slipping in personal comments of me e.g "Then again, where a picture taken and uploaded and linked by the one and only Vauxford is involved" [202]

Another revert which mostly include grievance towards me rather the a practical reason why he reverted my edit [203]

More personal comments and remarks within his comments about me, including accusation that I god rid of a editor from the project even though that was never my intention. Described my personality as "narcissistic and arrogant" [204]

Respond after I told him that it isn't a "personal vanity project" [205]

The personal revert and warning template I put in his talkpage [206] [207] His reply to the template message [208]

Reply after I told him again that it isn't a personal vanity project [209]

Audi A2 reverts including more conscending mention about my "vanity project" and using the word "Vauxfordy" as something negative [210] [211]

Another RfC he created which include a number of personal remarks in his sentence about me [212]

One of his RfC edit that include many of his personal grief against me [213] [214]

I do want to come forward that I did called Charles01 "a bully", at the time, I was simply fed up and upset with the brash and condescending commentary he leaves when something to do with me but at the same time I ask and plead many times for him to tell me how to be collaborative which he doesn't, most of the time when I do leave a message on his talkpage asking this, he just dumps everything (including the warning template that I left because I found his revert summary about the Audi Q3 unacceptable) I said onto my talkpage even though it was all addressed to him. [215] [216] [217]

The Audi Q3 discussion I find unfair and Charles01 wanted my picture gone because it was taken by me. Despite the fact Alexander-93 who made the talk page discussion does the EXACT same type of editing as I do, yet he does get scruntised and made to feel degraded about themselves as Charles01 and other people does to me. Hence why I reverted the edit even after a "consensus" was reached Just to clarify, this wasn't me edit warring or even slow edit warring, at the time I thought the action was justified but after thinking over it a bit more, I felt the purpose was more then a disagreement over a photo replacement. I even added a alterntive photo to try and see if they agree on that because I really disagreed with the picture was being used for that article, but was simply ignored, shortly followed Charles01 added his unheartfelt message which consisted 20% of why the other photo should be used and 80% saying how How I "constantly create edit wars", how my photos are "mediocre", what I'm doing is just a "personal vanity project", saying I am "damaging Wikipedia" and simply saying how much a disruptive person I am and any photo I proposed on these articles should get voided, simply because they were by me.

I'm not innocent myself and I did messed up a few times but even after trying to improve my way of editing and seeking consensus with people rather then straight out reverting if someone disagree with my edit. It almost feels like Charles01 is simply talking me down with a chance that I would break down and possibly quit Wikipedia or something even though what I'm doing isn't disruptive and even if it was disruptive I had no awareness it is and formally apologise for it. I'm also not doing this to oust Charles01 in any way, I just believe the way he has been treating and approaching me like this is wrong and no editor whatever position they have on Wikipedia should go through that. --Vauxford (talk) 19:07, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Comment: I looked through all of the diffs and I see your frustration with the removal of photos etc. I agree that the editor was terse, however probably annoyed by your failure to get consensus first. My best advice is to get consensus on the talk page. The editor was blunt, but probably not a bully and probably not wrong on the edits. Often editors here (especially on automobile articles) feel like they have to protect every edit and photo on the article. Simply placing a photo without consensus on an auto article will likely always be met with a speedy deletion and a terse remark. I myself have added photos to BMW and to 5 series. The one on BMW was kept the one on 5 series was deleted. I thanked the editor and moved on. So short of it is: get consensus on the talk page before adding anything. I hope that helps. Lubbad85 (☎) 21:27, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

So removing ones photos because they are "Vauxfordy" and calling it a "personal vanity project" and bringing up a person I used to interact in the past almost in every respond isn't condescending? Half the things he ever said when it comes to me (Spanning from about January 2019) is more of how much a burden I am to everyone rather then the images themselves, and when it is the image, he simply call them my "blind spots" or medicare" it getting to the point that I'm the one to blame simply because I did it, if it any one else such as the user who created the Audi Q3 discussion, they wouldn't get this ridicule at all. As I provided on the diffs I did ask at times to cooperate with me so we don't get in to a mess, despite being long paragraphs they get lead to nowhere or he just simply paste the whole lot back onto my talkpage. --Vauxford (talk) 22:46, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

It was archived as udea, and I am not sure that you deciding it should not be archived is a good idea.Slatersteven (talk) 18:23, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

The archive was done by a bot. I provided diffs, evidences and everything, how can they not try and evaluate this? They can't just discarded this because it was created by me. This been going on way before anything else prior to that. I don't want to let this get sweep under the rug and forgotten. --Vauxford (talk) 18:27, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Oshwah I know I shouldn't really ping admins but I talked to you about this before. Please at least look at this, this is nowhere near worst then what I got myself into with the previous discussion. --Vauxford (talk) 18:37, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Tendentious and disruptive editing by User:Excalibur26

I believe that Excalibur26 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has been making bad-faith contributions to wikipedia.

Heavily biased edit with citations that don't support the claim:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cloward%E2%80%93Piven_strategy&diff=prev&oldid=899712575
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cloward%E2%80%93Piven_strategy&diff=prev&oldid=899713481

User deletes cited material added by others:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Larry_C._Johnson&diff=prev&oldid=883390317
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nathan_Phillips_(activist)&diff=prev&oldid=879279942
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Reed_O%27Connor&diff=prev&oldid=873928132

User seems to have some history of edit warring, on their talk page.

I don't have any knowledge of the edit warring, just came across the edit on Cloward-Piven strategy and decided to look at the user.

74.103.158.94 (talk) 21:39, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Excalibur26 Fixing Ping, Please see messages above... Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 21:43, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Should be here at the editing warring noticeboard instead, and you still need to tell the user that you listed them here by using the template listed above. Thank You. Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 21:45, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Personal attacks by Skeptical Raptor at Sharyl Attkisson BLP

SkepticalRaptor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) made this comment on the talk page of journalist Sharyl Attkisson

[218]

This NPA violation is made worse by the fact that SR had every reason to believe Sharyl Attkisson would read the comment, since she is presently active on the talk page. SR should be immediately banned from her page. Further sanctions are surely in order as well. petrarchan47คุก 16:45, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

I was going to say warning, but as they seem to have posted this three or four times yes, I think a TBAN is in order. No idea what brought that on, as they do not seem that active on the page.Slatersteven (talk) 16:57, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Agree that a TBAN from the page is merited at the very least as the attack is bitter with needless hostility. Unless SkepticalRaptor is able to indicate contrition and understanding, a preventative block seems called for as well. Jusdafax (talk) 17:37, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

@Slatersteven:, it looks like Skeptical Raptor posted the attack, and then added a blank line and a header above his post, not quite the same as posting it repeatedly. - Donald Albury 18:02, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

You are correct, my mistake, but they did also then decide to empathize it by making it its own section. It looks like deliberate trolling. But as it was in fact only once a warming may be in order. Though it is hard to see any justification for this attack.Slatersteven (talk) 18:05, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Well, it's nice they found it within themselves to empathize, at least. EEng 18:49, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Slatersteven, I agree with you for the most part and will add that I can't think of anything that would justify such behavior, much less excuse such a degrading and vile PA against a female journalist. It clearly demonstrated SR's animus toward her, unlike any outburst of frustration or a moment of losing one's patience like what I've seen in my time here as an editor. We must not lose sight of the fact that WP is first and foremost a neutral encyclopedia, and as such, editors are not only expected to express their POV in a civil manner, they are obligated to do so in an effort to reach consensus. We reach consensus through civil discourse, not by vehemently attacking, polarizing and personalizing a BLP we may view as the opposition or simply because they have a POV much different from our own. I would support an indef article ban and if the behavior is repeated in another BLP, then a t-ban more broadly construed should be considered. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 19:09, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

This definitely reads as a personal attack (not just against a journalist, but someone who is a fellow editor active on that page) and there should be consequence, but saying she promotes pseudoscience is not a BLP violation. She has made fake claims about vaccines and autism for years and has promoted congressional investigations into vaccines and autism. This has received coverage in major outlets. Toa Nidhiki05 19:22, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

The user claims that to find and add negative content about her would be "fun". No editor who finds it enjoyable to add negative content to a BLP, especially after showing such hostility toward the subject, should be allowed near the page. I'm not aware of any claims she's made (from reliable sources) to justify the "anti-science" comment. You have cited a music blog and an opinion piece from The Hill as justification. petrarchan47คุก 19:47, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

• Admins, there is also an SPA on the talk page making matters worse with off topic commentary. petrarchan47คุก 19:55, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
• Well, there are reliable sources for "right-wing" [219], "anti-science" [220] and her pseudoscientific anti-vax stuff [221] [222], so the only real BLP issue there is putting !"journalist" in scare quotes. However, I'd note that a Google search for "Sharyl Attkisson pseudoscience" does suggest that Skeptical Raptor has an axe to grind here. Black Kite (talk) 20:03, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
• I have given SkepticalRaptor a 24 hour block. I consider the comment as a whole, taken in context, as a BLP violation and an unacceptable personal attack. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:10, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) I am not concerned about the pseudoscience stuff. It is certainly not out of bounds to say that Attkisson has promoted pseudoscientific views. Even if it's not true, it has an element of truth, and we should err on the side of permissiveness on talk pages to ensure that the arguments of editors of all stripes are heard and evaluated against our policies and guidelines.

