Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1018

Rogers Communications LTA once 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.

---

• 99.253.12.125 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• Sha Tin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Private housing estates in Sha Tin District (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Hong Kong Airlines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Previous ANI
  • Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive946#Rogers Toronto Date/EngVar Vanda
  • Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive947#Range block possibility?
  • Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive981#Long term abuse from a customer from Rogers Communications Canada
  • Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1005#Rogers Communications LTA.
  • Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1008#LTA of Rogers Communications

It seem the LTA had changed their ip address from 99.251.225.11 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). But again, EngVar vandalism pattern is unchanged. Also additional cross-wiki vandalism in zh-wiki in zh:國泰航空. Matthew hk (talk) 09:57, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Blocked for a month. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:13, 10 September 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.

Genre warring on Heartbreak on Hold article

The new user Iwannasingmysongtoo continues to add R&B in the infobox of Heartbreak on Hold, sourcing it with an italian blog's article [1]. Warned. Blueberry72 (talk) 10:10, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Given the behavior, I'm pretty sure this is LTA. I've filed an SPI. Aoi (青い) (talk) 10:27, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

I blocked for 48h, but looks like a sock indeed, only edit-warring and no useful contribution,--Ymblanter (talk) 06:47, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Now confirmed as a sock and CU blocked--Ymblanter (talk) 19:03, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive edits by IPs

I've been having problems with a few IPs (probably the same person) inserting line-breaks into locations in Infoboxes, making them into a sort of address format. This had been done to a couple dozen pages, some many times over:[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10] I had explained several times in edit summaries that it's an inappropriate format and also sent a warning to the Talk page of one of the IPs, but they're apparently ignoring me. A temporary page protection had been placed on one of the pages worst affected,[11] but once that had expired, they again returned to doing the same edits.[12]

These are the IPs that had been used:

• 2405:204:8183:B410:0:0:1D93:C8A0 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2409:4041:614:ADAD:D45E:C635:BD32:D524 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2405:204:8189:43BD:0:0:1D53:18A0 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2402:8100:203B:D39:0:0:519:913A (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 49.34.87.68 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Would a range block be appropriate here?
Alivardi (talk) 19:24, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

They're all from the same ISP, but that's a impractically large range of IPv6 addrs to block for one person. creffett (talk) 19:31, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant to say a temporary range block. Though I don't know if it would be much of an issue either way, since they seem to be the only person making edits from these IPs. Then again, I may have just misunderstood how the blocks work.
Alivardi (talk) 19:42, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

The 2402 IPv6 address is a cellular provider and not the same as the other IPs. Rangeblocks operate on addresses which share the leftmost values in common. So "2405:204:8183:xxx" and "2405:204:8189:xxx" are provisioned together by the ISP as a /36 block: 2^92-1 addresses in this block. The "2409" address is a completely different /36 block, and "2402" is a /48 block: 2^80-1 more addresses in this block. We'll take these massive numbers with a grain of salt, because each individual customer may be assigned a /64, but still, these are large swathes of address space, and not contiguous, so the collateral damage is a denial of service to perhaps everyone who uses this ISP in Gujarat. Elizium23 (talk) 21:22, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Damn. Point taken. Any ideas for an alternative solution?
Alivardi (talk) 23:30, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

An edit filter? -- 2001:16B8:1E2E:5700:C51F:E800:7F3D:5D42 (talk) 23:36, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

If it works. I'm not really to familiar with it. Honestly, I'm just getting tired of dealing with this. I've been doing multiple reversions a day for over a week now.
Alivardi (talk) 09:11, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Sooo an edit filter? Is that the way I should go?
Alivardi (talk) 19:15, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Removal of an RfC on a Talk Page

• Noah Kraft (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• BC1278 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I have COI as a paid consultant to Noah Kraft, the subject of a BLP. I posted an RfC at Talk:Noah Kraft and it was removed, apparently by DaRonPayne based on his comments toward the bottom of Talk:Noah Kraft#Request Edit that he was "not open to holding a vote until I've had an opportunity to post a rebuttal to the new points that you've raised." The editor also moved the discussion from the RfC into the previous section, a closed Request Edit so it appears as though the Request Edit already had a discussion about the proper use of a new primary source. It did not when the RfC was posted as a new section. Strangely, I have not been able to pinpoint the removal and move on Talk History. You can see the RfC as I posted it in History here: Special:Diff/914189294 When I made the Request Edit, it was a simple matter because I was only asking for removal of an unsourced contentious statement on a BLP. But DaRonPayne objected, so the Request Edit was closed with a recommendation by the reviewing editor for discussion amongst editors. Immediately afterwards, DaRonPayne added a new primary source to the article, so most of the Request Edit discussion about the lack of a source became moot.

I left notice on the section that I intended to start a new section about the remaining NPOV issue and whether use of the new primary source is proper. DaRonPayne asked for more time to do research. The editor has added a long series of interleaving replies to individual points in the closed Request Edit, against WP:TPO, making the closed Request Edit section especially unsuitable for gathering consensus amongst editors for a new issue. Finally, to compound he situation, DaRonPayne has added a series of vicious personal attacks against me in the closed Request Edit, such as accusing me of "scummy and unethical behavior that reflects poorly on Wikipedia" and accusations of "vote-rigging, before you attempt to do it again." I had already requested that the editor refrain from personal attacks on article Talk and instead, direct any complaints against me to COIN or Admins.

I'd ask that Admins intervene to review and restore the RfC (I believe it to be neutrally phrased) and to take the unusual step of removing the personal attacks against me in Talk, as his accusations are extremely slanderous and an attempt to sway the outcome of the consensus decision on content, and intimidate me, by maligning my professional reputation. I am notifying DaRonPayne on their Talk page of this report.BC1278 (talk) 22:28, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

BC1278 is attempting to jam through controversial changes to the page of his paying client, the subject of the page, without allowing any time for discussion of those changes. I'm completely open to having a poll, under a few conditions:

(1.) That BC1278 wait 48 hours for me to respond to his arguments

(2.) That BC1278 not be allowed to contact editors that have voted for his changes in the past, since could tarnish Wikipedia's public image, given BC1278's history of controversial tactics around votes.

(3.) That anyone voting on the change disclose if BC1278 has contacted them to vote on one of his suggested changes in the past, and if so, how many times.

(4.) That the poll be reworded to something acceptably neutral. As a paid editor, BC1278 should not have the ability to unilaterally determine the wording of the poll just because he was the first one to post it.

(5.) That there is disclosure that BC1278 has come under scrutiny from other Wikipedia editors and journalists for a pattern of controversial tactics around votes.

Note that BC1278 has materially misrepresented his history of changes to the page. (1.) The claim he objected to was not "unsourced", although it was updated with a newer source, (2.) The editor objected to BC1278's change because it was objectively controversial, not because of my involvement.

BC1278 exaggerates the difficulty of using the preceding discussion as a basis for gathering consensus, but in any event, that makes the need for a reply to the new claims that he raised all the more urgent so that editors have the context to evaluate this dispute. BC1278 has made several claims that I believe are false or misleading, and he shouldn't be allowed to logjam through a poll without any discussion, even if that's what his client would prefer.

I think that the caveats I have suggested are fairly reasonable and I'm happy to reword my statement about BC1278's past behavior to merely reflect what others have said about him, for example here: Special:Diff/845217397#Canvassing and here Special:Diff/843020422#Choice of editors to move your draft articles. DaRonPayne

Also note that BC1278 resorted directly to posting this here instead of taking it up on his Talk page, where I tried to have a discussion with him. DaRonPayne (talk) 23:24, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

The HuffPo accusations against me were discussed at great length at AN and discredited. An Administrator uninvolved in the AN discussion summarized the consensus on the Administrative Closure Noticeboard as: “the article was written by someone who has no idea how Wikipedia works and b) the editor mentioned in said article has not violated any policies or ToU. [Terms of Use.]." Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure/Archive 28#Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#HuffPost article on WP COI editing COIN and AN found no violations. The accusations are immaterial to the severe disruptive editing at Talk:Noah Kraft or the proper process of an RfC for the Kraft article. BC1278 (talk) 23:28, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

I can see why you linked to the summary instead of the full discussion. It's not flattering: Special:Diff/887985129#HuffPost article on WP COI editing DaRonPayne (talk) 06:00, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Notice how BC1278 never mentions the other two links to Wikipedia editors reprimanding him for his aggressive behavior and never denies the claim from the article that is most relevant here, namely that he has a history of controversial tactics around votes. Assuming the article is accurate on this narrow point, which BC1278 has never flatly disputed, allowing this sort of thing to go unremarked upon sets a precedent. Namely that it's fine for BC1278 to continue with his controversial tactics around votes. I think it's in Wikipedia's interest to mention this behavior prominently as a deterrent, and to prevent negative press coverage in the future. I suspect that most lay readers, and many Wikipedia editors, would perceive these tactics practice as unethical. It is possible to act unethically without technically violating Wikipedia policies, and it bears mention. DaRonPayne (talk) 00:29, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

• I'm not reading this wall of text. But DaRonPayne per WP:TPO you should not remove someone else's talk page post. If some editor wants to post an RFC, do not remove it just because you don't like it. Let the RFC run its course. Whether you like it or not, other editors can solicit input through RFC, without getting anybody else's approval first. I haven't looked through the posts by BC1278. And I really don't care. They posted an RFC on a talk page, and it should have been allowed to run its course. You are, of course, welcome to take this whole issue to WP:ANEW for some kind of resolution. But do NOT remove another editor's talk page post. — Maile (talk) 00:46, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Maile66 and other admins. DaRonPayne has responded to your instruction about removing the Talk post by posting his own entirely different RfC on the same issue at: Talk:Noah Kraft#RfC about use of YouTube video as source for lead and leaving my RfC from earlier today blanked. Special:Diff/914189294 His RfC contains personal attacks against me. It omits my entire RfC explanation from the new Discussion. He has left in all the more severe personal attacks in the previous Request Edit section and directed other editors to that section with links. We could move this discussion to WP:ANEW, as you suggested. But given the severity of the situation, including the very severe personal attacks in the previous section, I'd suggest an Admin at ANI correct the Talk page and DaRonPayne be given a formal warning about disruptive editing. This goes beyond edit warring. BC1278 (talk) 01:35, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

BC1278 there's nothing stopping you from reopening your RfC, you're just as capable of doing that as I am. And you're asserting the claims about your editing history are unfair without actually responding to any of them. And I don't see where in the Wikipedia rules you have a God given right to run the only RfC on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaRonPayne (talk • contribs) 01:44, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

I also think it's fairly reprehensible that a paid editor is aggressively attempting to get admins to prevent a volunteer editor who disagrees with him from making edits on his client's page. BC1278: You're welcome to reopen the RfC and I won't stop you, but this heavy-handedness is not a good look. DaRonPayne (talk) 01:49, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

• DaRonPayne's conduct at Talk:Noah Kraft (not just the first thread but the whole page) is very concerning, as are his repeated attempts to throw shade at BC above. – Levivich 01:54, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

This editor has also severely personally attacked me on my User Talk page Special:Diff/914201300 and restored the attack twice after I deleted it. He was already cautioned by an Admin to stop. User talk:DaRonPayne#User talk pages His harassment of me on Talk:Noah Kraft and my User Talk Page has been escalating for several days. BC1278 (talk) 02:11, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

I have made literally zero edits before today going back until August 23rd. What are you talking about? Also I stopped editing your page immediately after the Admin told me to stop. It seems like you're a paid editor trying to weaponize the fact that I'm a new editor against me in order to get me kicked off of your client's page. DaRonPayne (talk) 02:15, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

And a quick update, I have reposted BC1278's RfC. DaRonPayne (talk) 19:44, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

You placed it AFTER your RfC on the talk page and out of chronological order. He doesn't control an RfC. If you don't like the phrasing, you can always add another option or another phrasing. Buffs (talk) 00:13, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

• Requesting other admins here to have a look at the edit history of DaRonPayne, which seems to me to be almost a single-purpose POV account focused on Noah Kraft. Earlier in the year, he used the same tactics on FeldBum who had been editing the Noah Kraft article. FeldBum has since quit editing altogether. DaRonPayne went after FeldBum on their talk page and reported them at COI Noticeboard 1. I'd like other admins to look at this, but this looks to me like blockable harassment focusing on Noah Kraft. — Maile (talk) 02:26, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

FeldBum had an undisclosed conflict. He __admits__ that he had been hired by TWO of Kraft's companies for PR work, and he didn't mention it ANYWHERE. Why would you automatically side with the party that has a financial conflict in these disputes? Should I have not reported that? Did you even read the complaint? And he hasn't stopped editing altogether. He just stopped editing Kraft's page. Check his contributions, he has been quite prolific since February, which was when I made the complaint. Also, the only reason my account appears to be "almost a single-purpose" account is that I've faced an army of Kraft's paid associates and other people with disclosed but unspecified connections to Kraft lobbying to turn it into a PR piece (Talk:Noah Kraft#History of sockpuppeting, contributions by people with financial ties to Kraft, and contributions by brand new editors with disclosed but unspecified personal ties to Kraft). This is the COI equivalent of "stop hitting yourself." Seriously, read the FeldBum complaint instead of bringing it up as evidence of my "bias" without reading it. It's eye-opening. DaRonPayne (talk) 02:32, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