What I am concerned about is SR's comment that Attkisson's list of awards, which is extensive and includes some of the most prominent awards in journalism, is "pathetic" and that including it in our article is "fanboi crap." That's a pretty egregious personal attack and BLP violation.

All that being said, as far as I can tell this was just a drive-by comment and there's no indication SR is sticking around to do cause more disruption. I think a warning should be sufficient. R2 (bleep) 20:17, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Ahrtoodeetoo, I do not understand your "sticking around" comment since Skeptical Raptor has been an active editor since 2012 doing a lot of good work involving vaccines, homeopathy, creationism and pseudoscience. They should continue that good work without engaging in bitter personal insults against BLP subjects. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:42, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

I just mean they don't seem to be dwelling at Talk:Sharyl Attkisson and continuing their personal attacks. R2 (bleep) 20:49, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Which editor is Attkisson? -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:30, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

173.66.57.46. I believe she also edited under an account back in 2012. You can find her in the talk page archives. R2 (bleep) 21:47, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

She is and she has. I’ve welcomed her on her talk, advised her to create an account, and added a closer contributor notice to the talk. Toa Nidhiki05 22:02, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. -- BullRangifer (talk) 22:34, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

New sock of User:Dragonrap2

• Please see 104.243.170.157 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Quick and disruptive. See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dragonrap2/Archive. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:21, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Tim198 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.

---

A few months back, Tim198 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked as an outcome this ANI thread. In that thread, I made note of two other accounts that they appeared to have used, but they were not blocked due to their inactivity. Well, in the time since then, it appears they have resumed using the Tim198NY (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) account to continue doing the same stuff that resulted in the original block. I request that the Tim198NY account be blocked for NOTHERE behavior/block evasion, and their userpage be deleted under CSD U5. Thanks. EclipseDude (Chase Totality) 22:26, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:31, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

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

A registered user is removing my edits and belittling my IP status

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 an administrator please help me? I know the adminstrators always try to make sure everything is correct on Wikipedia and that rules are followed so could someone kind enough please help me? A registered user (Urselius) removed all of my information that was properly cited without any edit summary. They then published a factually incorrect version claiming Nepalis have East Asian ancestry despite the fact that "Nepali" is a nationality and not an ethnicity and that most Nepalis are related to North and East Indians, not East Asians. I reverted their edit and left a message at the talk page but they reverted my edits again. They told me that there was "too much information about South Asians" despite the fact that there's a lot of information about other groups within the article. The thing I am however most upset about is that they told me to "create an editor account if you want your edits to be taken seriously" whilst also telling me via the talk page that all IP users are treated suspiciously. What have I done wrong? I was merely trying to provide information about South Asian minorities with properly cited citations but they dismissed it by deleting the entire thing and basically told me that I, as an IP user, am unwanted here on Wikipedia. They look like a well established registered user here so I don't know why they would say such a thing. (2001:8003:4E41:F200:6864:D098:3C24:9CA5 (talk) 13:55, 11 June 2019 (UTC))

• Please note that my IP address changes all the time for some reason. I don't know why it has changed again but I am the same user. I am not IP-hopping. (2001:8003:4E41:F200:6864:D098:3C24:9CA5 (talk) 14:01, 11 June 2019 (UTC))
  • See IPv6#SLAAC privacy extensions. Uncle G (talk) 14:07, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
    • @Uncle G: Thank you for the link, I now understand why my IP address changes. (2001:8003:4E41:F200:D4E4:2CCD:F855:F14D (talk) 15:22, 11 June 2019 (UTC))

This is why many Wikipedians do not like IP editing, when you register an account, you may be addressed at a fixed talk page and chances are you will be pinged when somebody is trying to talk to you. Please do register an account. Carrite (talk) 00:22, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

• Comment 2001, per the heading at the top, you are supposed to notify the involved user of this ANI report. I have just done this for you. Your concerns are valid here. IPs are human too, and they should be treated with respect. Even more importantly, it seems like Wikipedia:Assume good faith was not followed here by Urselius. From my view, you have done nothing wrong as to warrant this treatment. (Non-administrator comment) (edit conflict) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 15:05, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • @MJL: I'm sorry I wasn't aware of the fact that I was supposed to notify Urselius of this report but thank you very much for notifying them. Also, thank you for providing the links to the articles (they were very interesting to read) and for giving me your viewpoint. Thank you very much, I really appreciate your help. :) (2001:8003:4E41:F200:D4E4:2CCD:F855:F14D (talk) 15:16, 11 June 2019 (UTC))

    [Thank you for the ping] Of course! If you ever need help, please check out the WP:Teahouse or write to me on User talk:MJL. Some of my favorite editors have used IPs (like B0B). –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 15:34, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

    • @MJL: Thank you very much for providing me the link to the Teahouse and for allowing me to request help from you if I ever need it, I really appreciate your help MJL! :D (2001:8003:4E41:F200:D4E4:2CCD:F855:F14D (talk) 00:14, 12 June 2019 (UTC))

Response - What a ridiculous complaint. I am solely interested in content, nothing else. This editor wanted to add a screed of information about minority groups in South Asia that will distort the balance of a section of an article. A section that is already hard to read because of all the examples that are listed in it. It is an article that I rescued from having very little useful or valid content and poor citation. However, this sort of 'bleating' and reactive 'coddling' is what I have come to expect from Wikipedia, which is part of the reason why I hate it so very much. Urselius (talk) 17:42, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Unrelated IP editor here - "create an editor account if you want your edits to be taken seriously" contradicts your statement about being interested in content and nothing else. Your dismissiveness towards basic civility is worrisome. If you hate Wikipedia no one is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to edit. 2001:4898:80E8:2:A5F:2E62:10E4:D7D1 (talk) 18:37, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Your comment is mistaken. The content I care about has to be readable, just because content added to an article has citations does not mean that it improves an article. On the contrary, if extra information overloads a section that is essentially a list making it less readable and less readily intelligible, when that information is in too much detail for the balance of a section, then it does not improve it. I hate Wikipedia, but I love accurate information, well presented, readable and well reasoned, that is why I edit. I utterly despise the apparatus of Wikipedia, and many of its apparatchiks. I assert that my opinions are as valid as anyone's, I do not have to espouse Wikipedia as an institution in order to use or edit it. Urselius (talk) 19:19, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Please explain the edit comment "create an editor account if you want your edits to be taken seriously" 2001:4898:80E8:2:A5F:2E62:10E4:D7D1 (talk) 20:07, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

I know that there are fluffy inclusivity directives in existence. However, if any experienced editor sees an edit summary from a page on his or her watchlist there will be a gradation of responses depending on the nature of the editing editor. If the editor is known to be reliable the edit will be assumed to be valid, if the editor is registered but an unknown quantity the edit may worth checking, if the editor is an IP address the edit will be checked, as there is a significantly higher likelihood of the edit being disruptive or inappropriate. If any experienced editor denies that they employ this hierarchy of suspicion then they are being less than truthful. Human psychology, and Wikipedia has negligible influence on this, dictates that edits made by IP address editors will tend to be regarded with a more jaundiced eye. If you wish to avoid this, call it prejudice, then it is simple enough to create a user account. The comment was not belittling IP status, as asserted, it was merely advice. I reverted the edits, not because they were made by an IP address editor, but on their lack of merit within an already overloaded section, and because I considered that they were too detailed in comparison to the remainder. Urselius (talk) 20:50, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

@Urselius: (Reply from the IP user that opened this ANI report and is involved in it) "The comment was not belittling IP status, as asserted, it was merely advice", it was not advice and I know it isn't because I read the two articles that user MJL sent to me. I don't know why you're trying to act innocent because you clearly did the wrong thing. I only opened up this report because I wanted an administrator to help mediate and hopefully come to a resolution. I did not create this report to attack you, I wanted help to understand why this has happened and my first thought was to go to the Admin Noticeboard to get help. I don't know why you have such a suspicious attitude towards IP users. The article MJL sent me stated that according to studies between 2004 and 2007, "over 80% of edits by unregistered users were not vandalism" so why did you treat my edits with suspicion and tell me that I need to create an account to be taken seriously? I carefully made sure all my citations were correct but you deleted everything, including the sources, and dismissed me because I am an IP user. I know IP users are discriminated against by some on Wikipedia but I did not expect it from someone like you. Your comments in this thread only show me that you have a low opinion of IP users and thus consequently treated my edits as rubbish. I can see that MJL restored my edits and you have made some changes as well so I'm okay with moving on from this. I can't change your views on IP users and I'm certainly not trying to do that with this report. I just wanted help to understand why my edits were reverted and why I was told to create an account and I understand it now because MJL provided me some links and gave his viewpoint. I don't want this to turn into a huge issue as I now understood the problem here so we can all move on if that's okay with you.(2001:8003:4E41:F200:D4E4:2CCD:F855:F14D (talk) 00:08, 12 June 2019 (UTC))

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

User:ClueBot NG is malfunctioning

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 article for Noise Factory is recently becoming flooded with vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:387:1:824:0:0:0:40 (talk) 04:11, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Noise Factory (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Here is a link to the article. I'm not sure what this has to do with cluebot though. MarnetteD|Talk 04:16, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

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

Andy Dingley is a Cyber Bully

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 Andy Dingley has been really harsh on me because I’m editing pages to improve them and get blamed by him for improving them. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Andy_Dingley — Preceding unsigned comment added by NelsonEN24 (talk • contribs) 09:16, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

He is not so much into math and thinks the smallest errors are nothing to think about, when they actually profoundly affect everything in existence and life.

Nobody else who sees the pages I edited treat me like that, but him.

He’s been way too aggressive, dissonant, aggressive, and harassing.

He says any improvements are unnecessary when they help people understand better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NelsonEN24 (talk • contribs) 09:12, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

You'd have to give much more specific evidence than that. Your approach is too aggressive. I recommend you withdraw the accusations and try and work with him constructively. Deb (talk) 09:19, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

The first diff I looked at was this. The diameter of a sportball was given as 1.22 meters and NelsonEN24 changed it to 1.2192 meters, which is exactly 48 inches. But writing it as 1.2192 meters is spurious precision since the size of anything like that will vary by more than 0.1mm, and the nominal size is obviously 48 inches, or even 4 feet. It would have been better to write it that way. I suspect Andy reverted but I didn't bother looking for a diff. Other changes in the same edit, like 66 feet to 65 feet 4.598425196760001 inches, are even more extreme examples of the same problem. NelsonEn24, welcome to Wikipedia and Andy is actually very knowledgeable and helpful. I hope you will take his advice and corrections on board. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 09:40, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

NelsonEn24, please take a look at the article Significance arithmetic for how to do those sorts of computations. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 10:10, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

• See Yard globe, Kin-Ball, La Géode and maybe lawn ornament

Also 71.214.97.157 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 73.67.115.77 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 71.52.25.29 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 71.214.98.144 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

And of course User_talk:Andy_Dingley#I had to improve the pages so that they can be more accurate and User_talk:Andy_Dingley#Why I’m being cyber bullied

Also you're required to notify other editors if you raise them at ANI. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:21, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

• @NelsonEN24: I don't see evidence of cyberbullying, more evidence of disruption trying to force edits without consensus, with endless repetitive rants on talk pages (with accusations)... Why not calm down, condense your messages into a single one, then wait for a reply? In content disputes, if you end up alone with another editor at an article talk page, third opinion, noticeboards or even dispute resolution can then be used to seek the input of other editors. If consensus is against us we should just move on. We have the WP:Teahouse where experienced editors can help with Wikipedia procedures and point at resources. Pursuing this path you risk boomerang or getting blocked for disruptive editing. —PaleoNeonate – 10:38, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

• This is all over the place, so I'm going to stop responding at the other locations and just do so here. Here's last night's response.

As one example, at yard globe you inserted the conversion "10 meters (32.808398950131231 feet) in diameter,", i.e. to 15 decimal places. That's far smaller than the wavelength of light. This is a completely inappropriate level of precision for a manufactured object. It's far smaller than the precision of the gyroscope spheres for Gravity Probe B. It's greater precision than the sphere considered for the Avogadro project. The number you have added is simply nonsense.

I am fairly sure that you already know this. Either you know this, and are making these changes deliberately to be disruptive. That is WP:DISRUPTIVE.

Or else you do not understand them, and so that is a failure of WP:COMPETENCE. Please do not make these changes any more - they are inappropriate.

Or else you have some unfathomable compulsion to keep adding these changes. Which is unfortunate, and WP is not the place for you, see WP:NOTTHERAPY.

But what we do not with certainty is that these changes are neither appropriate here, nor going to stay around. Please stop making them, because the next action is to seek a block of you at WP:ANI. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:11, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

More of the same at La Géode, changing {{convert|36|m|ft|0}} 36 metres (118 ft) to 36 metres (118 ft 1.3228346456694453 in)

Nelson has given an explanation for why this is necessary, but I am unconvinced. If anyone else shares that view, please discuss it here. Otherwise I'm going to assume that the usual WP practice (which certainly doesn't involve numbers to this false precision) will be followed. If there are any cases where more precision is appropriate (maybe some sphere somewhere is unusually accurate, in a WP:NOTABLE way) then please flag that, so that we can highlight it. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:45, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

• @NelsonEN24:, it might be wise, for a while, to keep your interactions with Andy at arm's length (or approx. 68.25 inches (1,733.55000 mm). Martinevans123 (talk) 10:49, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree with what you said, Andy Dingley was telling me about my editing, so to settle everything I removed all the cm conversions to prevent another stir. He turns out not to be a cyberbully after all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NelsonEN24 (talk • contribs) 10:46, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

• Please read WP:TPO. Please avoid returning to talk: page comments and continually editing them to change their meaning, especially after others have commented. Also, very strongly, avoid changing section headings on this page at WP:ANI, especially once there are external links to that heading. Otherwise you break the links. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:55, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

• And NEVER do this again. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:30, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

• To save a bunch more typing, can we close this now? Andy Dingley (talk) 14:13, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

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

Darts 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.

---

An IP editor 82.141.199.81 is creating dozens of articles about darts players, many unreferenced.

The editor was warned User_talk:82.141.199.81#March_2019. and has hundreds of edits undone, e.g User_talk:82.141.199.81#Australian_Darts_Players.

The editor continues:

• Draft:Amanda Abbott
• Draft:John_McDonald_(darts)

(There are dozens more)

Do we need more warnings before a block? Is there a way to mass delete the unreferenced creations? Should that be done?S Philbrick(Talk) 17:24, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

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

Disruptive user

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

---

The following user tries to cause problems by bringing up a resolved edit-war which included me and another user, two days ago in Eurovision Song Contest 2020. He even went to my talk page and asked me questions in the form of interrogation.

• Banana Republic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

—Dimsar01 ^Talk ⌚→ 17:33, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Sorry - I did not realize that the edit war has been resolved. If it has been resolved, then a request should have been made to have had the article unprotected. Banana Republic (talk) 17:38, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

It has not been resolved from what I can see. At best a stalemate between the two users. The Eurovision article is protected. That is my only input here.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:50, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the edit war was not between myself and Dimsar01. The edit war was between Dimsar01 and Lordtobi. Looking at the edit war, it seems that none of Dimsar01's edits were rational, so I went to their talk page to find out what exactly was their motivation. Banana Republic (talk) 18:01, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Dimsar01, the editor's questions on your talk page were civil and reasonable. You chose not to reply, which is your prerogative. What action do you want from administrators? Schazjmd (talk) 17:54, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

I think there are some emotions concerning the Eurovision article at play here. There are no case here against Banana Republic. If anything Banana Republic had been extremely civil in their interaction with Dimsar. BabbaQ (talk) 17:59, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

From what I can see here Banana Republic is doing what is pretty standard practice: communicating. Banana had some concerns about some of Dimsar's edits, and asked for clarification. I think this falls under Communication is Required. Dimsar should have calmly responded and had a nice dialogue with Banana, but instead ran here. ANI should be a last resort. I don't think Banana was being interrogative or disruptive here, and in fact find Banana's actions admirable. I don't think this case is actionable. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:34, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

The only disruptive behavior displayed here is this edit repeated twice by the user who opened this discussion. ×°˜`°×ηαη¢у×°˜`°× 19:49, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Dimsar actions are inexplicable considering he is an experienced editor.BabbaQ (talk) 20:07, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

I've looked deeper into the issue and genuinely appalled by the utterly childish behavior displayed by Dimsar01. He isn't new to edit warring over petty issues where he was wrong: I just recalled this discussion from last year I had with him. Experienced or not, he triggered the full protection of an article that needs constant updating, and this should not be acceptable. ×°˜`°×ηαη¢у×°˜`°× 20:27, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

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

Nationalism, nationalistic sentiment, lack of neutrality, lack of response

• Stan Tincon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) utilizes pro-German nationalistic (Wikipedia:Nationalist editing) sentiment and exaggeration on articles related to Poland and its history. Disrupts all Polish articles linked to Germany, lots of mistakes and somewhat anti-Polish sentiment which can be clarified by the highly un-neutral and controversial tone when adding irrelevant information on cities or towns that are part of the Recovered territories. This has been going on for weeks or months perhaps. I posted an answer on the user's talk page, however, it was completely ignored. User:Mike Winowicz has also noticed this action and also posted a message on Stan Tincon's page but no again no answer was provided. Per Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, Stan Tincon has misunderstood the meaning of Wikipedia and turned it into a political and controversial tool to misinform users. By adding singular secondary sources, the user exaggerates, blames and adds biased information. Per Wikipedia:Neutral point of view Stan Tincon has incorporated personal lengthy opinions instead of well-sourced factual sentences. In every single alteration nationalist editing is clearly present, which suggests that the user's permanent role on Wikipedia is to continue this conduct. Oliszydlowski (talk) 09:50, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Diffs please.Slatersteven (talk) 10:31, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