• It would be helpful if there were more than the two of you editors duking it out on the article talk page. Perhaps you should end the accusations and attacks because they are chasing away well-intentioned editors who are probably staying away from such a divisive atmosphere. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:56, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

That's reasonable and I'm happy to reword it. I do think the fact that BC1278 has been reprimanded by editors before is fair game, since he is a paid editor who has attracted considerable controversy from other editors. So I think that's important context for people coming across the page, but I'll try to make the language milder and more on-topic.DaRonPayne (talk) 03:01, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Update: I re-worded the relevant section to note BC1278's history of controversial tactics around votes but much more mildly worded. Please take a look, if you have a minute. DaRonPayne (talk) 03:10, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Liz, I posted a routine RfC for just purpose Special:Diff/914189294 and DaRonPayne deleted it. He moved the RfC discussion (about the use of a primary source) into a a previous Request Edit section that had already been closed. Then he started his own RfC on the same issue - incorporating a veiled personal attack into the actual RfC question, and not including any of the discussion from the deleted RfC. That is why we are here. Highly disruptive editing by DaRonPayne is indeed chasing away other editors. The deleted RfC should be restored and DaRonPayne cautioned to stop moving/deleting other editors' Talk posts and filling Talk with personal attacks. BC1278 (talk) 04:19, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

And BC1278 keeps bringing that up even though he refuses to restore his RfC himself, presumably so that he can continue playing the victim and trying to get me banned from interfering with his client's page. I've told him he can restore it and I won't stop him. I have also substantially modified the wording, but in a way that still points out that BC1278 has been involved with controversial tactics around voting and has been admonished by other editors in the past. That is fair game, AFAIK, for editors who don't have that context evaluating claims by an extremely aggressive paid editor with a history of controversy. DaRonPayne (talk) 04:49, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia shouldn't have two competing RfCs on the same exact topic. DaRonPayne, you need to take responsibility to undelete the RfC and RfC discussion you removed and get rid of the competing RfC and personal attacks you posted. I'm not getting into an edit war with you. BC1278 (talk) 13:37, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

I've reposted your RfC. DaRonPayne (talk) 19:43, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

• Requesting admins here take a look at the edit history of Noah Kraft's page, which appears to have been created by a PR firm and has been zealously interfered with by people with admitted conflicts since the page's creation. (Talk:Noah Kraft#History of sockpuppeting, contributions by people with financial ties to Kraft, and contributions by brand new editors with disclosed but unspecified personal ties to Kraft) DaRonPayne (talk) 03:01, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
• Just found this and it makes for some interesting reading: Special:PermaLink/887985129#HuffPost article on WP COI editing.

A few excerpts from the discussion that BC1278 omitted: "articles like this make us look ridiculous and that our official begrudging acceptance of disclosed paid editing is even more of a threat than undisclosed paid editing because it ruins our reputation when major media outlets runs stories like this." "There are no good decisions for us to make here only least awful ones." "Here we are the bureaucrats that allow Big Tech to whitewash their own articles." "Hi guy here who thinks you're right that UPE is worse. But do you understand why as a volunteer how your 700+ words are troubling and could be seen as WP:BLUDGEONing this conversation in contradiction of WP:PAYTALK."

And reading over this, BC1278's conclusion is that the article was COMPLETELY DISCREDITED and he paints it as if all of the admins who looked at it found no issues whatsoever with his conduct. I think the discussion speaks for itself, and the editors on Noah Kraft's page should be able to evaluate BC1278's arguments in the context of the controversy surrounding his tactics. All I ask is the ability to link to other editors comments on his practices. I don't think that counts as an attack. DaRonPayne (talk) 05:58, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

This is all irrelevant to the disruptive editing in Talk:Noah Kraft, but DaRonPayne's link above is to the second day of a 6-week discussion, before more serious investigation by admins. The full archived AN discussion is here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive308#HuffPost_article_on_WP_COI_editing.BC1278 (talk) 12:17, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

This "full archived AN discussion" you've linked to here again has you referencing a "summary" of a prior discussion that doesn't actually link to that discussion. I, for one, am interested in reading the entire discussion, not just the summary by Swarm, which seems to have swept a lot of editors reservations about your conduct under the rug. DaRonPayne (talk) 19:41, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Diffs

For administrators gasping for the lack of appropriate diffs to actually look at, here are some:

• Special:Diff/882669102 — talk page refactoring to exclude signatures
• Special:Diff/882670341 — talk page refactoring to remove parts of comments
• Special:Diff/912029529 — edit request not placed into a section
• Special:Diff/914230527 — section headings
• Special:Diff/912032397 — objection to edit request placed ahead of it, unsigned
• Special:Diff/912205008 — breaking up someone else's comment to post the same thing over and over, see also the edit summary
• Special:Diff/914204122 — use of undo
• Special:Diff/902042721 — unsigned
• Special:Diff/914181770#RfC about use of YouTube video as primary source for lead — placement of RFC section
• Special:Diff/914200620 — blanking of the same, combining RFC discussion under preceding section
• Special:Diff/914233386 — placement of altered RFC
• Special:PermaLink/914257926#RfC about use of YouTube video as source for lead — The RFC right now

Uncle G (talk) 09:22, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for this. Re: Special:Diff/912029529, this was an inadvertent formatting error that I noticed and corrected within 15 minutes by adding a section header above the Request Edit. Special:Diff/912031161 BC1278 (talk) 12:46, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Just a quick update, BC1278's RfC has been reposted. DaRonPayne (talk) 19:39, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

DaRonPayne reposted the RfC he deleted, but has left live the RfC he later created on the same issue (which had been his first solution after being told here he could not blank another editor's RfC) and placed it on top of the original RfC. Special:Diff/914345027 BC1278 (talk) 02:42, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

I've read through just about everything and DaRonPayne's behavior in the above diffs is atrocious and completely unnecessarily aggressive. Consistent refactoring of others' comments (even deleting whole sentences...practically paragraphs of others' remarks) is inherently disruptive behavior. Persistently adding comments to others' talk pages (Special:Diff/914204122) because "other people need know just how bad you are" (I paraphrase) is particularly heinous. Deleting an RfC, etc. are all underhanded techniques and are inherently uncivil. Claiming to have restored the RfC is also misleading...he's restored it below the one he started the next day. This means that, if you are looking at a list of RfCs, the link will go to the first one.

BC1278 is not "clean" in the matter, but appears to be trying to make a good faith effort to be a good editor and openly states his COI. Personally, I don't see a problem with that. Let an RfC pan out and see what people think. BC1278 seems largely content to let it pan out. I don't know who Noah Kraft is or who he hired/didn't hire. I don't particularly care. DaRonPayne, at this point, I'd call for a block of you and restoration of the original RfC in chronological order regardless of anything you don't like about BC1278. DaRonPayne, I recommend reading WP:BLUDGEON. Now, I'm off to weigh in on an RfC. Buffs (talk) 22:50, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

• The latest DaRonPayne abuse is to use his invalid dulpicate-topic RfC as a bargaining chip to get his way on a rewording of the lead. He says he will delete the RfC he improperly posted on the same subject as the RfC he deleted (then restored - but not in chronological order - under Admin pressure, so there are now two competing RfCs), but only if the specific proposal he prefers (one of two being discussed for a new lead) is adopted as a "compromise." Special:Diff/914473604 Otherwise, I suppose he's saying the chaos he has created by violating Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Multiple_RfCs_on_one_page and WP:TPO will continue. He will persist in actively breaking policy (3 days since he was warned here) unless he gets his way. BC1278 (talk) 20:03, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
• BC1278 is now actively misrepresenting what I said and should be reprimanded for his blatant dishonesty. I flat out said that I am willing to have the $50 million claim removed entirely from the article as a compromise if BC1278 is willing to stop trying to micro-manage and write the lead for the article for his client. In fact, I'm willing to completely abstain from any further editing on the article/Talk page if BC1278 agrees to do the same (and if Kraft does not retain other paid editors to influence the article going forward), and I think that would be the best course of action for all parties involved here. DaRonPayne (talk) 20:09, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
• And update: Just closed my RfC as a show of good faith and to highlight that this is about BC1278 trying to turn the lead into a PR piece for his client. DaRonPayne (talk) 20:24, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
• Question I'm glad DaRon is backing down here and I've given my two cents over at Noah Kraft. However, I have a question for BC1278: how often do your requests for clients end up as RfCs? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:56, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Barkeep, just twice before (over about four years) for clients. And once for myself (unpaid) about the proper use of the above referenced HuffPo article about me in an article. In Noah Kraft, in normal circumstances, this question should have been easily resolved without an RfC. A new editor seemed to be improperly using a primary source for contentious material in BLP. A friendly consensus discussion or a BLP/Help should have been enough. But the Talk page evidenced highly disruptive editing and axe grinding by the editor. The primary source cited from YouTube [13] popped up the same day (August 22, 2019, as the only content from a new YouTube account) after this editor noticed I was preparing a request edit on the subject of unsourced info, in a sandbox User_talk:BC1278/sandbox/Noah_Kraft, and asked for time to "reply," suggesting to me someone closely involved in the subject matter. So it seemed to me that only a definitive decision by a cross-section of Wikipedia editors, in a format that was more tightly structured and not as easily disrupted, could resolve the issue of the use of the source with finality. It did not occur to me the editor would just delete the RfC.BC1278 (talk) 12:33, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

BC1278, thanks. That's helpful context. Note that you pinged poor Barkeep. For future reference I'm the 49th Barkeep. :). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:39, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Is Guy applying a too-stringent ban on first-party references in Retrospect (software)?

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

---

On 21 August 2019 Guy put the {{Primary sources}} tag on the "Retrospect (software)" article. "What are your criteria for 'Relies too much on references to primary sources' for articles on software applications?" is a diff of the discussion on Guy's User Talk: JzG.

Key exchanges in that discussion are:

The basic problem is that this is an article about a client-server backup software application with a 30-year history. One of the two references I just added says its newly-acquired single-application vendor has "half a million customers but skinny revenues". That may be counting customers still using older versions of the application under perpetual licenses, because those versions just keep on working so long as you don't need new features (...). There haven't been any reviews of the Windows variant since 2012 [after this was written, I found a comprehensive review written 24 July 2019], but one independent Mac news source publishes a new review at least for every once-a-year new major version.

The article does cite three primary-source references at least 10 times each, but that's because the article from the third section on consists of a very compact list of application features. Secondary-source reviews simply don't mention all of the features of a software application; for those a Wikipedia editor must fall back on the primary-source application manuals and knowledge-base articles.What must I do to justify removing the tag? DovidBenAvraham (talk) 03:41, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Remove anything that's sourced to their own websites or to press releases. Guy (Help!) 08:29, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

First, the "Retrospect (software)" article is not PR in the sense that WP:OTHERSTUFF discusses. The notability of its subject is demonstrated by referenced up-through-2019 reviews of the software on the Mac-related TidBITS.com website and referenced reviews up through 2012 on Windows-related websites.....DovidBenAvraham (talk) 05:01, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

....

It's really quite simple. Only include reliable independent secondary soruces. Don't include anything that independent commentators haven't thought significant enotgh to cover. Don't inlcude sources that are obviously based on press releases (aka churnalism). Don't include WP:HOWTO or other manual-like content. Guy (Help!) 09:05, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Guy's definition of "relies too much on references to primary sources", stated in those exchanges, goes well beyond the Wikipedia rules that "Primary sources should be used carefully". Those state "However, primary sources may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person—with access to the source but without specialist knowledge—will be able to verify are directly supported by the source. .... The organization's own website is an acceptable (although possibly incomplete) primary source for information about its history, products ....".

I use four primary sources—20 cites of 101 total vs. 52 of 101 when the diff'ed discussion started—in the article: User's Guides for the Windows and Macintosh variants of the Retrospect application, a collection of technical Knowledge Base articles that expand on product features described—or recent enhancements not described—in the UGs, and the cumulative Release Notes for Retrospect Windows. I use these mainly to demonstrate the existence of product features: Small-group features, Enterprise client-server features, and Edition and Add-On features. The exceptions are in the article's lead—where one provides the only available mention of a feature that has been recently deleted from the application products, the History section—where two describe a un-reviewed (because it is cross-variant) difference between the Macintosh and Windows variants of the products, and one developer notice (referenced because it is sneaky) that a feature will be changed to an Add-On. The article makes no use of any "how-to" content that may be in the primary sources.

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

More thoughts on a ban on first-party references

I agree with Guy here. Primary sources are OK for things like headquarters city, current CEOs name and the like. What is considered a "feature" is part of how a company markets its product and referencing "features" to the company website is not appropriate. We need independent sourcing for that. But this is really just a content dispute which should be discussed on the article talk page. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:21, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

There is a slightly-famous case where the primary reference is an abstract written before the actual paper, and turned out to be wrong. (Not unusual in conference papers.) Reasons like that are why secondary sources are preferred. But as above, in some cases primary sources are best. Gah4 (talk) 23:34, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with Guy, and also with Cullen328. I realized an hour ago that the root of the dispute is a particular bit of terminology corruption over the last 50 years in our English-speaking culture. IMHO the corruption is that "sell" has been turned into a four-letter-word (for non-native English speakers, that puts "sell" into the same category as "f**k"), with the euphemistic synonym "market". Cullen328 reveals on his personal Project page that "I have been self employed as a small business owner in the construction industry for 25 years". To illustrate the terminology corruption, let's first ask whether Cullen328's firm sells cabinetry services, and if so what kind. The answer to that would be either "no" or a list of cabinetry services. If the answer is not 'no", we can next ask how his firm markets those services—to which the answer could be "on Craigslist" or "via TV ads" or "via ads in glossy magazines".

My point is that the parts of the first-party references used in the Retrospect (software) article only list software features for sale, they do not attempt to market those features. If they did so that would be a violation of Primary sources should be used carefully—but they don't so it's not a violation. In the article those references simply verify that Retrospect Inc. sells software with particular listed features.

Let me close with an example of why I use a first-party Knowledge Base reference in one case in which I could have used a second-party reference. (To understand what I'm talking about, you need to first read the lead of the Retrospect (software) article.) In the LAN/WAN/Cloud paragraph, I've written "Advanced network client support—which can be extended to 'remote' clients anywhere on the Internet for Proactive scripts and user-initiated backups/restores ...." There exists a second-party review of Retrospect that mentions its "remote backup support for remote employees"; however—besides admittedly being a straight copy of a Retrospect Inc. press release—it doesn't mention either user-initiated backups and restores or the limitation to Proactive backups. That's why I used the first-party reference for this feature. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 04:12, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

The notion that the marketing plan of my tiny dad-mom-son business might be subject to analysis here at ANI had never occurred to me before, and it feels as creepy to me as it is wildly inaccurate and presumptuous. I have no objection whatsoever to ethical businesses selling their goods and services anywhere, with the exception of Wikipedia. This encylopedia does not need content created by marketers and PR professionals because it can never be neutral, and that content is readily available on company websites. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:19, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Please forgive me, Cullen328, I was just using your business as an easy-to-understand hypothetical example of the difference between "product sales support" and "product marketing"—as they used to be understood. A first-party user manual on a piece of software such as Retrospect should properly discuss the features of the software, but it shouldn't stray into a marketing-oriented discussion. The pages I have listed in my four first-party references are strictly confined to a discussion of particular features, so they weren't written by marketers or PR professionals—just technical writers or application programmers (I was an application programmer for 40 years before I retired, but I never worked for Retrospect Inc.—I've merely been a paying user of their software for 19 out of the last 24 years). DovidBenAvraham (talk) 08:11, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

The very word "feature" in this context comes from the world of advertising, marketing and public relations. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:23, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

I beg to differ; since 2008 the software feature WP article has quoted the IEEE 829 definition ""A distinguishing characteristic of a software item (e.g., performance, portability, or functionality)." I could have used "functionality" in my comments above, but IME everyone talks whether a piece of software has a particular "feature". There's also the American Heritage Dictionary definition; I'm using sense 2, while Cullen328 is using sense 7. I'm afraid his brain, along with those belonging to a number of other WP administrators, has been colonized by Madison Avenue. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 17:35, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Speaking of administrator brains being colonized by Madison Avenue, I had an applicable WP experience the day after Labor Day. I was making an edit to the Retrospect (software) article, and found that WP was suddenly insisting that every {{cite web}} ref have a "website=" parameter. This was a real nuisance, as I found when I made some minor edits to the NetBackup article—most of which I didn't write—and found that this insistence was being applied to refs so old that their URL's were dead (which made it difficult to look up their website names!). Fortunately, by a day or so later cooler heads had prevailed in WP support, so the "website=" error messages disappeared. I get the strong feeling from personal Talk pages I have seen that some administrators want to ban first-party refs, and requiring the "website=" parameter would make it easy for a bot to enforce that ban. See my above comments for why that would be a really bad idea for articles on software. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 18:15, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

@DovidBenAvraham: You were not the first to notice the compulsory |website= parameter and the resulting error messages. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Is there a semi-automated tool that could fix these annoying "Cite Web" errors?. Narky Blert (talk) 21:35, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

@Narky Blert: Thanks for somewhat puncturing my hypothesis that these two events were related. I didn't have the time to wade through 4.5 screen pages of this preceded by its shorter predecessor sections, but I gathered that "website=" was made optional again because someone noticed that many websites—including the one published by the U. S. Supreme Court—don't have names. I think there was also some dispute about italicization—rather than about making first-party identification easy for a bot (unless painlessly sabotaged), but I don't have the stamina or interest to follow it. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 00:43, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

@DovidBenAvraham: To your reasons for not studying any of those yards-and-a-half of discussion, I would add lack of patience. It looked as if one editor had made unilateral changes to a major template (what could possibly go wrong?), and was then surprised that anyone might find them remotely controversial. Narky Blert (talk) 05:57, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

• Looking at [14], what I see is that DovidBenAvraham edits in exactly two areas: Retrospect software and a couple of closely related articles, and Ronny Lee, where he declares a COI. While he "respectfully" rejects the views of Cullen328 and myself on Wikipedia's sourcing policies, he has substantially less experience and this looks very much like motivated reasoning. At sme point I am inclined to lose patience with editors who persist in writing long self-sourced articles with excessively technical and/or PR content. Guy (help!) 21:46, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Guy@JzG:If by goal-oriented motivated reasoning you mean that I wanted to write a sufficiently-referenced Retrospect (software) article, "it's a fair cop, Guv'nor". In the fall of 2016 I looked at the analogous WP articles on a couple of best-selling enterprise client-server backup applications, and thought "I can do better than those". My first version was 10 screen-pages long with a lot of "how to" content, but a somewhat-contentious but cooperative effort by JohnInDC and me—with some help from Scope_creep—cut those down to 2 screen-pages in the fall of 2017. (That effort also included a split-off and compacted generalization that eventually became the 2.5 screen-page Enterprise client-server backup article.) But I have to admit to being a slacker as to self-sourcing! The analogous 2.5-screen-page NetBackup article I looked at has 20 first-party references out of 25 total, and the analogous 6-screen-page Backup Exec article has 73 first-party references out of 96 total; both of them far exceed in percentages my last-month's 52 first-party references—which I've since cut to 20— out of 101 total.

(As far as my COI is concerned, I took over the Ronny Lee Publications business in late 2014 because its previous owner sold it to me for $1. Its gross revenue had been $967 in calendar-year 2013, but it sank to $340 in 2014. We thought at the time that the decrease was caused by e-mail marketing to musical instrument stores no longer working, but it turned out that it was really caused by students wanting to learn to play guitar by watching instructional videos—which the still-living-at-the-time Ronny Lee categorically refused to make. The gross revenue rose to $591 in 2015 and $651 in 2016, neither of which resulted in a profit because I had to reprint some of Ronny's guitar method books; however it dropped to $490 in 2017 and $363 in 2018. As of the end of August 2019 gross revenue is $545, and this year for the first time I didn't have to reprint any books.)

And this news just in: editor Andy Dingley—the same editor who has commented directly below—says at the beginning of this diffon the article Talk page "'It's really quite simple. Only include reliable independent secondary soruces.', is wrong. There is no policy to justify that." Note that Andy Dingley is a code monkey and a template guru. So please show us the alleged WP policy, Guy, or admit that "I am inclined to lose patience with editors who persist in writing long self-sourced articles with excessively technical and/or PR content" is simply personal anti-software-article prejudice that I have refuted above. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 08:43, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

The policy is WP:RS. You have two admins telling you the same thing, and one gadfly egging you on. Your call at this point. The fact that other articles are also shit is covered by WP:OTHERSTUFF. Also of note: Retrospect is a tiny player by comparison with BackupExec. I don't think Retrospect makes even the top 20 by market share, and it's not our job to fix that. You seem to think that a "code monkey" will know more about this than me. You are wrong. My day job is service transformations and migrations, I work every single day with NBU, CommVault, Networker, Avamar and others, I gave some of the launch presentations for Data Domain's DDBoost and Avamar integration,. and in my first job as a network administrator (in a mixed Mac / DEC environment) I used... Dantz Retrospect Remote. So I probably know more about the specifics of backup solutions than Dingley does. Which is irrelevant because WP:RS gives the trifecta: sources must be reliable, independent and secondary. We make some exceptions, but we don't write entire articles from primary sources. And especially we don't write marketing / HOWTO articles from such sources. You have an obvious personal investment in this product, presumably as a fan and user, and that is blinding you to the simple fact that what you are trying to do is wrong according to Wikipedia policies. Guy (help!) 09:45, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

• What is this doing at ANI? Andy Dingley (talk) 22:22, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

@Andy Dingley: it's at ANI because IMHO Guy made up his own Wikipedia rule to justify his putting the {{Primary sources}} tag on the Retrospect (software) article. Please read the locked section above this sub-section. Thanks for your 16:00, 10 September 2019 (UTC) comment on that article's Talk page; as you can see I quoted the beginning of it and diff'ed all of it in my belatedly-signed comment directly above this one. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 08:43, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

No, it's at ANI because you flatly refuse to accept that Wikipedia requires reliable independent secondary sources, a policy that has existed since well before I joined Wikipedia over a dozen years ago. You want to write a mix of software manual and marketing brochure, and you want to support that with primary and affiliated sources, and you refuse to accept that what you want could be anything less than the platonic ideal of Wikipedia's purpose and policies. And that makes you the problem. Guy (help!) 09:27, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

• Here's a long thread from July, in the proper place at WP:RSN. In which Guy uses an automated process to bulk remove a site because he doesn't like it, no-one can find this mythical "Anything not-RS must be removed" policy, it turns out he deleted a lot more than the challenged site alone (some clear WP:RS, some just removing a reference and leaving hanging cites to it, there's then some credible claim that the author of the source meets WP:RS anyway). Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 270#Global ban on non-RS?

But in the end, Guy relies on WP:FAIT to get his version forced into place anyway. He makes a mess (the cites are still dangling), his argument for deletion is refuted, but because he's done a massive automated run it's too big for other editors to fix.

One might also note that the RS author here was being modest and despite being well known and respected within the community of castle historians, he describes himself as "just an amateur". Whereas in the thread above, Guy demands that we "Respecc mah authoritah", ignore RS and see Guy as the arbiter instead because – apparently unlike anyone else on WP – he works in IT. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:17, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

• Please find another hobby. It is unfair on an inexperienced editor for you to continue your sniping here—the editor will think you are supporting their work and will continue wasting everyone's time. The topic is Retrospect (software) which a glance shows is promotional fluffery. Johnuniq (talk) 10:24, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

• Sorry, is that a request with your official admin's mop on, for me to leave WP? You do (of course you do) remember that I voted to oppose your recent RfA, but one of your supporters threatened an indef ban and made me withdraw it.

As to the article here, then I have literally no opinion on it either way. But we do not have a WP:RSONLY policy and Guy cannot just invent one like this, which is a much bigger issue. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:53, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

• The topic is Retrospect (software)—anyone can add a comment here, but things that distract from the topic should be elsewhere. Johnuniq (talk) 23:54, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

From the subheading downwards this has stopped being an incident. It is clearly a dispute. A discussion of what constitutes reliable sourcing for an article about a computing topic will not be solved here, and indeed will not even be seen by editors who could make a productive contribution to such a discussion. Uncle G (talk) 11:07, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Uncle G@Uncle G:You're not entirely correct, IMHO. The dispute is about whether an editor writing about a piece of software can ever use a first-party reference, even if it's to a user manual that is evidently not any kind of marketing document. Andy Dingley has gone so far as to state that there is no rule that an editor can't do that. Where should I go to discuss that, since nobody has so far been able to link to a WP rule on the subject?