• Elbląg - 0 Not true; personal opinion. I explained why on Stan Tincons's talk page.
• Malbork - 1 No source given. Apart from resettlement and language change to signs the castle was reconstructed.
• Dobre Miasto - 2 Is this addition necessary?
• Krosno Odrzańskie - 3 Exaggeration and strange language.
• Kołobrzeg - 4 No source. Contradicts to Slavic settlement.
• Szczecinek - 5 Not neutral. Hasn't explored why Germans were expelled nor who has conducted this. Suggests Poles stole property, if so a source needed.
• Jelenia Góra - 6 Poor grammar, punctuation. Obviously does not care how the information is written as long as it is there. The source seems unreliable; no page given nor link to the published source.
• Masurian Lake District - 7 Ceded per Potsdam Agreement, not just annexed and kicked out.
• Gryfów Śląski - 8 Again the same unnecessary exaggeration about being "settled for centuries".
• Warmia - 9 Per Potsdam Conference borders were redrawn. I don't know anything any peace conference and no source provided.
• Świebodzice - 10 Personal misleading opinion. Suggests Poland was complicit in redrawing the borders without a source.
• Poznań - 11 So he describes Poles as settlers after border changes in World War II, but the Germans that came to settle in Poznań after it was annexed by Prussia in the 18th-century were normal ordinary citizens. There is a trace pro-German or anti-Polish sentiment entailed.

I think a warning is in order.Slatersteven (talk) 14:11, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

I find many of these edits unobjectionable. For example, it is clearly correct to call the territorial changes between Germany and Poland after WWII "annexation" rather than "cession" (since Germany wasn't in any position to voluntarily "cede" anything at that point); it's also correct to not call people "settlers" after they and their ancestors had lived in a certain place for several centuries (as opposed to a new population group coming in after them). These are legitimate content disagreements, if anything. On the other hand, several of the additions have a WP:COATRACK tone to them, and insisting on the term "annexation" for the Polish-German territory shifts while at the same time changing "annexed" to "reattached" for the Polish-Soviet shifts reeks of tendentiousness. Also, for a newish contributor with a couple hundred edits to be focussing entirely on edits of this kind is something of a warning sign, so I do agree he needs to be advised to dial it down. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:26, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I do not believe that a warning will be sufficient enough; the user was already informed and he continues to edit only the articles that have to do with war or repressions against Germans, or former German territories. This has been going on for months and it seems the account was created for that purpose. Oliszydlowski (talk) 11:21, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

By the way, Oliszydlowski, you forgot to notify Stan of this thread, which you were required to do. I'm doing this now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:35, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I thought that by linking the name he would receive notification. Thank you for doing so. Regards. Oliszydlowski (talk) 00:51, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Well as the header says (although in smaller text) "The use of ping or the notification system is not sufficient for this purpose." Nil Einne (talk) 04:54, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Slugger O'Toole continued tendentious editing on Catholicism and homosexuality

Previously discussed on NPOVN; I've brought over the evidence from there as well.

Slugger O'Toole (talk · contribs), formerly BrianCUA, has an ongoing problem with disruptive editing of topics related to Catholicism and homosexuality; his edits have the result of functioning as promotion for the Church and its various affiliate organizations, but are also misbehavior on their own independent of any promotional or non-neutral aim. A selection:

• Feb. 2019: Slugger adds euphemistic, promotional wording which was very explicitly rejected by the other users (FreeKnowledgeCreator, Doniago, Contaldo80, and myself) in a discussion in which Slugger participated two months earlier. Slugger claims in this edit that there is no consensus against the wording that he is trying to add.
• Feb. 2019: Among other NPOV violations related to promotional content and WP:WEIGHT, Slugger insists on vaguely writing "In many parts of the world, the Church is active politically on issues of importance to LGBT people" in place of the more clear and source-supported "against LGBT rights," insisting that to say "rights" would violate NPOV and, nonsensically, that because LGBT people are also interested in other matters, "rights" is overly narrow. (Here's the only other user in the discussion besides myself, Contaldo80, specifically rejecting this proposal.)
• June 2019[223]: Slugger removes text indicating that the Church "opposes the extension of at least some aspects of civil rights legislation, such as nondiscrimination in public housing, educational or athletic employment, adoption, or military recruitment, to gay men and lesbians", claiming that it is not in the source. The sources read:
  • ...In some cities, municipal authorities have made public housing, otherwise reserved for families, available to homosexual (and unmarried heterosexual) couples....Such things as the adoption of children, the employment of teachers, the housing needs of genuine families, landlords' legitimate concerns in screening potential tenants, for example, are often implicated [in initiatives with negative impact on the family]....There are areas in which it is not unjust discrimination to take sexual orientation into account, for example, in the placement of children for adoption or foster care, in employment of teachers or athletic coaches, and in military recruitment. and
  • in some matters...concern for the commonwealth justifies [sexual orientation] being taken into account. For example, the church teaches that discrimination based on sexual orientation is justified in the employment of teachers and coaches and in military recruitment.

The latter I had already directly quoted for him (after his first attempt to remove it, falsely claiming it was unsourced), and the former is right at the beginning of the source.

• June 2019[224][225]: Slugger, astoundingly, continues to edit-war against the statement that the Church is politically active against LGBT rights. This time, it is "active politically to support or oppose civil government legislation on the basis of Catholic moral theology and Catholic Social Teaching," which goes beyond being a WP:WEIGHT violation and somehow manages to convey no information at all.
• It's the little things: June 2019, an organization which campaigns against LGBT discrimination has as its function to "advocate for LGBT people to be able to engage in sexual acts."

I can really only say what I said in February - I do not know how else to proceed when, say nothing of listening to me, this user will not listen to anyone who disagrees with him even when formal procedures like 3O have been followed, will flat-out claim they agree with him when they do not, and will remove very blatantly source-supported text, claiming it isn't supported, on a whim. This is a user behavior issue, not a case of any given discussion needing broader input.

The topic area of Christianity and sexuality is subject to an ArbCom case, but unless I'm mistaken, this does not belong at Arb Enforcement because there are no general discretionary sanctions. Please let me know if this does in fact belong there instead.

–Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:13, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

To the first point, as I explained in my edit summary, I had a different understanding of the consensus. When I later understood that the consensus was against me on a broader scope, I accepted it. That article has been stable for months now. On the second and fourth, I still contend that the issues of importance to that population go beyond rights, to things like AIDS prevention. I also don't believe, as I have explained to Roscelese, that explaining what the basis of the Church's decision is violates Weight. As to the third, the text Roscelese is citing is not on the page she cited. I later found it, but still believe there is a difference between teaching that something may be "justified" in some circumstances and "actively opposing" it in all, which is what she said. As to her final point, I AGREED with her and edited the text to reflect so. She was right, I was wrong. Currently, the paragraph in question was last edited by Roscelese. I'm not sure what her issue is there.

More broadly, three weeks ago I suggested a group effort to try and calm tensions, build good will, and learn to collaborate with one another. No one, including Roscelese, took me up on that offer, even though she was pinged about it at the time. I started working on it in the last few days when no one else took the lead. Rosclese then came in and made some edits in response to mine. When I agreed with her, as shown above, I said so. I've even publicly thanked her four times in the last day or so for her edits to this article. I am willing to work with anyone who works with me. I am often the one who requests 3O or RfC when things get contentious. And, even when the consensus is against me, I respect it. I am sorry to see what was supposed to be an effort to build good will end up like this. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 04:39, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Gregotheus 01

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 could an admin look at the edits of this user. Despite repeated warnings they continue to add unsourced genre's as well as other unsourced info. Thank you. Robvanvee 13:39, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Agreed this needs to be looked into. - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:47, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Examples? El_C 15:58, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20... it goes on but hovering your mouse over the diffs on their talk page should give you some idea. Robvanvee 16:27, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

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

OWN Behaviour : Admin Review Request

Two successive issues have occurred with Lithopsian that have issues with OWN or a |NPOV. (Everything corresponded here[226])

• Changing sources and dropping them into a reflist.[227] Policy is clear, as stated, but it is deemed by them as "...a paranoid rant with little relation to the real world. " and asserts that: "If you seriously think I'm contravening the policy, now or two years ago, you know where to go. Discussion over, here at least."[228]. (then closing the discussion with an archive template.) CITEVAR is clear and concerns stated appear justified.