OTOH Guy has invoked such a rule—as has Cullen328—for the Retrospect (software) article, while so far refusing to prove that they didn't simply concoct it. Guy also has not bothered to demonstrate, either on the article's Talk page or here, that the content of any of the particular references I used is actually marketing—which would be the correct response for a content dispute. I'd call that an incident deserving of this ANI. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 02:35, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

DovidBenAvraham, I do not appreciate your misrepresentation of my position, whether that erroneous statement is deliberate or due to a comprehension problem. I do not favor any kind of "rule" or blanket ban on use of primary or first party sources. Instead, I strongly support our core content policy No original research which states "Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources." I agree that company websites can be used for information about the company's headquarters city, current CEO, date of founding, and other non-controversial facts that are in no way self-serving. I completely disagree that a company's website should be used for the list of features of a software product, and I think there is wide agreement among many editors that this is utterly inappropriate and risks turning encylopedia articles into marketing brochures. A list of software features A through Z cited to the company's website is the very essence of self-serving promotionalism. You have accused me of of having a brain colonized by Madison Avenue because I oppose advertising and marketing brochures masquerading as encylopedia articles, whether those are about profitable software or less profitable guitar book authors. The type of brain that I possess is one that was approved by hundreds of my colleagues to exercise administrative powers on this encylopedia, and I intend to maintain my consistent and long-standing position on this matter as long as I am able. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:06, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Cullen328, Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary,_secondary_and_tertiary_sources says "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge". Please let me know when you have used your administrative powers to get that sentence modified or supplemented as it applies to software user manuals. In the meantime let's look at the WP article on a very-widely-used piece of software. Nine of the first thirteen references for that article are to first-party sources. The initial eight of those first-party refs are in the infobox, but your rule doesn't make an exception for infoboxes—it would be inconsistent to do so but maybe it should. Meanwhile I eagerly await your putting a {{primary sources}} tag on that article! DovidBenAvraham (talk) 03:47, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

DovidBenAvraham, do you really think you are telling me something new when you inform me that some of our nearly six million articles have serious problems? Do you think that is a legitimate argument for creating more articles with significant problems? I don't. As for tagging another article that you brought to this discussion, I will leave that task to you or anyone else reading this. I do not edit to make a point. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:09, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Ugh, that article is disgusting. The other admins have it right. If reliable sources have very little to say about a subject, there is nothing wrong with the article being a permastub. Just to rephrase advice that has already been given, but in my own way, articles are supposed to be about what independent sources have to say about a subject - not about what the subject has to say about itself. People who want to know that can go to their official website. "But the article will lack important detail otherwise" is not an exception to RS/V/DUE. In fact, one may argue that details ignored by independent sources are demonstrably not important so far as Wikipedia is concerned. There is an allowance for basic corporate-biographical details that would be expected in any article, but not one for a detailed listing of software features. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:21, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Legal threats at John Nathan-Turner

John Nathan-Turner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) An anonymous IP User talk:195.166.151.225 has made legal threats at John Nathan-Turner if the article references the most prominent biography of the subject. Timrollpickering (Talk) 21:04, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Diff: [15] and the following edit. --JBL (talk) 21:18, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

• Even though this is not a BLP, I checked the sources cited for the cause of death and found them wanting. Removed the purported cause of death.-- Deepfriedokra 21:34, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
• If I'd followed the dif, I'd seen that's not the issue.-- Deepfriedokra 21:37, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
• The book by Richard Marson seems relevant. I know fans dislike it, but Marson is a respected industry figure and the book is published by a legitimate, if boutique, publishing house, and Marson is not listed as having any controlling interest. Guy (help!) 21:42, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Regardless of all else, I'm blocking the IP. Legal threats are not permitted, period. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:55, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Personal Attacks

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:2A02:A31C:843B:2200:E702:70C4:B06F:2A2A is continiously doing personal attacks. See contributions Michepman (talk) 15:00, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Bluntly, I feel that even as an IP editor, it would be preferable if an Admin extended this to, say, a week Nosebagbear (talk) 14:35, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree. In addition, I will notify him that he has been posted to ANI. Michepman (talk) 15:00, 11 September 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:TylerKutschbach - Mass rollback needed

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

---

This editor has been replaceing current population figures in infoboxes with 2018 estimates, but the references they are providing lead to a dead Census Bureau page. I thought I could take care of this myself using individual rollback, but there are thousands of them, so someone with a mass rollback script is going to have to deal with it instead.

If the editor doesn't stop, he should probably also be blocked until he understands the problem with what he's doing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:58, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

At least some of their edits seem to be linking to [16]. It's not immediately clear to me how to find the information on that site - it seems to be at least a few clicks away - but it's no worse than the link that is being replaced. Is it still a 404 for you? ST47 (talk) 00:17, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

All of the dozen or so I spot checked led to a dead link. Again, this editor made at least 2000 of these changes - I lost count of how many 500/edit pages were full of edits labelled as adding 2018 figures. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:34, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

I have notified the user of this discussion, as is required by the rules of this noticeboard. I have looked at the four reverts that you made after this most recent comment, hoping that would point me in the right direction: [17] [18] [19] [20]. In each case, you remove a link to https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/popest/data/tables.2018.html, which again, does not appear to be a "dead link". Certainly no more so than the link you replaced it with on at least one occasion, https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/popest/data/tables.2016.html. @Beyond My Ken:, what is the dead link, in what way is it dead, and where is a diff in which TylerKutschbach removes a working link with a dead link? ST47 (talk) 05:50, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

(ec)The dead link is this, and the text on it says: "Sorry, the page you requested has either been moved or is no longer available on this server.". TylerKutschbach has started to replace this link with the correct one, but there are still very, very many that are wrong. For instance -- choosing randomly -- this, thuis, this, this, and this. If you need more, please ask. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:03, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for notifying the editor, something I would normally do as a matter of course. I'm not sure why I forgot in this case, but I apologize. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:05, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

In each of those diffs, the link that was added was https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/popest/data/tables.2018.html, not https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/popest/data/tables. ST47 (talk) 06:06, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

When I click on the URL that the editor added, it sends me directly to the page I described above -- on all of those pages I listed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:28, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

The usual protocol for these kinds of articles has been to link to that general landing page, but I think it's long past due to use the actual data pages. It's fairly simple to do this en masse by state, as each gets its own table (e.g. this one for Washington); to get a direct link, the user must click on the "Bookmark/Save" button above the table. I've asked the user in question several times to format their citations, but they seem to not be listening. SounderBruce 05:58, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

So, my understanding is this. We have long used an inconvenient reference format. (Links to the correct website, but the wrong page on that site, apparently because of how the target website is designed.) TylerKutschbach has been updating some old links to new links, but keeping the inconvenient format. You and Beyond My Ken have asked Tyler to begin using the better format, and it seems like he has done in some situations, but he has not been communicating with the people who have reached out to him via his talk page? If that's the case, I hope we can agree that mass rollback of this user's contribs is not needed: while it might be better to use the new format, their edit updating from (e.g.) 2016 data (and an inconvenient ref) to 2018 data (and an equally inconvenient ref) is still a constructive edit. The article has not been left any worse off. To invoke a relevant policy, it doesn't seem to fit into WP:ROLLBACKUSE. So I hope we can stop reverting and instead look into the communication issue, starting by seeing if TylerKutschbach responds here or not. ST47 (talk) 06:21, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm still not understanding why when I click on the link (on the diff page) I go once place, and you go another. Every time I do it, I go to https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/popest/data/tables, which I;m obviously being re-driected to. Why? Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:28, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

It could be a location-thing, like is-in-america/is-not-in-america, I've encountered it once before[21]. Have no idea of the intent behind it, though. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:41, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

I can confirm that https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/popest/data/tables.2018.html works fine for me..I don't know what's causing problems for Beyond My Ken, but I would suggest it's something best dealt with at the Help Desk or maybe VPT or similar. I don't think TylerKutschbach needs to stop just because one editor is having problems with the links, although they do need to communicate and as SounderBruce said, I'm not sure if they're using the best replacement. BTW, I assume Beyond My Ken is having the same problems with links to that page here e.g. earlier or [22]? Because if not it's an even weirder issue but even more of an indication whatever is going wrong for BMK, it's not justification for reverting the edits since it can clearly be seen in the diffs the URL is the same. Nil Einne (talk) 13:15, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

And -- another question -- why hasn't the editor responded to anything on his talk page? They have not made a single edit to it. [23]. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:32, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

• It looks like on Sep 8, the editor started using Census Quickfact links, and changed their edit summary from 2018 estimates to 2018 estimates with the page website with the community showing the population number. See, for example, their last 100 contribs. I think this is a good improvement. Would be better if they engaged directly on their user talk page or here. – Levivich 18:00, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
• It seems that the linking problem is specific to me, for some reason, and that TK has started using a more appropriate reference anyway, so I'd like to withdraw this report as mostly moot. The only outstanding issue is why TK isn't communicating. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:12, 8 September 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.

Removal of Mcnford's editing privileges on Mark Lindquist page

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

The individual "Mcfnord" has come forward stating his COI with the subject of the Mark Lindquist page. I find the fact that he is allowed to edit and discuss on the subject's talk page somewhat inappropriate. Senior editors have continued to allow his participation, even though he has stated himself that he is a noted negative critic who was unsuccessfully prosecuted by Mr. Mark Lindquist. He also has a history of vandalizing said page. CoalBear (talk) 21:04, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Support topic ban You forgot to provide diffs and notify the user, but looking at Talk:Mark Lindquist it is clear that this user (and S&S1109 (talk · contribs), who last edited in April) should not be allowed to edit about this topic. Additionally, the Mark Lindquist page should be extended confirmed or fully protected. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:32, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

LaundryPizza03 The problem with locking down the page is it leaves the page existing as an attack page, authored by Mcnford. CoalBear (talk) 01:56, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

• Mark Lindquist (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Mcfnord (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• CoalBear (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Nosebagbear (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

--Guy Macon (talk) 21:50, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Boomerang. I self-declared COI recently after I collaborated with a BLP subject COI on another page. The page has been target of many waves of whitewashes by SPAs since 2015, of increasing sophistication. Happy to declare and operate within COI parameters. Mcfnord (talk) 00:18, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

• CoalBear created their account on August 23. Since that time, they have made 46 edits to mainspace and 14 edits to article talk space. Of those 60 edits, 30 have been to the Lindquist article or its Talk page. I wonder if Mcfnord is not the only editor with a COI.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:59, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

I wonder if BBB23 and Mcnford are the same person? They seem oddly in sync. Like within seconds. I'm only raising a concern here, things do not seem above board concerning Mcnford and the Mark Lindquist page. And bbb23 is also NOT a neutral editor. CoalBear (talk) 01:23, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Oh, my sweet summer child.--Jorm (talk) 01:32, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

All I'm saying is that bbb23 has backed up a person grossly in conflict with this page and who has been violating wikipedia rules. How neutral is that? Please don't "sweet summer child" me. That's not very civil, bro. CoalBear (talk) 01:41, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

5 seconds of checking would show that bbb23 is an administrator at this point you are aiming for a ban 50.35.82.234 (talk) 02:55, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

• How many articles do we have on prosecutors at this level? A lot of this looks to me like people trying to carve a biography out of articles surrounding the actions of his office. Guy (help!) 09:59, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

  If you haven't already, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Lindquist is worth a read. It seems that in the end, the feeling was whatever else the subject met notability as an author. Nil Einne (talk) 11:20, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

  I agree with Guy. Most of the content in the prosecutor section is information about the actions of his office. It was added by Mcnford and the page has been stuck with it ever since. Maybe there should be a page about the Pierce Co. Prosecutor's office instead? CoalBear (talk) 15:23, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

• Along with Bbb23, I've been the editor who's handled various COI editing over the last 9 months, so I'll cover both Mcnford and CoalBear:

• Oppose Topic Ban - as admitted, Mcfnord has a COI. However, while there were a large number of issues with his edits back during the AfD and very shortly after, he ultimately moved to the Talk page to discuss it. More recently, his direct edits to the article have generally either been non-biased edits, or the reversion of other edits (many of which were biased). He has also participated, though not always with a calm voice, on the talk page. Nosebagbear (talk)

I should note that my second choice would be a ABAN on both editors, in the same format as Cullen328 lays out below Nosebagbear (talk)

• CoalBear's behaviour also shows signs of COI editing, though certainly less egregious than Mcfnord's early edits. Mainly in the form of unbalanced additions and desire to remove sourced information without sufficient reasoning, rather than in-article rants or completely unsourced content. Nosebagbear (talk)
• I would generally advise an extended-confirmed protection, so the discussion can be moved by both/all parties to the Talk Page. There have been positive additions by both sides, so I'm reticent to just advocate removing one or both from the article. Though I suspect this ANI may be encouraged as the most recent points of dispute are because CoalBear couldn't get consensus for more drastic changes - I had advised we'd probably need dispute resolution if they wanted to progress further with certain suggestions. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:44, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

• I've reread the entire article, and putting aside the list of books he's written, the main section, regardless of how it's balanced, is damned poorly written. I don't think the fellow's sufficiently notable for me to take the time to rewrite it, but maybe someone else might wish to do so. It jumps around from issue to issue: the flow needs to be improved so it reads more like a story, and there is often no context for each individual "fact". Finally, some of the clearly self-promoting material (put in by CoalBear) needs to be removed. We don't need quotes from Lindquist about how he is fighting for justice and the American way.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:53, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

• There are threads within the facts that I wrung out, even though it made the facts seem independent of each other. I agree the result may as well be a bulleted list. I wanted to find the core facts that shouldn't be forgotten, and toss the rest. I will ponder adding the connections. But you see, that's where the spin of a million centrifuges seems to appear, too. Mcfnord (talk) 18:03, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
• I can support retaining Mcnford's privileges if the prosecutor content on this page is removed. I discovered this page because I liked some of this guy's books. If that makes me COI, then guilty. Admittedly, I'm new here, learning how Wikipedia works (and what better way than getting involved in a controversial page, amiright?) It was clear to me that this page was not right. It only contained negative information, and it wasn't a "writer" page. It was mostly about this guy's political career. That content was originally added Mcnford, though it has been trimmed down, into something (as bbb23 correctly states) "damned poorly written." I've advocated for removing said content because a) it's politically motivated either for or against b) has no standing on the reason this wikipedia page was created -- which was for the writer's work, and c) the content of which is completely taken out of context. I've suggested this several times to Nosebagbear, only to be told that the content can stay because it's "reliably sourced." But even they admit that it has nothing to do with why this guy has a page. So why keep it? It has nothing to do with his books. I say make it a page about his writing career and leave it at that. Even leave all the negative reviews. Because it's clear the lawyer stuff really doesn't belong, and was added in the first place as a method of retaliation by Mcnford. CoalBear (talk) 14:57, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

• This discussion is based on whether Mcfnord (and any other editors raised, potentially including yourself) are too disruptive due to COIs to legitimately participate in the article. But to give a 1 line summary - please read WP:NOTEWORTHY - "Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article". Nosebagbear (talk) 15:07, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

• Pardon me if I don't understand, you might have to explain more to me why that means that content added by a COI (that had nothing to do with the page's reason for existing) can be allowed to stay, and his editing privileges retained. And how information about a prosecutor in a small-ish city is regarded as "notable." I realize this is a discussion about editing privileges, but what I'm saying is I support keeping those privileges if certain content (written by the COI) is removed. He can edit the writing career stuff all he wants. I just think there is a pretty big conflict of interest for Mcnford with the prosecutor content, don't you think? CoalBear (talk) 15:18, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

• For ten years, the subject was the top law enforcement official in my state's second largest county, population nearly 800,000, not a "small-ish city" as you claim. The section lede that you wrote says the subject, "tried some of the most significant cases in Washington State." "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage" qualify as noteworthy as WP:POLITICIAN. The public records ruling of the Washington State Supreme Court exists because of this subject's insistence, and has since been cited by the California Supreme Court, making it national case law. Finally, Washington's largest police massacre (to clarify, 4 police were murdered), where the subject said the massacre was worth "$100,000 of free publicity" in a re-election campaign, resulted in nearly all trial verdicts overturned. This should appear in your new lede about noteworthy legal performances. Don't you think? Mcfnord (talk) 17:24, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
• I would say that if someone could control their COI sufficiently that they wouldn't be an issue if they could only edit part of Lindquist's article, then they can control it for the whole page - limiting it to be conditional on the status of the article isn't viable as it ties a conduct dispute to a very specific content outcome. As said on ML's talk page, his prosecutor career doesn't make him notable (or clearly notable), but once he's notable (which demonstrates an article should exist at all) for another reason, some content can still be included (factoring in WP:DUE & WP:RS etc). Nosebagbear (talk)

• Gosh, I just had a look at what the page was originally started as. The way it appeared at the outset looked like an actual, normal, unbiased wikipedia page, and not a focused attack page regarding his prosecutor career. Looks to me like the page was just fine before Mcnford got involved. CoalBear (talk) 16:51, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

• This is also misleading. The page had a Law Career section when I arrived. There has been some disagreement about what it should say. You want it to say what the subject might want it to say, and perhaps that's understandable due to your appreciation of his fiction. Please learn to type my name correctly if you could. M-c-f-n-o-r-d. I thought it was a typo at first. Thank you and gosh. Mcfnord (talk) 17:35, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Support topic ban on both editors. As I see it, Mcfnord has an acknowledged and deep conflict of interest (a personal grudge) (personal resentment) regarding Lindquist, and absolutely should not be editing the article. Because Mcfnord has been editing the article as recently as September 4, I propose that Mcfnord be formally topic banned from the article itself and limited to making specific edit requests on the article's talk page. That being said, CoalBear also shows strong signs of a COI in the opposite direction, and seems to have a personal motivation to whitewash the biography. CoalBear does not disclose their COI. That is also unacceptable. The negative information about Lindquist is not a product of Mcfnord's imagination. The sourcing is solid, he had a very rocky nine years of service as prosecutor and was trounced in his 2018 re-election effort. A neutrally written description of his time in office certainly should be part of his biography. In this case, I believe that both Mcfnord and CoalBear should be restricted from editing the BLP and limited to making specific content suggestions on the talk page. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:59, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Mcfnord asked me on my talk page to change the word "grudge" so I am using "resentment" instead. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:30, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

If you want to ban me too that's fine. Believe or not, I got on wikipedia to try and fix stuff, to bring more balance to pages of authors I love. As a fan I might be COI, but not so much that it would break my heart to be banned from this specific page. AS LONG AS you ban Mcfnord too. I just think it's crazy anyone lets him edit the page of someone he so clearly "resents," and that his additions have been allowed to stay. I don't want to whitewash anything, and I don't think this page should be extended confirmed. That would be a travesty for Wikipedia to leave this page as it is. It only shows the site at its very worst -- a venue for people to air out their hate. I think that since this is a biography of a living, breathing, person -- who isn't that notable at all -- it should at the very least reflect some fairness. There aren't really wikipedia pages of lawyers on here, and a city of 800,000 isn't that big. The cases sited in the page aren't well written, to explain them would take a lot of content, and they're only there because Mcfnord has a grudge (ahem, resentment). Lindquist is best known for his books, let the page reflect that, and ban nonsense editors like Mcfnord and even myself if you want to. Just make the page more fair for this actual living person. Please. That's all I have to say about it. This has gotten way too contentious for my appetite and is exactly the reason why newbies like me don't last on Wikipedia. I know this because it's been reported in major news sources :) CoalBear (talk) 01:14, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

You're like a hit parade of spin. I self-declared COI a few days ago knowing what limits that added. I've already made an edit suggestion. You're not declared a COI so fire up the misinformation and whitewashing. I'm going to enumerate the deceptions from the talk page, but I bet nobody cares enough to act. It's an experiment! Mcfnord (talk) 07:22, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Rapid era style changes to fast to be guideline compliant, all BCE-BC

Palin

Dromedairy

EEng

IMHO Palindromedairy (talk · contribs) is making changes from BCE to BC too rapidly to have checked to see if they are complying with WP:ERA. The fact that the changes seem to be only one way isn't encouraging. I'm sure some of these changes are correct but I can't see how anyone could do so many so quickly and check them properly. Doug Weller talk 19:12, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

I started undoing their changes, but stopped after a couple — they seem to be claiming to be undoing ERA changes by someone else. I'll wait for their explanation. El_C 19:16, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

I was able to do them fast because they're all pages which I had previously reverted such changes, so they were together in my history. Every year or so I open them up and see if they've been altered. if you examine each change you'll see I only made such changes on pages where the page was BC/AD. I marked most as minor because they were a couple of characters and in keeping with established guidelines. Anything involving hefty reverts was marked, as you'll see on Template: Bronze Age, Iron Age, Puduḫepa and so on. As for the ones that have been reverted, each was a BC page: Battle of Corinth (which literally has "BC" in the title) was altered to BCE by an anonymous editor in March; Temple of Zeus Olympia by an unregistered user in March 2018; and both Nebuchadnezzar II and Amphictyonic League each featured a few BCE dates in an otherwise BC page and so I can't imagine why they were reverted when it's obvious what I did. I'll be looking to reinstitute such changes once this is cleared up. Palindromedairy (talk) 19:33, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

If it was done in 2018, it can be considered longstanding text by now, no? El_C 19:34, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any "well, looks like he got away with it" clause for date reversions. WP:Silence is sort of like that, but not really. I see this as worth doing, as any editor does for whatever it is that they do, but not more than once a year or so. It shouldn't be on me (or whomever) to have to check pages every 6 months or 2 months or whatever to make sure nothing slips in before this phantom deadline is reached (though IIRC I tended to shrug and say "it's a done deal" if it was 2017 or so). Palindromedairy (talk) 20:08, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Some of the changes are reverting someone else who changed the date format, but other edits look like Palindromedairy is unilaterally changing the date format. For example, in Neolithic Revolution, the first edit uses "BCE". Palindromedairy, however, changes all the "BCE" dates to "BC" under the guise of using a "single dating scheme" despite edit warring against other people who this very thing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:36, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Per MOS:ERA, "Use either the BC–AD or the BCE–CE notation consistently within the same article." I changed it to a single dating scheme and marked my edit as such (which is why the edit summary says "single dating scheme" and not "reverting date change" or something as my other edits sometimes do). I've literally followed the guidelines. I don't change BCE/CE articles to BC/AD, and if someone gets to it first and makes a mixed page all BCE/CE, I've left it as is. Palindromedairy (talk) 20:24, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

At Neolithic Revolution there was a very early switch of that BCE date to "years ago", and then by late 2005 dates were BC; samples suggest it was always BC, or mixed, from then to 2019. In fact there seems to have been a jumble of styles, including lots of BP and "years ago", thoughout nearly all its history. Johnbod (talk) 19:55, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

If the changes were on Christianity related pages or modern Western culture pages, I'd understand the use of BC/AD (similar to STRONGNAT?). But they're not and the changes are only in "one direction". This does not seem neutral prima facia. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:42, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

That's a very POV comment imo. Are you American by any chance? Johnbod (talk) 19:53, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

@Johnbod: What? EvergreenFir (talk) 17:31, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

What does being American have to do with it? Sounds like you're not assuming good faith -- Rockstonetalk to me! 23:02, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

There's also the issue of marking the changes as minor edits. In relationship to User:El_C's question, by sheer coincidence I brought up a related issue at WT:DATE#If an era style was changed in 2012 with no discussion can it be reverted as not established?. Doug Weller talk 19:48, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Obviously they are not minor. Johnbod (talk) 19:55, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

They seemed minor to me; as I said above, anything I felt to be contentious I actually marked as such (my Contributions list is full of such notes). I can be more careful in marking all such changes in the future. Palindromedairy (talk) 20:10, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, very little on WP is always/safely regarded as "minor", certainly not, say, moving commas around! Johnbod (talk) 20:29, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

I've checked a few now, & found one I disagreed with (which User:El C partly reverted) but most are fine. Iron Age is typical in having had mixed styles - this edit in late August BCE'd the lead but left the rest of the article untouched - someone should have a word with him. At Bronze Age Europe there were no BCEs, but someone had peppered one section with "B.C."s. But I thought the BC style at Amphictyonic League incorrect in terms of the history. Johnbod (talk) 02:03, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

@Johnbod: the thing is that you think that any undiscussed change, no matter how long ago, can be reverted on the grounds that without discussion there can be no established change. I disagree on the grounds of WP:SILENCE which is why I raised the earlier discussion I mention above, WT:DATE#If an era style was changed in 2012 with no discussion can it be reverted as not established?. And how is the comment by User:EvergreenFir "very POV"? Or American. Doug Weller talk 06:52, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't quite think "no matter how long ago", but I do think for several years, depending I suppose on the busyness of the article. In fact, as the cases here show, very often drive-by edits leave a mixture of styles (I'm afraid all 3 of the reverts El_C mentions near the top did so - I've fixed them all). These are obviously more vulnerable to reversion. I detected in User:EvergreenFir's comment the belief that BCE/CE is obviously the right and natural style to use, and a clear whiff of the idea that anyone preferring BC/AD is probably some sort of Christian fundamentalist nutcase. This sort of mindset is extremely common among highly-educated Americans, including many WP editors - far more than anywhere else - and is the driving force behind all these drive-by changes. It is of course entirely contrary to WP's position, as set out at WP:ERA. It is also rather ignorant; people holding it should ask themselves why the biggest classical and archaeological museums in the US (MMA, Cleveland Museum of Art, Getty, LACMA) & UK (BM, English Heritage, National Trust) still use BC, and why (from Common Era) "In 2013 the Canadian Museum of Civilization (now the Canadian Museum of History) in Ottawa, which had previously switched to BCE/CE, decided to change back to BC/AD in material intended for the public, while retaining BCE/CE in academic content.". The reason, as some institutions have explained, is that BC/AD is more widely understood and familiar; no doubt research has been done on this. We should ask ourselves: Is WP "intended for the public", or is it "academic content"? Maybe the answer varies between articles. But the main factor in deciding styles, imo, should be the choices of the main editors rather than drive-bys. Johnbod (talk) 16:09, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

@Johnbod: I hope you stretched before making that leap. I don't think it's right or natural; it was a shift in anthropological and historical scholar's jargon to try to be neutral and not ethnocentric. It avoids centering all history around a Western cultural frame. Which, to me, is why it would be more appropriate to use AD/BC on Western articles. It also avoids the Christian-specific language underlying AD and BC. I find it appropriate to consider these ethnocentricities when studying history. At the same time, I don't begrudge people who use the system, just as I don't begrudge Japanese scholars who refer to European history in terms of Meiji (明治), Edo (江戸), Showa (昭和), or Heisei (平成) eras. As an encyclopedia, we need to balance between recognizing the common language used by English-speaking people and its Western roots, while also being sensitive to the fact that it may be insulting to non-Westerners to reference their history by a Western religious event. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:42, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

@Johnbod: you don't need to keep pinging me about this — you've done it three times already, not to mention a comment on my talk page. Again, I have no objection. Please cease. El_C 16:17, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Johnbod BP, when used properly, is not an era style but a scientific method of dating - see Before Present. It should not come into the era style debate. (unsigned)

I know, but "when used properly" is the kicker. Some of our drive-by editors inappropriately treat it as in effect an era style, and many editors don't use it properly. I don't even know how freely we should switch between "years ago" and either BP or BC/BCE. Is there a standard, or WP policy? Johnbod (talk) 03:11, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

I have to agree with Johnbod's comments just above. I routinely, per WP:ERA, revert wholesale changes from from one ERA system to another, and when it happens that I'm reverting changes of BC/AD to BCE/CE, I've often been accused of having a Christian POV (for the record I'm not Christian). In any case the question of which nomenclature is best understood by our readership seems to be the right one (and I have to admit although I have a PHD, and like to think of myself as very well read, I nevertheless have to confess that the first time I encountered BCE/CE was when I first started editing WP fifteen years ago, and I remember being very confused at the time ;-) Paul August ☎ 17:14, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Persistent incivility: Incnis Mrsi

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.