• A response to Talk:Antares on magnitudes here[229], being transferred from their talkpage here[230] and described as "moving content-related whinge to mainspace talk page" The response is problematically saying: "Yes, the IAU does say that. And nobody does it. Hence I don't do it, in Wikipedia, and neither should you. We're not here to change the world, or right great wrongs." No support for this and nothing to be able to achieve any consensus, where the question arose with this edit.[231] They did a similar set of edits to the star magnitudes in Crux for nine instances here[232] This was explain to them and notified here[233]. They didn't respond.

Usage needs to be applied so the pages like the recent significant edits like: Photometry (astronomy), Apparent magnitude, Magnitude (astronomy), Photographic magnitude or Absolute magnitude can be further improved. Discussions like here[234] have been very positive.

Yes. Their own contributions have been greatly improved the project on astronomy related articles. No contest. But there seems a growing tendency of intolerance by this editor towards other obvious POV that differs from their own views. These two issues seem to support this. Arianewiki1 (talk) 02:09, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

FWIW, I agree with Lithopsian on the usage of language in the arugment above. I recommend any uninvolved admin look at the size of Talk:Rigel and its contents and draw their own conclusions. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:32, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Oh good lord. First bullet - L's (very minor) tweak of the ref location is precisely per WP:CITEVAR. No issue there.

Second bullet - editorial issue, take to article talk page.

Neither one of these has any NPOV implications whatsoever. Quit spamming ANI with asinine complaints. VQuakr (talk) 14:42, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Clearly you haven't read the link on CITEVAR. Again:

WP:CITEVAR also says: "Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, to make it match other articles, or without first seeking consensus for the change." It also says under To be 'avoided'': "changing where the references are defined, e.g. moving reference definitions in the reflist to the prose, or moving reference definitions from the prose into the reflist."

Lithopsian has done both, whose response is "And another discussion descends into a paranoid rant with little relation to the real world. If you don't like the policy, take it up at the policy page." Yet the words above is the policy. e.g. They did not seek consensus to change and they are moving cites around seemingly to be DE. Is this an example of an "asinine complaint"? Arianewiki1 (talk) 02:50, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it is asinine because even if you were correct it wouldn't merit a trip to ANI. But as it happens, you are also not correct - the edits you have linked were examples of making the citations within that single article consistent, per WP:CITEVAR. You excised the relevant condition from your selective quote above: When an article is already consistent... VQuakr (talk) 20:42, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Again, read the reasoning in the ANI. They changed the cite format here[235] on the 18 Oct 2017. Before this the article was: ...already consistent...

Even if this were deemed acceptable, they also did this[236]. Evidence suggest they've done this. What's wrong here is it a disruptive tactic being done likely to avoid scrutiny and making article editing by others more difficult. That damages the project but help editors not to waste time ajudging new contributions.

Perhaps instead of discrediting and undermining everything that is said, it is better to use objectivity. Is the evidence given true? That's the point. Arianewiki1 (talk) 00:23, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

No, actually, the edit you cite here: [237] only makes the referencing consistent. Note, also, that the edit you are complaining about was from a year and a half ago. Attic Salt (talk) 12:52, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

But this is all a distraction. Lithopsian's position here is seemingly untenable, because even when faced with specific usage, they are prepared to both revert back to some own singular viewpoint. This is not the first time e.g. RfC: Inclusion of this statement under 'Nomenclature' and their (unsigned) reesponse[238] It doesn't help when his eagerly apostles seemingly blindly follow their lead and unable to be pliable enough to accept the evidence, even when it is overwhelming. Lithopsian in saying: "Yes, the IAU does say that. And nobody does it. Hence I don't do it, in Wikipedia, and neither should you." sets a dangerous precedent as it damages the whole point of Wikipedia - based on statements supported by verifiable sources. Impositions like this edit by them on Deneb[239], but they don't even bother to respond to an RfC Bayer designation#RfC : Placement of Alternative Names (They were advised). Another is that Rigel has no variable star designation, when it does. Dismissing that Rigel doesn't under go blue loops, even though it is cited, but they remove it as alleged 'fantasy', but use the same source on another related page.

The big problem with OWN is that it destroys the ability to collaborate between editors, and it attempts to enforce a singular viewpoint. It also discourages other editors from contributing unless they tow the line on that viewpoint.

This given text that is based on International Astronomical Union (IAU) precepts, and it was reverted back on Lithopsian's opinion without evidence ("nobody does it") and based on this they content, on their word alone, "I don't do it, in Wikipedia, and neither should you." No consensus, no compromise, just dictating a POV. Yet they repeatably by doing this across multiple articles and get bolder every time it is ignored. Worst, they merrily ignore any involvement and do something else, and leave others to squabble over the mess they leave behind. Arianewiki1 (talk) 02:38, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Absurd case of citation bombing by Pr12402

Note: this was originally reported on WP:CCLEAN.

On and off since 2017, Pr12402 has been citation bombing (WP:REFBOMB) a handful of articles to a height of absurdity I've never seen. Single sentences have up to 30 citations apiece, and this article about a Belarusian band has 327 citations, almost 50 more than the article on the American Civil War. It's almost surreal how bloated the citations in these articles are. See also: Cyruĺnia Svietu; Gentleman (Hair Peace Salon album); Open Space (band); Bristeil; beZ bileta. I was going to speak to this user myself, but I feel something like this warrants an intervention from an administrator. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 07:53, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

TheTechnician27 - I don't see anywhere on Pr12402's user talk page where anyone has attempted to notify them or even educate them in good faith about over-adding citations to articles where their placement aren't trivial, relevant, or useful. I see one warning left for this user in January 2019 about overlinking, but that's completely different from "reference bombing." I think we need to start at square one here: We need to assume good faith on the user's part (I'm sure that he/she believes that their edits adding references are helping; any user doing this would...) and talk to them about their edits, and try to educate the user in a positive and encouraging manner. Just leave them a custom note and help them out. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:54, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Please note that Pr12402 has absolutely been informed about this problem, but not necessarily on his/her talk page. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hair Peace Salon, Talk:Hair Peace Salon, and the currently in-progress Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Open Space (band). Those are the ones in which I have participated, there may be others. Thanks. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 00:14, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

I've also created a thread at the Conflict of Interest noticeboard asking what is their relation to the brand since this user was the main contributor (over 90% of edits) for both the Belarusian and the English version of Hair Peace Salon. They never replied and it had no consequences. I totally agree that this editor's behavior is beyond a simple warning or a "nice word". They should be banned for the disruptive editing. --Bbarmadillo (talk) 05:12, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

I'll go on the record saying I'd support something like a WP:TBAN. Pr's rampant, chronic, intractable disruptive editing and general disregard for Wikipedia's guidelines (and basic etiquette) combined with their complete inability to acknowledge – let alone learn from – mistakes makes it unambiguous that a nice word or even a slap on the wrist will not change this editor's behavior in any meaningful capacity. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 09:15, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

I think a nice word may be in order.Slatersteven (talk) 09:58, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Pr12402 (talk · contribs)'s reaction to the problem of refbombing Hair Peace Salon was to offer more refs (Special:Diff/872893540 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hair Peace Salon). This needs more than a nice word. Cabayi (talk) 11:14, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

After the deletion discussion was closed on 28 December 2018, practically nothing was added by me to Hair Peace Salon. What's wrong with this? ¯\_(°ヮ°)_/¯ The notability of the subject had to be verified by the multiple sources already put in there before 10 December 2018, I don't know why the deletion discussion was being re-listed multiple times and took so long. -- Pr12402 9 June 2019

It is true that you have made no additions to the article, but everyone in that discussion other than you has recommended significant reductions to the article, which you have resisted with red herring arguments that ignore Wikipedia policy, especially WP:CITEKILL and WP:MASK. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 00:18, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

• Some additional evidence to consider here: a while back, I PRODed an article created by Pr12402, Harkin Deximire as part of new page patrol. They responded by going to an article I had created and with a different signature rather hostilely threatened to nominate it for deletion and cast completely unfounded aspersions as to the subject's notability. A few days ago, they attempted to canvass me to an ongoing AfD, where they pretty clearly demonstrate that they don't understand how to cite sources (and possibly English). As additional evidence of this pattern of behavior, see Talk:Hair Peace Salon and the associated AfD. While they haven't been warned with templates, at this point multiple experienced editors have very patiently tried to explain Wikipedia's policies and guidelines to them such that template-warning would be overly bureaucratic and unlikely to be productive. In line with Cabayi's suggestion, we've tried nice words and it hasn't helped much. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 07:13, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Because Rosguill has declared that knows Russian, the language of the main scope of sources over at Open Space, and had shown the deep knowledges of ins and outs of WP:GNG over at Talk:Obongjayar, it should be considered an appropriate notification. IMHO. -- Pr12402 9 June 2019

Please see my comment below elaborating on why both this and another related instance of canvassing by Pr would be classified as inappropriate notifications per Wikipedia's guidelines on canvassing. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 10:20, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