---

Incnis Mrsi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I have chosen the title of this section to echo this ANI thread from seven years ago, because (after the end of a long period of low activity) absolutely nothing has changed. Here is a selection of diffs from the last six weeks (all but one from the last month):

• [24]
• [25]
• [26]
• The discussion here
• The discussion here
• [27] (which is in response to this)
• [28] (which is in response to this)
• [29] (which is in response to this)

They illustrate the general pattern of hyper-aggressive, personalized remarks and widespread assumptions of bad faith, usually as the opening gambit in a discussion; but they are not comprehensive. Possibly, Deacon Vorbis or DePiep may want to add further examples.

Given the longstanding pattern of behavior in the face of unambiguous feedback from many different users about its inappropriateness, I request the user be blocked for a duration TBD. --JBL (talk) 20:16, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Having also encountered this user, both directly and while patrolling changes within Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements, I will post some diffs as well.

• [30][31] - after I made a terminology mistake. They were correct in regards to the content concerned, but this has an aura of assuming bad faith; they also linked one of my edits out of context, seemingly making a hasty generalization.
• [32] - partially struck after a discussion; this one was resolved civilly, though.
• [33] - didn't look necessary, and was called out as such. Double sharp was more involved in this exchange, so they can throw in their two cents if they'd like.
• [34] - inappropriate use of rollback; this is a content dispute, and thus contravenes WP:ROLLBACKUSE.
• [35] - deletionist paroxysms? AfD is not a war zone, even when one disagrees with consensus.
• [36] - another example of what JBL describes
• [37] - archived in this diff was a dispute with DePiep at WT:ELEM (exhibiting behavior consistent with this pattern).
• [38] - clearly WP:SHOUTING, and could be interpreted as a personal attack. The title is also wholly inappropriate for a talk page thread.

I find that their comments are often correct in reference to the content concerned, but this attitude is at best non-productive and quite often egregiously violates WP:CIVIL. Even though I try to distance myself from these disputes, and not get involved in heated arguments with uncivil remarks or edit wars, I find it difficult to stay focused solely on content when working with this user. Although in my experiences the content issues were resolved, and I have seen them strike or neutrally elaborate on some comments, this ongoing pattern is evident. Nobody should be exempt from WP:CIVIL, no matter how knowledgeable and/or experienced they may be. I'd support a block (length TBD) per this ongoing pattern, also noting that it stirs up and distracts the communities at WP:WPMATH and WP:ELEM. ComplexRational (talk) 21:37, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

• Involved Comment. Sorry I haven't been able to comment until now, but I've been doing other stuff all day. I don't think there's much to be gained by piling on a bunch more examples, but I guess it's at least worth mentioning the first interaction with IM that I can remember, which was at Talk:Square root#3 • 3, where what I was doing was called "trash". And even though I was missing something valid, I was expected to intuit what Incnis Mrsi was thinking. And then, when I finally got a full explanation out of him, it was in a very condescending manner. I think this serves as a good example of the root issues, which are not only incivility, but also either an inability or unwillingness on IM's part to communicate clearly. Part of this is, I'm sure, due to English not being their native language, but that's not the whole story. Anyway, the point is, that for me at least, this whole brew of incivility, condescension, poor communication, etc. makes it extremely frustrating to try to resolve any conflicts with IM (which for me, have been happening more frequently lately). So I find myself just disengaging instead (I admit I'm not the best at handling incivility). I don't really know the best way forward here, but this has been an ongoing problem (wider than I had realized than just with myself). –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 02:16, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

  The “disengaging” thing is obviously insincere:

  • https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Duodecimal/Archive_1&action=history
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Duodecimal&action=history&offset=20190827

  Incnis Mrsi (talk) 05:31, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

  BTW I admit substandard communication in the 3 • 3 incident. Unfortunally Deacon_Vorbis choose to reciprocate with bashing me over various unrelated pretexts, down to manual talk archival. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 06:39, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

  This reply by I.M. may catch some tu quoque flies, but does not address the complaints. Let alone nullify the complaints. Let me rephrase this example for clarity, in my own words: here Incnis Mrsi started an "RfC" by shouting a title, out of format and out of basic process. First sentence by I.M. said "The user Deacon Vorbis wages an edit war over it." Then follows "we see the RfC sabotaged by Deacon_Vorbis", "I defer to any solution by the “chemical community” which will deter wrecking and censorship [by Deacon_Vorbis]". "Is this the guideline against calling the present situation “edit warring”?" (meanwhile, when being pointed to WP:RFCBRIEF policy replying "The statement proper occupies one [div block] – it is brief"). In that same thread, it occurs to me that Deacon Vorbis and other editors were replying restrained while politely and helpfully to I.M., including clear warnings & suggestions. -DePiep (talk) 13:35, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

  The RfC was valid. I’ll restart it when made fixes for {{chem2}}, but currently can’t devote much effort to it because of requirements IRL. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 13:49, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

  That is not the issue, Incnis Mrsi (nor is that validness an established fact btw). The issue is your attitude wrt other editors and posts in that thread. This is ANI, this is about you. You are evading any response to the serious complaints made against you. Tells that you do not grasp the issue, and so no improvement can be expected. -DePiep (talk) 14:07, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

  A correct statement is "there is a valid issue about which one could hold an RfC". The actual RfC question that was posed was obviously completely inappropriate; but that's true of so much of IM's conduct that it's not surprising that IM doesn't recognize it. --JBL (talk) 15:21, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

  @DePiep: which response do want to see? Certainly I am under a charged cloud because of my neglect of the civility standard, but do you really expect me to bow in front of those eager to strip me of editing privileges? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 16:51, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

• Comment by User:DePiep

Recently I had had some strong interactions with User:Incnis Mrsi (IM), starting with WT:ELEMENTS topics (ComplexRational mentioned the same above). These were my initiating reverts; I note that three times I invited IM to discuss the change or get consensus:

• [39]
• [40]
• [41]

This resulted in this WT:ELEMENTS thread (started Aug 13; all posts in there):

The thread illustrates the issue at hand: in between content arguments there are personal attacks, personal judgements on editors ("Who can be offended by [this change]"), casting aspersions ("not far from WP:OWN") and accusing editors of incompetence, judgemental replies ("Where in the hell is it currently relevant?"). I assume all these are covered under "incivility" per OP complaint/section title. None are content-aimed or helping wikipedia.

When called out on such an accusation, the replies are evasive and adding more indirect accusations (see this subthread re their "not far from WP:OWN"-accusation: not substantiating, not withdrawing, but repeating and even hiding the challenge from public view. Then starting a new thread #Is_the_kettle_black?, adding an indirect accusation once more [42] also in the es for publicity effect).

Also there is much deviation from content-based issues: When asked for clarification, no substance follows but deviation instead (e.g. "DePiep opposes it… but for which reason?" reply DePiep: "Those reasons are in my post above."; and here writing "moron's way" as an argument about work people have done here).

Of course we are supposed to ignore disruptive deviations and concentrate on content only. That would mean in a discussion: 1. mentally strike out their uncivilities, 2. reconstruct the remaining phrase into sense, 3. explain to other editors what the useful part is, and 4. reply to the remaining content-only post, (repeat 1-4 with follow up posts). That is too much asked of other editors: IM should not divert into incivilities in the first place. Even worse, diversions & incivilities prevents IM themselves to build a to-the-point reply, sound reasoning & cooperation seeking (for example, note how IM ends up re WP:CONSENSUS here).

Above it was discussed if it could be lack of understanding English by IM I reject that explanation. So far, I have met little or no spelling errors, wiki-techiques used are experienced (like applying templates). Then, their uncivil accusations and smears are smartly accompanied by an insurance escape and indirectness: "not far from WP:OWN", "... expects assistance in edit-warring?". I claim that IM understands very well what they are doing. Given the effects I mentioned above (distracting other editors, into chasing them away from constructive cooperation) IM cannot claim WP:INCOMPETENT as an excuse. The damage to other editors' contributions & discussions is too disruptive and, as WP:COMPETENCE points out, incompetence is no excuse for bad faith.

It must stop. IM is invited to understand the issue & policies they were referred to or even referred to themselves. -DePiep (talk) 09:31, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

If development of {{chem2}} resulted in moron-grade typesetting—namely, trailing subscripts like in CO₂ not protected from wrapping—then what’s wrong about referring to this quality by such possessive? Please, don’t permit to shut up those who detracts incompetence under tangential pretexts. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 10:03, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

(You wrote: "moron<br>'s way" (italics in source) [43]. A moron is a person, so you were referring negatively to a person (an editor). You could have written "moronic way" instead. Still, overall, "moron(ic)" is a derogative judgemental qualification, not helpful in improving the wikipedia.

Anyway, glad you can agree with the other complaints in my post. -DePiep (talk) 10:36, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

• I happened to be scrolling through ANI and noticed this section. Although it has no bearing on this discussion here, I'll note Incnis has recently been given conduct warnings on the Simple English Wikipedia and Meta-Wiki by myself. I do believe this is a serious issue, and I'm disheartened about their blatant incivility on multiple projects. Best regards, Vermont (talk) 14:30, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

  Although it has no bearing on this discussion here Actually, I disagree: I think it is very helpful for establishing just how widespread and consistent the problematic behavior is. Similarly, IM is helpfully providing further illustrations by their edits (and edit summaries) in the present discussion. --JBL (talk) 17:34, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

• I think there is a problem with the attitude of this editor. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:35, 7 September 2019 (UTC).

  Due to this? Still no reply, by the way. Yes my civility is (generally) substandard, but are all my detractors honestly motivated by improvement of Wikipedia? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 06:55, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

  re: "Still no reply" you complain? Maybe that is because Xxanthippe followed your 'advice' to Go elsewhere and did not return for an answer. One more explicit example of I.M. literally chasing editors away. -DePiep (talk) 07:50, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Precisely. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:26, 8 September 2019 (UTC).

Where is a trouble? Xxanthippe has nothing to bring to talk:Dirac adjoint, but I resolved a problem with another editor without (one else)’s assistance. Did anybody bully Xxanthippe away of the article or its talk? Rather in reverse, if anything of the sort. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 13:42, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

The trouble is, IM, that you wrote to an editor to Go elsewhere. On top of that, another trouble is that you don't get that as problematic behaviour. -DePiep (talk) 14:11, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

What namely was problematic—on my part—in the incident above? Removal of a posting in the namespace 1 is a bad practice, making a confusing edit summary “No OR please” was worse than merely [accidental] removal, and consequently I asked the editor not to use Twinkle in such venues. The meaning is clear. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 16:33, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

re "What namely was problematic—on my part—in the incident above?" — 1. You wrote Go elsewhere. 2. You do not understand that is problematic. 3. -DePiep (talk) 22:36, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Now I realize why Wikipedians often don’t explain anything, just leaving default edit summary or doing things like this depending on level of privileges. It is safer to be not accountable than face whining about “collegial manner” by disgruntled people. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 06:30, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

… and we can see another example of fine etiquette by a defender of civility. Removing without summary is safe; at least, it protects against pettifogging like that. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 05:23, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

• This has gone on for years, since 2012 or so, and shows no sign of any improvement. Incnis Mrsi is evidently incapable of any discussion, let alone the most minor disagreement, with other editors without using it as an opportunity to abuse and disparage them. They cannot say, "SVG images would be better for this diagram than JPG", they prefer "Don't upload this filth".[44] They behave in just the same way at Commons.