• To add to what I said before and to Rosguill's comment, I'm not going to sugarcoat this: this editor's disruptive behavior is chronic, rampant, and completely intractable. Any article they touch in a non-trivial capacity is run into the ground unilaterally by them because of their flagrant disregard for Wikipedia's guidelines and for other editors' input. They are clearly WP:NOTHERE, and no amount of kind and informative messages on their talk page is going to change this. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 06:37, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
• I've kindly explained some takes over at the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Open Space (band), and personally for TheTechnician27 over at #Pump the brakes. -- Pr12402 9 June 2019

• Speaking of, it would appear Pr12402 has also kindly explained some takes here where they tried to WP:CANVASS another editor into an ongoing discussion for deletion, much like they did to Rosguill. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 09:15, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

• According to Wikipedia:Canvassing, it is an appropriate notification ("Editors known for expertise in the field"), since Melilac has shown decent abilities to contribute in Russian and Belarusian (https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:CentralAuth?target=Melilac) and therefore could rightfully evaluate sources in these languages what is useful to the deletion discussion on Open Space while the majority of disputed sources there are presented in these languages. -- Pr12402 10 June 2019

• You'll also note that, according to WP:CANVASS, under 'Inappropriate notification', we have Campaigning and Vote-stacking. Campaigning is defined as: "Posting a notification of discussion that presents the topic in a non-neutral manner." I wonder if leading with "Foreigners here are too obsessed" and "Of course the one who nominated does not know the source language" count as a 'non-neutral manner'; I'll have to think on that. Moreover, vote-stacking is defined as: "Posting messages to users selected based on their known opinions (which may be made known by a [...] prior statement)". It's been made abundantly clear that you support the article being kept, and you state: "According to your understanding of the WP:GNG on the example of Talk:Obongjayar, the article meets it", which can also be construed as "Campaigning", since you not-so-subtly nod them toward voting to keep the article. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 09:54, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

• I have pondered Pr12402's obsession with hundreds of citations to support trivial tidbits of info on moderately notable bands. It could be a conflict of interest and Pr12402 is a promoter, or it could be something as lame as editcountitis. But I suggest boiling down this mess to one simple statement: the articles are unreadable and do absolutely nothing for those bands, or for Wikipedia. Who in the world would be enlightened by a statement that a band appeared at some minor festival, followed by 15 citations to brief media notices? With his/her obsession for ref-bombing and inability to see the point of why it is disruptive, Pr12402 is clearly uninterested in writing encyclopedic articles that are useful to readers. I'm with TheTechnician27 in supporting at least a topic ban. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:38, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

• Canvassing update: Pr12402 has also canvassed the editor Vit Koz into the same deletion nomination thread here on the Belarusian Wikipedia, with the same message they left Melilac. Thus far, that's three editors they've inappropriately canvassed for a single deletion thread.

Block request

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

---

Hello everyone. I have chosen to officially retire from Wikipedia, and I would like a block placed on my account to avoid any temptation to return. I just do not see anything constructive coming from continuing to work on here. I know that it is an odd request, but I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you in advance. Aoba47 (talk) 22:02, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Might I recommend Bishonen for this? Best regards and thanks for the service. Cassianto^Talk 22:04, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the recommendation and the message. I greatly appreciate it. Aoba47 (talk) 22:06, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

No problem, have a read of this first before making any rash decisions. I see you've had some issues on another user's talk page. Don't chuck it all away because of a silly argument. Cassianto^Talk 22:09, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the link. I know it will sound rather silly, but I just feel really embarrassed. I honestly forgot about the wikibreak enforcer. Would it be alright if I go with that option instead? You are right in that rash decisions are rarely ever good, particularly in the long run. My perspective will most likely change down the line. Thank you again for the message. It may seem minor, but it is a huge help for me. Aoba47 (talk) 22:16, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Help yourself. I'm sure Bish would rather you take a break rather than ask for a self-block. No need to be embarrassed, and I wish you well on your break. Cassianto^Talk 22:19, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

If I may? I'm sure no one will judge you for taking a wikibreak. We all need one sometimes. Best of luck! —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 22:23, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree. Nice edit history, by the way. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 22:25, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

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

User:YuxinJiang - request for short-term block

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.

---

Repeatedly recreates the same blatantly promotional page, first as a (now-salted) draft and now in their sandbox. No response to talk page notes (both templated and personalized), plus continued editing following Jimfbleak's COI warning post. Since they're unresponsive, hoping a short block will get them to pay attention and respond. creffett (talk) 15:11, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

I dislike to say it this early in a users career, but I think a TBAN is in order, clearly not here.Slatersteven (talk) 15:23, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

I dislike to say it... Given the volume and nature of your comments on this board, that seems very unlikely to me. --JBL (talk) 02:01, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

I think you will find I very rarely call for bans on new users.Slatersteven (talk) 15:34, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

I've applied a 36 hour block to the user for the repeated creation of inappropriate pages that were worded like an advertisement. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:42, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

@Oshwah: That's a bit harsh. The user is a student. See here.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:17, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Bbb23 - Oh dear. Okay, I'll unblock the account right now. Hopefully they'll be able to improve their page creations and we won't have any more issues. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:20, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Bbb23 -  Done. Thanks for responding and for your feedback. I was originally very hesitant to block this account; your response shows me that I should've listened to that hesitation. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:23, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Oshwah: I think unblocking is right. After all, they are not editing in article space. Nonetheless, if they haven't responded to other editors' messages, perhaps it would be a good idea to try to contact their teacher, Fransplace.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:26, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Bbb23 - Indeed. Thanks again for responding and for your feedback. I also think that unblocking was the right thing to do after taking my initial hesitation and your response into account. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:28, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

I still think they should have gotten a short attention-getter ban (student or no, they still didn't reply on the talk page or get the hint about their article after the fourth speedy), but I respect your decision. That said, I have to wonder about the quality of a class that teaches people to edit Wikipedia but doesn't cover things like "how to not write blatantly promotional content" or "your talk page is there for a reason." creffett (talk) 15:47, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Frankly, I think editors should have been more diligent in researching the user. I also think it's unfair to blame the instructor who probably has many, many students and can't keep track of all of them. I imagine different instructors vary in terms of what they teach their students about editing on Wikipedia, and they certainly can't cover all of our policies and guidelines, or they and the students would never get anything done. Unless students are really being disruptive - and I don't think what this student has done fits in that category - they should not be blocked without at least trying to communicate with their teacher. If the student didn't know how to respond to the Talk page messages, I doubt they'll know how to respond to a block, either. Wikipedia is a mine field for new user, and although a block of this user if they weren't fulfilling a class assignment would have been appropriate, it's not the way to handle well-intentioned students.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:07, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

@Bbb23: If you don't mind, I'd like to turn this into a learning experience for me (since I'm pretty sure I tagged most of the editor's submissions and was the one who requested the block), so a couple questions:

1. Yes, I saw that the user had the student userbox. How would I have located the instructor? I don't see anything on that page linking them to a specific class (I just see a link to the general Australian Wikipedia-class page) and their edit history didn't have anything suggesting the specific class either.
2. In a future situation like this (new user keeps doing the same thing, unresponsive to talk page), what is the right thing to do? I'm pretty sure I've seen similar ban requests (for uncommunicative new users to get them to stop what they're doing and respond) in the past, why is this different? I guess the bigger question I have (and I mean this as a genuine question, not as a pointed rhetorical question) - why should student editors be treated any differently from other new editors? creffett (talk) 17:40, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

It ain't easy, and you don't have to go to the trouble to do that. If you look at the student's contributions, you'll see they said hi to a classmate, and you'll see OLES2129. There's probably an easier way to do it if you understand how all this is structured, but I searched and found the course that way, as well as the teacher. If you see this again and you can't find the course, I'd take it to AN (or ANI I suppose) and ask someone to help you. There's probably a better forum, but I'm familiar only with Wiki Education Foundation, which is responsible for classes in North America and has its own noticeboard. As for your question about why students should be treated differently, I have no answer other than because they are students and we shouldn't be making their experience here distasteful. As I implied above, if they are behaving like vandals or are being very disruptive in article space - and I'm sure there are other examples - that's different. There's only so much disruption we should tolerate. That wasn't the case here, so blocking was not an appropriate response.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:10, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

AFAIK the Education noticeboard tries to deal with all student assignment related issues. And FWIW, someone asked there and received a response in just over a day on a related issue: Wikipedia:Education noticeboard/Archive 19#OLES2129 Question Nil Einne (talk) 04:45, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Understood, thank you both. I'll keep that in mind for next time I run across something like this. creffett (talk) 13:03, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you to everyone who has chipped into this discussion and worked on rectifying things that our students have done. We have only gratitude for what you do and though I know this student seems to be disregarding editors' advice, I think he is just scared that his work disappears and we will think he didn't do anything. Just so you know, this is a 13 week course with 3 hours a week dedicated to teaching them what they need to know to edit and create an article on Wikipedia. So we do go through all the pillars and everything, starting with WikiEdu training modules, teaching them about copyright, good research and sources, adding media. Everything they should know. Some get it and do a wonderful job and others trip up at various points. This semester's been a lot tougher for us because 1050 students enrolled and we have had to train new teachers to help keep up so we do feel sheepish that some of these have caused you so much work. From next year, they'll be broken into smaller classes across the year so we will do much better, we promise. Please thank you all again for being so considerate and for all that you've done to help draw attention to our students' errors. Fransplace 02:35, 11 June 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fransplace (talk • contribs)

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.