They know that this is a problem – it has been pointed out often enough. So they're simply not interested in changing their behaviour. Accordingly, I'd support any sanction up to an indef block. We'd all be so much better off without them. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:41, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Who “we”? BTW, the quotation is not exact – I suggested not to upload filth in general, not restricted to JPG filth or a specific case. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 09:52, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

As for “not interested in changing”, that’s not true. I have a strong incentive to accommodate to local norms due to en.Wikipedia’s de facto central position in this ecosystem. Some people would be certainly happy to see me listed as enemy, but it is not a majority sentiment, hopefully. I will not waste that much effort (as for the thread above) anymore on this site. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 10:02, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, one can really tell your desire to change; after all, it's not like you've been repeating the same behaviors while this discussion is ongoing or anything. --JBL (talk) 13:01, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, a user should know how WP:BRD works before going to push his/her stuff for the second time. At least, I am entitled to right to express such opinion, and nothing is wrong with stating it in an edit summary given that, at the end, it was me who went to the talk page. The posting from 13:01 consists of quibbles to drown me. Surely I disrupted Wikipedia if that many users waste their time here instead of hunting crackpots. But this thread overgrew its usefulness for the people of value: four of five established en.Wikipedians will be glad to see me ejected, but such conclusion of infighting by productive users would also bring relief to PoV pushers, waste-makers, vandals, sock puppets, not to mention some quarters of “respectable” abuse. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 13:54, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

• This is still ongoing at Commmons:

"fixed consequences of atrociously poor categorization by the uploader"

"fixed incompetent provenance declarations"

An editor who can't stop attacking other editors over trivia like this, even whilst they're at ANI, is an editor who either cannot or will not change. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:02, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Note: appearance of global sysops here is related to several disagreements, but first and foremost to meta:Steward_requests/Global#Global_block_for_extremely_disruptive_LTA. See also WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1017 #159.146.0.0. Sorry for provoking these spillovers. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 20:31, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

I do not think it is deeply surprising that people who have observed you engaging in exactly the same problematic behavior elsewhere think that it is relevant to this discussion. --JBL (talk) 21:17, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

… and not surprising that people who read my “open a book… and try to realize what am I speaking about” respond in their kind of so-called civility. I have a decent supply of WP:AGF, but already begun to question motivation of few, most active participants here. Isn’t it a grudge from 2012 in the case of JBL? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 21:33, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

I have a decent supply of WP:AGF I am speechless. --JBL (talk) 22:58, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

re I.M. "Isn’t it a grudge from 2012 in the case of JBL?": No it isn't. All your problematic diffs here are from recent edits. For example this one suggesting BF. -DePiep (talk) 10:26, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Bad or simply pointless… but people sincerely preoccupied with my poor civility would try to hammer me under restrictions—something that certain quarters of Commoners achieved—not argue about “correct” duration of an [unconditional] block. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 16:07, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

But people sincerely preoccupied with my poor civility would try to hammer me under restrictions - do you see the problem here, Incnis Mrsi? No one is preoccupied with your civility, they're preoccupied with the disruption your chronic incivility causes while you do not seem to care or understand that this is extremely disruptive and beyond tendentious. Praxidicae (talk) 16:13, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

@MarkH21: shorter than indefinite doesn’t actually matter a significant difference. A ruined career anyway, as I have too broad scope of interest and too distinctive manner of editing to be able to start anew with a fresh account. Hopefully administrators understand this point. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 10:00, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't see how a shorter block implies having to start a new account. — MarkH21 (talk) 10:06, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Some other person, blocked in en.Wikipedia for a year, may afterwards resume editing with a new account. The same person blocked forever will be probably created puppeteer and banned with a new account – so for somebody one year vs indef may really matter. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 10:30, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, Incnis Mrsi, did you already have to start working from a new, fresh account on some wiki anywhere? -DePiep (talk) 10:26, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

You do realize that this is my homewiki, where I have over 90k edits, so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. Are you also seriously accusing me of bad faith editing for pointing out your publicly visible conduct issues across multiple projects? Do you understand the issues being brought up here at all because I do not get the impression that you do and are instead deflecting.Praxidicae (talk) 14:19, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

I have no idea what is she about to say in the shorter than indefinite topic. It could make sense wrt the meta-wiki and global sysops subthread above. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 15:02, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

What do global sysops have to do with anything here? This makes absolutely no sense. Praxidicae (talk) 15:13, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Concluding

• In light of the discussion above, I concretely request that IM be blocked indefinitely until they are able to demonstrate understanding of WP:Civility and the numerous ways that they are in violation of it, and credibly commit to changing those behaviors. --JBL (talk) 15:21, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

  Usually it is not a good idea to indefinitely block on behavioral issues someone who has been around for 13 years, made 11K edits, and has never been blocked before.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:02, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

  Usually, editors with that level of experience are not chronically and grossly uncivil. (Separately, though not relevant to this discussion: your description of IM's tenure is very misleading, since they have only avoided being blocked for precisely the same issue by agreeing to take a 2-month break from editing in 2012, and were minimally active for 5 years beginning April 2014.) --JBL (talk) 21:16, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

  I.M. even in this ANI does not get the issue. So a block is in place (because otherwise, with no understanding or change of concept by I.M., no change of behaviour will occur). The 2012 ANI post re I.M., from which this one took its name!, may be relevent to admins. Length of block is up to others. In case of reoccurrence we will meet here at ANI again.-DePiep (talk) 22:31, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

  I think that IM should be be blocked for a year or longer for being unable to edit Wikipedia in a collegial manner and being unwilling to change his behavior. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:48, 8 September 2019 (UTC). (non-admin)

  In light of the fact that a two-month break after the previous ANI seems to have done nothing to mitigate these concerns, I'd propose a minimum length of six months. I'd even settle with indefinite and an unblock condition of remaining civil and not shouting or belittling other editors, with a civility restriction enforcing this regardless of block length (i.e. coming into play after the expiry of the block). Unfortunately, given the behavior in these (and many other unlinked) diffs, and no evident interest in changing ways, a block seems to be the only means to deter the continuation of present, disruptive behavior; and encourage a more productive, congenial editing style within community norms. (WP:BLOCKP points 2 and 3). ComplexRational (talk) 00:08, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Almond Plate
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Oppose block Many of the diffs above do not show any incivility. The suggestion that there is much more is rather weak when you're already struggling to find some. Also, when you want to complain about another user being less than perfectly civil, don't respond to them in kind. Nothing rises to a level that we should worry about. Respect their expertise, remain civil yourselves, and you'll be fine. Almond Plate (talk) 16:13, 9 September 2019 (UTC) seems not productive The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. @Almond Plate: Since several editors have gone to the trouble of identifying behavior they find problematic, it seems appropriate to give more than hand-waving: could you identify many diffs above that do not show incivility? (I will happily admit that one or two show other charming tendencies like edit-warring, rather than specifically uncivil behavior.) --JBL (talk) 16:48, 9 September 2019 (UTC) I could, but I won't. It is up to you to present the diffs that do make your case. Your several editors' trouble doesn't impress me, especially with the canvassing and the importing going on here. If you provide diffs that don't support your case, that can be seen as disruptive, especially with the canvassing and the importing going on here and the disproportionate proposals. Almond Plate (talk) 17:31, 9 September 2019 (UTC) OK, if you just want to troll this discussion that's up to you. But for anyone to evaluate the validity of your comment, it would be necessary to indicate which of the diffs above you think are ok (just as to judge the validity of a complaint, it is necessary to have diffs of behavior that is not ok). --JBL (talk) 17:42, 9 September 2019 (UTC) This page's introduction says: "Include diffs demonstrating the problem". This report is missing diffs (or other identifications), even after being asked for them. This post is useless and to be ignored. -DePiep (talk) 04:58, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support admin action, including a warning and/or block per admin discretion; "something must be done". The incivility disruption is ongoing (diff, see edit summary, from the past 24hrs), and it doesn't appear this editor will be changing their behavior in this regard. – Levivich 17:04, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support an indefinite block this is yet another time sink. This is a perpetual and wide spread problem and while it's not enwiki's battle to fight, it's worth noting that IM is blocked for 6 months as of today on meta for incivility and attacks, they were warned again on commons for incivility, all while this discussion about blocking them indefinitely here, for incivility has been taking place. Praxidicae (talk) 19:22, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Almond Plate
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This, however, is a different project. We have no jurisdiction over Commons, nor does anything that happens there carry any weight here. (Not much to see there either though, although if I were to look closer, I might see indications of hounding.) Almond Plate (talk) 22:57, 10 September 2019 (UTC) Did you miss the part where I said: while it's not enwiki's battle to fight or should I also point out IM has cast aspersions against myself and others for bring up their proven, perpetual incivility?Praxidicae (talk) 01:12, 11 September 2019 (UTC) re Almond Plate "nor does anything that happens there carry any weight here": Fore sure it supports the notion that I.M. cannot claim ignoreance, misunderstanding or incompetence. That's not jurisdiction, that's an argument. -DePiep (talk) 06:24, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support a block, on incivility grounds, noting the various concerns raised by User:Joel_B._Lewis; User:ComplexRational; User:Deacon Vorbis; DePiep; Vermont; Xxanthippe; and Andy Dingley. While the user has acknowledged their own incivility they appear to be unwilling to accept responsibility for changing their behaviour. Sandbh (talk) 22:54, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
• Noting that I've blocked Incnis Mrsi on Meta-Wiki for a period of 6 months. It also seems that Incnis has made personal attacks in this section today towards editors. This is entirely unacceptable. Vermont (talk) 23:17, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Almond Plate
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Again, different venue. (But since you keep insisting on importing this, I've had a look. I see nothing in your meta diffs that warrants a block or even a warning. Six months is brutal.) Almond Plate (talk) 23:51, 10 September 2019 (UTC) Of course it's a different project; see my initial comment about it being a cross-wiki issue a few days ago. However, if someone is exhibiting uncivil attitudes on multiple projects, it is useful to be aware of that when judging it on one project. Best regards, Vermont (talk) 02:07, 11 September 2019 (UTC) I disagree there's nothing in your meta diffs that warrants a block or even a warning. For example, there's "overenthusiastic shoot-not-think boys and girls as stewards, not wise and experienced first-grade admins" and this ironic example: "Is the heavy use of pro-forms a mandatory part of [editor]’s English? Again I have to decrypt a phrase and infer some meaning from it, which possibly lie far from the intended meaning." – Levivich 03:51, 11 September 2019 (UTC) re Almond Plate "I see nothing in your [meta-wiki] diffs ...": But about this site & ANI report, you wrote: "Many of the diffs above do not show any incivility" [45] (you still have not identified those BTW). That implies you did see incivilities here. None of the two groups you elaborated on, so we still can't discuss your opinion. Does not help the discussion. -DePiep (talk) 06:24, 11 September 2019 (UTC) @DePiep, Levivich, Vermont, and Praxidicae: FYI Almond Plate has been blocked as a sock puppet. --JBL (talk) 14:09, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support a block (shorter than indefinite): Several examples of incivility have been brought up, which as isolated incidents may not major incidents, but the finger-pointing, accusations, and near-immediate loss of WP:AGF is very concerning. There seems to be a pattern of incivility, limited recognition of poor behavior, and combativeness. This is ignoring any issues on other wikis. — MarkH21 (talk) 09:12, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support indef - (Quality of contributions + competency in main-space) < Ill-effects of his perpetual incivility. ∯WBG^converse 17:56, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
• Blocked for 1 month. --Rschen7754 02:01, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • To add, I think that an indefinite block is likely in the future but I don't think that we are there yet. --Rschen7754 02:02, 12 September 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.

InFairness

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.

---

InFairness (talk · contribs) is adding something about how Obama and Hitler both have "white mamas" to False equivalence. Is this some kind of alt-right meme or something? When I reverted him, he called me a "total hypocrite" at Wikipedia talk:Twinkle. I'm not really concerned about being called a hypocrite (it's actually very mild compared to the things I'm usually called), but, given this edit and this edit, I'm a bit concerned that this may be an account dedicated to trolling. I don't really know much about trends in alt-right trolling, so I'd appreciate it if someone else could look at this. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:03, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, unfortunately, it's been around for a while. See these Google results for "Obama Hitler mama". Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:18, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Ah, Wikipedia, where you definitely will learn something new every day...whether you want to or will be any better off for it is more variable Nosebagbear (talk) 08:45, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
• Judging by some of the comments at User talk:InFairness, and the diffs in the OP, the user is either trolling or lacks competence. Either way an indef should result from any future similar edits. Johnuniq (talk) 09:46, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
• I think that perhaps we should not be judging a 14-year-old account on just two edits. Try thirteen.
  • Special:Diff/808589101
  • Special:Diff/772265972
  • Special:Diff/750337360
  • Special:Diff/672671061
  • Special:Diff/616608407
  • Special:Diff/544587173
  • Special:Diff/544679786
  • Special:Diff/252745635
  • Special:Diff/252745702
  • Special:Diff/763878905
  • Special:Diff/755984683
• Do you still think that this is a person dedicated to alt-right trolling? Uncle G (talk) 10:16, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I know riddles are a specialty Uncle G, but plain speaking is better at ANI. Apparently you have found 13 good edits? That's great. However the bad edits are very bad and some talented people find it entertaining to occasionally troll. That must stop. Johnuniq (talk) 10:28, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
    • This is plain speaking, and you have avoided answering the simple question, perhaps because it is plain that this is not an account "dedicated to trolling". I think that we would have spotted that in 14 years. Uncle G (talk) 10:49, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
      • Eleven edits in the last 2.4 years isn't dedicated to much of anything. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 11:50, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
        • Those two edits were poor quality, but this guy has been editing prolifically since 2005 and has written dozens of articles. I think it’s okay to admonish him to end the occasional trolling without permanently banning him. Michepman (talk) 14:08, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
          • prolifically since 2005 their last 100 edits go back to 2013! --JBL (talk) 14:43, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
            • Sure, but if you look at his edit history holistically you’ll see that while his edit count has slowed down a bit in recent years he had well over a hundred edits in 2005, 2006, etc. and created a large number of articles in 2005 and subsequent years. That does not give him license to vandalize articles as he has been doing recently but I do think he should be warned not to do so before being indefinitely blocked. Michepman (talk) 14:59, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
              • Are we sure it's the same person and not a compromised account? ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 15:40, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
                • • • I’m definitely open to a compromise with this account to resolve the issue. From my reading, the core issue is that he has begun to occasionally vandalize articles in the main space. If he is willing to stop this, I’d definitely support closing this discussion and potentially even awarding a barnstar to acknowledge his 14 years of otherwise productive editing. Michepman (talk) 16:58, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
                      • I think you misunderstood. When I said it could be a compromised account, I meant one where someone got the password somehow and it isn't being operated by the original owner. That said, I'm not sure it isn't the original owner either. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 22:10, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
                        • Ohh gotcha. I see what you mean now. The editing behavior definitely does seem incongruous -- I know Uncle G (talk · contribs) does not see this as trolling behavior but I am struggling to come up with a legitimate good faith editor reason why this user would have included the phrase "murderous fucking bigot" in 1 article or vandalized a caption here in an article. If this user's account was somehow compromised by hackers, that might actually explain why his editing went from being normal a few years ago to being somewhat troll-adjacent more recently. Michepman (talk) 23:13, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
• Michepman: please don't close discussions with which you are involved. You twice attempted to close this, even calling Bbb23's fix vandalism. – bradv🍁 15:51, 12 September 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.