Chemtrails conspiracy theory 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:Soniaprods (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Edit warring, not discussing for consensus, trolling... WP:NOTHERE. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 17:39, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

At around the same time you were reporting them, User:Doug Weller blocked them for 31 hours. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:42, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

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

Anand Kumar Khatri clearly WP:NOTHERE

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

---

This editor User:Anand Kumar Khatri has only edited on an AfD (placing numerous keep votes), then twice deleted the comments of other users (and their own keep votes) after being called out by another editor in the discussion. They are clearly not here to contribute. [240]. Orville1974 (talk) 23:53, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

My guess is that all the full keep votes at the Afd are related, as they mostly say the same thing in the same way. Thankfully the AfD has closed.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:22, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I have blocked the editor indefinitely. Cheers. Sasquatch t|c 00:32, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

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

Arj38

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.

---

Arj38 (talk · contribs) as apparently joined Wikipedia for the purpose of calling me "prejudiced and racist". Can someone please assist here? I would take care of this myself, but I guess I'm involved. Jayjg ^(talk) 12:34, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 12:38, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

El C beat me to it. ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:40, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

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

User:Tareksa: NOTHERE?

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

---

Given Tareksa (talk · contribs)'s edits, particularly ones like this and this (see also the edit summaries), I suggest that Tareksa is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia, and should find a different forum to express their views. Jayjg ^(talk) 12:37, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. Indeffed. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 12:47, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

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

Search Party 3.0

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.

---

Search Party 3.0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Hello all. This user has been disruptivly editing in music articles for a little while now. There seems to be an obsession here with the Assosiated acts section of infoboxes of popular hip hop artists (Eminem[241], Lil Wayne [242], Kanye West[243], T.I., Snoop Dogg, DJ Khaled[244] Jay-Z[245], etc.), wanting to add a lot of names or wanting it to be the names they prefer. When they are reverted, they just change it back the next day. Either no edit summary or something like "it's not too many". Talk page messages get ignored. Changing associated acts or Eminem and his collaborators, is something I have seen a lot from WP:LTA cases. However due to my hiatus in editing from 2014–2018, I do not know enough of ongoing cases to link it to a specific account or else this would go to SPI. They have also three times blanked sourced content/made unsourced changes to the lead of Eminem [246]. No edit summary each time. Currently edit warring on Eminem, Lil Wayne and Kanye West. AIV is not going to be the best forum for this disruption, so here we are. Looking for some administrative action here. StaticVapor message me! 21:55, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Probably Ah8007. Compare to Special:Contributions/Search Party 3. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:45, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the response NinjaRobotPirate! I will try and remember this for next time they pop up. StaticVapor message me! 00:04, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

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

Disruptive 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.

---

2001:16a2:5369:f500:a1e2:5c08:eeb3:1c5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

The above IP is actively edit warring against several users (including me and an admin, El C) on numerous articles. Some examples of his reverts :[247], [248], [249], [250]. The user ignored the warnings and does not write any edit summary to explain his controversial changes. Administrative action may be required. Best.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:03, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Comment : IP is no longer disruptive (last edit 3 days ago), this case can be closed since a block now would be only punitive.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:03, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

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

Obsessive SPA on a Hulk crusade

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

---

The user User:Hhggtg3279 has been here for 48 hours and has made 50ish edits and counting. They are a single purpose account focusing on the article The Incredible Hulk (film). Their goal is to prove that the actor Edward Norton, who portrayed Bruce Banner in the film, also portrayed Banner’s alter ego the Hulk. They added it to the article three times, plus probably another four times while logged out. After I protected the article they took to the article talk page (as well as my talk page). They posted dozens of notes proposing sources which they said proved their point. Their sources were either nonreliable or did not say that Norton portrayed the Hulk, or both.

I warned them yesterday, on their talk page and the article talk page, that their obsession was becoming disruptive. Their response was to continue trying to prove their point, posting another seven notes at the article talk page. IMO at this point they have exhausted Wikipedia’s patience. I am not advising any particular action because I am WP:INVOLVED. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:03, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Don't make that editor angry. You wouldn't like them when they're angry. Dumuzid (talk) 03:09, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

LOL! Thanks, I needed that. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:16, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I actually don't think you're involved and would invite you to take action as you see fit. El_C 03:13, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. But since I have discussed content with them, I do feel involved and would like someone else to handle it. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:18, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Sure, I gave the user some words of advise. If they continue to act as if this issue is their raison d'être, then perhaps some sanctions would be due. El_C 03:43, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

OK, but let's not close this just yet. Let's wait and see how they react. They've been advised before. -- MelanieN (talk) 09:11, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree that we should wait and see what the user does since the warnings and notes have been left on their user talk page. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:56, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

• FWIW, it's very likely that any post-2012 sources that say Norton portrayed the Hulk are confusing Norton's Hulk with the supposedly-sharing-continuity-but-otherwise-completely-unrelated character portrayed by Mark Ruffalo. The Incredible hulk is a relatively obscure film (and appears to have been a box office disappointment) that is most notable for a Robert Downey, Jr. cameo kinda-sorta tying it in to another film that was released the same year and virtually nothing else connecting it to the later "MCU" films. I can totally imagine unreliable fan sources just forgetting about it and getting it confused with the more notable Avengers and Thor films in which the character appeared. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:12, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

You are overplaying any disassociation of this film from the rest of the MCU. We've seen William Hurt's Thunderbolt Ross in three further MCU films. --Nat Gertler (talk) 04:24, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I didn't wanna say it in advance of someone making that comment, but I figured someone might. He's essentially a completely different character. As far as could be gleaned from the films themselves, the two might as well be twin brothers who share a surname and a face. :P Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:01, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

IMDB lists Lou Ferrigno as the voice of the Hulk in this film. I therefore choose to believe it exists in the same cinematic universe as the 2009 film "I Love You, Man." Now please imagine the sad piano line from the television series while I log off. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 04:27, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

That's the most sensible ANI comment I've seen in months. (笑) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:01, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I was summoned to this anticrusader tribunal on account of my username. Contrary to popular belief, I'm a currently unauthorized reproduction of a formerly unauthorized reproduction of the man who Lou Ferrigno and subsequent replacements legitimately pretended to be. Totally different character witness and completely useless to this case, just want to sincerely apologize for any confusion or disillusionment I may have recklessly inflicted here over the last thirteen years. But if it please the court, I'll remain wholly remorseless for my supposed role in any jewel theft, sexual assault or prison break, as I'm not the one on trial here. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:31, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

You should probably hire a lawyer, just in case. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:08, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm so innocent of being a Marvel knockoff, I didn't even know she had a day job! Thanks though, I'll keep her in mind if Chuck Harder ever would chuck my schtick. And even if that somehow fails, they'll never catch me in my trusty trademark springshoes! InedibleHulk (talk) 07:54, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

The editor did not post for several days. Now they are back at that article's talk page, but in a non-disruptive way at this point. So I think we can close this with no action - at least for now. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:16, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

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

Our World In Data

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.

---

A reference to funding from the Bill Gates Foundation referenced to OWID's own website was added and removed on the 9 June 2019 (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Our_World_In_Data&diff=next&oldid=901045000). Is there a problem with mentioning the funding? I presume an admin was involved as both edits say Username or IP removed.TSventon (talk) 12:35, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

No, any issue won’t be with the content, TSventon. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:46, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

The user information was suppressed from those revisions for reasons that were completely unrelated to the edits themselves or the content modified. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:00, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

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

User:BobRoberts14

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.

---

Disruptive editing by BobRoberts14 (talk) over at Gainesville, Florida. Continues to argue even when presented with facts. Responses are that the editor knows more about the city than others. Multiple reverts. Attempts to discuss the issues are contentious to say the least. I understand that the editor is new and I hope that they continue to edit but they seem to refuse to read any information presented to them on how to accurately edit and expand Wikipedia.

I need help handling this but I do not know what appropriate action would be and look to administrators for guidance. If there was something I could have done better or differently to effect a less contentious outcome, I would appreciate the feedback. Thank you. PopularOutcast^talk2me! 20:52, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

PopularOutcast is attempting to claim that Santa Fe college is not in Gainesville, Florida. They are not presenting facts, just a single source. If you search up any article on Santa Fe, it states the location as Gainesville. Although Santa Fe is technically a few blocks outside of the city limits, it's within a mile of the boundaries, and therefore is considered part of the city. The college has 22,000 students and is a major part of the city, yet PopularOutcast insists that it isn't in Gainesville and must be removed from the article, even though it is later stated in the article as being in Gainesville. BobRoberts14 (talk) 20:57, 11 June 2019 (UTC)BobRoberts14

It appears both of you are getting frustrated over a content dispute. Bob believes that being in Gainesville doesn't necessarily mean being within the city limits (for instance, the city of Boston is much smaller than the Boston metro area, and both are conflated with one another all the time), while PopularOutcast believes that since it's not within the official city limits, it's not in Gainesville. I would suggest seeking uninvolved editors to try and reach a consensus on the issue, as well as finding reliable sources- any of us can crack open Google Maps, but doing so is definitely Original Research. Rivselis (talk) 21:19, 11 June 2019 (UTC) CU-blocked. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:33, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Rivselis, there is more than this issue. I did not bring in the contents of the dispute to this because I thought I was not supposed to. The issue has been mostly about changing the lead without sources. The only reason I brought the issue with Santa Fe college up was because BobRoberts14 said that s/he had found a source which indicated that Santa Fe College was a major employer in the city. The source did not say that and I posited that it was likely because the college was not within the city limits. There are issues with BobRoberts14 doing original research and synth. Again, I didn't post here because I thought it wasn't the place. The history of the Gainesville article and the talk page as well the editor's talk page give what has led up to here. Other editors have been involved (again see history of the page and talk page) and the behavior continues. BobRoberts14 has undone edits of editors not involved who were just trying to improve the article. I can try to reach out to other editors. PopularOutcast^talk2me! 21:42, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

That is completely false. I never stated that Santa Fe was a major employer of Gainesville, although multiple sources state that it has over 1000 employees. I said that UF has over 27,000 employees in Gainesville and UF Health has over 13,000, and I cited sources. The only editor whose edits I reverted was you and Meters, and after Meters agreed with me, only you. Once again, Santa Fe is a major part of Gainesville, since it is only a few blocks outside the city limits and has over 22,000 students, and UF and UF Health both employ a large amount of people, with all the teachers and students adding up to over 96,000. All of that is factual and can be easily verified by accompanying sources. But you decided to dispute it for whatever reason. If a college is within a mile of a city, it's still considered centered around that city. And almost anyone would agree that UF and UF Health are major employers. BobRoberts14 (talk) 21:53, 11 June 2019 (UTC)BobRoberts14

This is a content dispute among editors, not an instance of disorderly conduct, vandalism or socking. You need to have additional editors weigh in on the article talk page or go to Dispute resolution. Whether or not the university is or is not in Gainesville will not be determined here on a noticeboard and neither of you have provided diffs/edits as example of any misbehavior. If you are both willing, I think DR is your best bet. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:45, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Liz, thanks. I thought edit warring was here but I guess I was incorrect. Appreciate your time. PopularOutcast^talk2me! 22:48, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

There does seem to be a problem with WP:OR here, some of it quite problematic. I saw Bobroberts14 via the late termination of pregnancy article, in which he added this. That, combined with other edits (including minor things like this) indicate a misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works. No action is needed here, but Bob, keep in mind that everything on Wikipedia should be based on what reliable sources say about the subject. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:47, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

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

Sfbmod

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.

---

• Religious and philosophical views of Albert Einstein (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Sfbmod (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Seen [251], I ask that Sfbmod gets indeffed for pushing a bizarre POV based upon misreading the writings of Einstein and Spinoza. I considered that adding described his professional scientific conclusion that Atheists could not be scientists ([252]) in Wikipedia's voice is a mockery of all we stand for. So, yes, I assumed the editor was trolling. Ascribe a statement so utterly inane to Einstein is character assassination. Then the editor went into a wild tangent about John 1:1. WP:AGF does not require us to allow other editors to insert inane rants into Wikipedia articles. He/she should be indeffed according to WP:CIR and WP:NOTHERE. If he/she seeks to push the POV that Einstein and Spinoza were Christians he/she should seek another venue. I told him/her that his/her POV is not welcome here, and he/she did not desist. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:08, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

He/she just does not stop: [253]. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:14, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

True "his/her POV is not welcome here" but are not you also a person of strong convictions? Still I am leaning in you direction. - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:20, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I will tell you how many WP:RS are there that Einstein was a Christian: none. Prove me wrong if you can. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:22, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

This whole thing seems like WP:SYNTH to me, but it's a bit early for WP:AN/I - just ping WP:FRINGE/N and wait for the inevitable edit war. Simonm223 (talk) 13:31, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

There is already a topic at WP:FTN. But his/her POV is of Uncyclopedia quality. I think that even Conservapedia will reject it. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:32, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Simonm223. It is a bit early for WP:AN/I. Hopfully things can be worked out amicably. - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:46, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Some people just don't know when to stop. Or they know, but choose to WP:TROLL, see [254]. I mean: Please stop giving your biased editorialization or the external non-primary source opinions that directly contradicts Einstein's Christian views that agree with Spinoza that Jesus was the same God who spoke to Moses as proven in the above primary source you are ignoring for obvious nefarious purposes. is hilarious. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:05, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Did not desist ([255]). Time to show him/her the door. Otherwise he/she will WP:TROLL endlessly. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:09, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm looking into this. This fringe view needs to be substantiated with especially high-quality, mainstream sources that place it in some sort of context, or we are all just wasting our time here. El_C 16:12, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Tgeorgescu accurately portrays User:Sfbmod as a synthesizer and POV-pusher who is proof against evidence. Sfbmod has been squandering Wikipedia editors' precious time and energies in relentless repetition of erratic personal beliefs.

Albert Einstein wrote philosopher Eric Gutkind, 3 January 1954: "The word God is for me nothing but the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of venerable but still rather primitive legends. No interpretation, no matter how subtle, can (for me) change anything about this." Sfbmod ignores this unequivocal rejection of religious belief, in an effort to make Einstein out to be some kind of Jesus freak and pantheist.

Nihil novi (talk) 21:00, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Yup on top of that insinuations that Wikipedia would be the Atheist Inquisition ([256]). And calling me "atheist" which I am not. I think that he/she should edit Conservapedia with his/her POV, that would be a sanity test for Conservapedia admins. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:06, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Personally, I love the bit where they refer to the secondary source Tgeorgescu provided as an "OR source." Does that level of Just Not Getting It qualify for WP:CIR to kick in? rdfox 76 (talk) 22:57, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Warned by El C with Okay, clearly you're not going to provide us with 2ndry sources as requested. Further innuendo unrelated to that is unwelcome. El_C 21:11, 13 June 2019 (UTC) but the WP:TROLLing show must go on: [257], [258]. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:19, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Sfbmod blocked for 24 hours. El_C 00:28, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

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

IP user making 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.

---

93.179.211.169 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has made several statements to the effect that Wikipedia's treatment of National Radical Camp is slanderous and contrary to Polish law. These statements have included explicitly referring to specific edits as slanderous and insulting to all of Poland in edit summaries [259] and an explicit threat on my page to inform the neofascist organization in discussion of the edits. In light of the legal threats, I think action is warranted. Simonm223 (talk) 15:45, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Block, this is unacceptable.Slatersteven (talk) 15:52, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

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

He was warned. He was given an opportunity. Nevertheless, he persisted.

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 red link user Hashirama56 is hell-bent on disrupting Rihanna’s article with WP:POINTY edits, 10 times in a week, about her reported net worth despite the fact that we have BLP standards and a consensus to adhere to the neutrality of the unconfirmed estimate of the report (Forbes). Even trying to make it about race! No one with more than 2 brain cells doubts Rihanna is a filthy rich woman but when it comes to the subject of wealth, you have to be prudent; that’s just a fact—especially given that when Forbes releases these things the IRS comes sniffing around (see Gisele Bündchen for example). Hashirama56 doesn’t understand that rule; he just wants to be petulant instead of help build an encyclopedia. At this point after multiple warnings from other editors it’s blocking time. Trillfendi (talk) 19:04, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate appears to have blocked them two minutes ago. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 20:48, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

"He was warned. He was given an opportunity. Nevertheless, he persisted." What is this, a Cake song? Anyway, yeah, I closed a report at WP:ANEW with a 24 hour block. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:55, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I was actually thinking of Nevertheless, she persisted. El_C 20:57, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

He's all alone (all alone!) in his time of need Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:59, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

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

Soniaprods, redux

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.

---

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

Fresh off their recent block for edit warring over chemtrails, they're posting long-winded messages (here's the one to me) to anyone's talk page that was even remotely involved about censorship, yadda yadda. Might be time for an indef? –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 21:39, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

I’ve given a quick 60 hours block to stop the immediate disruption but a NOT HERE block might be more appropriate. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:43, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

I was about to block indef for NOTHERE. I don't see much likelihood that they're going to change./ Acroterion (talk) 21:44, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

I was going to block them indefinitely, but I suppose there's no harm in letting the 60-hour block run its course and seeing what happens next. Mackensen (talk) 21:45, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

That someone attempting to push "Chemtrails" has failed, and is now shouting "OMG censorship" at us, is most reassuring evidence that we are going a good job of keeping nonsense out. I think I may have written about this somewhere (number one).

NotHere looking likely, indeed. Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 21:47, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

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