Bacondrum's WP:BLPCOI editing and comments at the Milo Yiannopoulos 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.

---

Milo Yiannopoulos is a controversial figure, and the Milo Yiannopoulos article is under WP:1RR because of the article's contentious nature. Because of this, we will sometimes get editors who have very passionate feelings about the subject, and these feelings can interfere with the editor's neutrality. WP:BLPCOI states, in part, "editors who have a strongly negative or positive view of the subject of a biographical article should be especially careful to edit that article neutrally, if they choose to edit it at all." In the case of the Yiannopoulos article, I feel that Bacondrum has a WP:BLPCOI and that it more often than not affects his ability to edit the article in ways that are in accordance with policies such as WP:Due weight and WP:Preserve, and guidelines such as WP:Lead. The following is why:

Bacondrum's WP:BLPCOI editing and comments

In December 2018, Bacondrum showed up to the article arguing that it was overly long because "Milo Yiannopolous has achieved nothing compared to say Albert Einstein who's page is of comparable length" and "It's like a rolling report by people trying to expose what a nasty little man he is...and he is a nasty little man". He also said "perhaps in decades to come he will be more noteworthy, but now he is not much more than a loud mouth twat. I only mention that I think the guy is a creep so you understand I'm not trying to change the article to be less critical, but actually to read and feel encyclopedic." In light of these comments, it became clear to me that Bacondrum's personal feelings about Yiannopoulos's noteworthiness was a reason Bacondrum had made mass deletions to the article, including reducing the lead so that it no longer adequately summarized the article. In addition to what I told him about adequately summarizing the lead, another editor weighed in to echo my comments on that matter. As seen in the "mass changes" discussion, I stated, "All I'm asking is that you take care not to engage in mass changes, and that you first seek WP:Consensus here on the talk page for changes that are likely to be contested." He quickly made the discussion personal by bringing up my block log, and accused me of "rubbish[ing] Wikipedia or other editors' work." In the "article is way too long for a person whom history will likely forget in a few years" discussion, I tried to explain to him that "Regardless of how we personally feel about the subject, we should be as impartial as we can be and give the topics regarding this person their WP:Due weight. There are editors who feel that some of our Wikipedia articles on Internet celebrities are excessive and that those celebrities aren't worth our time. But that's not how Wikipedia is supposed to work. Yes, we should avoid WP:Recentism, and there is material in this article that can be cut or downsized, but we shouldn't be editing as though we own a crystal ball regarding this person's noteworthiness or relevance." I then suggested that Bacondrum propose cuts on the article's talk page. He didn't. He went to cutting what he did not like, removing some valid material in the process. He then accused me of WP:OWNING the article. In that discussion, another editor tried to explain to him how notability and coverage on Wikipedia work. And a different editor also pointed him to "WP:Wikipedia is not a crystal ball." On his talk page, he was also informed by an editor that WP:BLP applies to talk pages and to not make derogatory comments about Yiannopoulos. Fast-forward to July 15, 2019, where Bacondrum drastically cutting the lead was brought up again, this time by a different editor after Bacondrum's latest attempt to make it shorter than it should be. In that discussion, Bacondrum stated, "I'm not trying to whitewash, to be completely honest I think the dude is a piece of Nazi scum." The "Nazi scum" aspect was redacted by Swarm after this ANI thread on an unrelated matter where Swarm referred to his edits as "unilateral and substantial deletions of controversial content." Fast-forward to September 2019, yet another discussion about the lead. I'd reverted Bacondrum on removing the "Yiannopoulos has said that he is not a supporter of paedophilic relationships and that his statements were merely attempts to cope with his own victimhood, as an object of child abuse by unnamed older men." piece, stating, "Why do you think that we shouldn't include his statement that he's not a supporter of pedophilic relationships and why he says he made the comments? Per WP:BLP, it should be there. We shouldn't leave the accusation there unchallenged." Although Bacondrum conceded that we should state "Yiannopoulos has said that he is not a supporter of paedophilic," he questioned including Yiannopoulos's statement that he was "merely attempt[ing] to cope with his own victimhood, as an object of child abuse by unnamed older men." It soon became clear why. In Bacondrum's own words, he feels that Yiannopoulos is "a habitual liar who was "desperate[ly] backpedaling" and that "verifiable claims matter, and the veracity matters tens times more when the subject is a proven habitual liar," and that "At the end of the day, he is a pathological liar. I wouldn't be surprised if we find out down the track that he is a protestant heterosexual with no Greek ancestry." After Bacondrum's September 2019 derogatory comments about Yiannopoulos, I stated, "Keep in mind that this is a BLP. So, per WP:BLP, comments like 'a habitual liar like Yiannopoulos,' 'desperate backpedaling from claims' and 'he is a pathological liar,' and other derogatory personal opinions on Yiannopoulos, should be avoided. As for 'an insult to survivors,' some survivors of child sexual abuse, especially male survivors of child sexual abuse, have tried to downplay such harm, whether with regard to themselves and/or others. So Yiannopoulos's claim that his 'statements were merely attempts to cope with his own victimhood, as an object of child abuse by unnamed older men' does align with that." I then expressed concern on his talk page that he has a WP:BLPCOI and that "I think that your strong/passionate feelings about Yiannopoulos is partly why you still want to downsize the article, even after you've recently significantly downsized it." I stated, "I think you should really consider your WP:BLPCOI regarding the Milo Yiannopoulos article." In addition to the response seen there by Bacondrum, he came to my talk to accuse me of "shifty tactics" and owning the article for expressing my concerns about his WP:BLPCOI. Even as recently as this edit, he claimed that he "was not defaming the subject" because of some businessinsider.com.au source he linked to. Regardless of whatever he linked to there, he very clearly made derogatory comments about Yiannopoulos very recently. And despite his retracting a part of it here and stating here that he will "be more careful about the language [he uses] in the future," I have no faith that Bacondrum can be as impartial as he likely should be, or at least should be trying to be, when editing this article or that he won't make more derogatory comments about Yiannopoulos in the future. I believe that he only struck through a piece of his comment and stated that he will "be more careful about the language [he uses] in the future" because I told him on my talk page that I would be bringing this matter to ANI. Before that, he was at my talk page going on about how I'm supposedly engaging in "shifty tactics" and owning the article.

I'm not sure what the solution should be. If editors feel that Bacondrum continuing to edit this article is fine, I'll just have to accept that. But I felt that I should bring this matter to the wider Wikipedia community. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:27, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm very disappointed in Bacondrum's behavior here, which is pretty much what he did on Alt right, where he removed huge sections of the article without discussion, and then fought tooth and nail about them againswt multiple editors. After that dispute we had a friendly reconciliation, so I wish I didn't have to say this, but Bacondrum seems to leap before he looks and to make extensive BOLD edits without really good reasons behind them: they appear to be almost entirely based on his personal view of things as seen from Australia. It's beginning to look to me -- sorry Bacondrum -- that his innate behavior is not a good match for Wikipedia's consensus-based model. I would very much like that to not be true, so I ask Bacondrum to come here and explain his behavior as described by Flyer22 Reborn, and in relation to his previous behavior on other articles, including the battle he's fighting now to remove the well-sourced "Alt-left" section from Alt right. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:59, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

I have acknowledged my past mistakes and I agreed not do it again. I have not violated the 1RR sanctions, I've discussed the changes I want to make in a polite and civil manner, I have not edit warred, I've not made a single POV edit...the only thing I did wrong was call the subject a "pathological liar" in the talk section, which I acknowledge I shouldn't have done, I retracted it and appologise for it (I'm human, I make mistakes). These two editors have both taken issue with me in the past and I see this ANI request as unfair, unreasonable and at this point, over such a small disagreement I consider this a clear case of harassment. I've acknowledged my faults and learnt my lessons - I attempted to make peace with BMK and Flyer22 and have been civil with them, to no avail. They have both repeatedly accused me of being a POV editor in violation of policy. I think this warrants a WP:Boomerang Regarding WP:HARASS and WP:PERSONALATTACKS. I'm trying to be civil, but they are making it all but impossible. I've made mistakes in the past, learned and changed my ways - one little mistake that I retracted and apologize for does not warrant this level of hostility or sanctions, IMO. Bacondrum (talk) 04:53, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

On what grounds do you speculate that Flyer22 Reborn should receive a boomerang? Aside, of course, from attempting to deflect blame from yourself? Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:48, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

I personally see this as a content dispute and nothing more. I think Flyer22 is just mad that I got a significant number of edits through that he or she objects to and is seeking to punish me for it. Please look at my recent history and understand I acknowledge past mistakes and I have not made any POV edits, not edit warred, not been uncivil and have been making good faith edits since. Bacondrum (talk) 04:55, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

As for BMK's "that his innate behavior is not a good match for Wikipedia's consensus-based model" this is coming from a guy who edit wars and makes personal attacks ad nauseum and has been blocked something like ten times. Again I'd argue that this should WP:Boomerang. The guy is almost a fixture on this noticeboard. Bacondrum (talk) 05:09, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

13 times. In 14+ years. 13 times, in 255,807 edits. That's 1 block for every 17,441 edits. You've been blocked 2 times, and you have only 4,575 edits, one block for every 2,287 edits. So, in point of fact, I've been blocked at a rate that's 7.5 less frequently than you, so I don't think I'd be thrpwing that around, with yur record. You are responsible for your own behavior, no one else.

And, again, what are your grounds for calling for a boomerang? That you don't like me? That I post on AN/I a lot? (Not really, my percentage of Wikipedia-space edits is 9.5, while yours is 7.1, not so very different). That you're annoyed that you have to justify your editing? What's your reasoning? Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:45, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

How dreadful! You seem to have caught a terrible case of Editcountitis. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 06:39, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Not really, it's just that I am vulnerable to claims that I post too much at AN/I, and showing that my participation here is proportional to my overall edit count is the best way to counter those charges. I may post here more than most people, but I also make more (many more) article edits than most people. It's a canard that is used against me often, especially when there's nothing substantive that I can be attacked with. Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:19, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Not that it will appease these two, but I acknowledge I should not have called the subject a pathological liar, I apologise for it and it won't happen again. Bacondrum (talk) 05:15, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

• @Bacondrum:, is there an area of the encyclopaedia you'd be interested in editing in aside from these contentious political articles? I do agree there's WP:BLPCOI here with your edits as it's clear you're not able to edit this article neutrally, but there's plenty of areas of Wikipedia where I think you could make a positive contribution. SportingFlyer T·C 05:25, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Is there a non-neutral edit that I have made to the article? Please be kind enough to point at least one non-neutral edit I've made, if it's clear I'm not able to edit this article neutrally it should be easy to demonstrate my bias editing. Bacondrum (talk) 06:00, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

You boldly removed a lot of references, and then for some reason decided on the talk page there's "citation over kill," though as a general rule of thumb everything on Wikipedia needs to be referenced. This diff is arguably non-neutral, as is [46]. I don't know why you're continually intent on removing content from articles - my primary concern about neutrality isn't with any one particular edit or POV-pushing, but rather that it seems as if you're removing information from articles on people you don't like because you think we've over-covered them. If you see issues that need to be cleaned up, please identify them on the talk page and gain consensus on them, as you did with the RfC. SportingFlyer T·C 07:23, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

In what you just described, I did absolutely nothing wrong. On the talk page I've said somethings I shouldn't have said, I accept that and apologise - other than that, I've done absolutely nothing wrong - I've been Bold, when reverted I took it to talk and discussed, I've not edit warred, I've been civil and collegial. I've done absolutely nothing wrong in that regard. Bacondrum (talk) 12:08, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

It's "biased" editing, not "bias" editing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:13, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Jesus, now you're harassing me over a typo? Bacondrum (talk) 06:15, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

No, I was correcting what has become a very common grammatical error, which I see more and more here and elsewhere on the Internet, and which is one of my bete noirs. If you say it was merely a typo, then I take you at your word.

And, BTW, "harassment", like 'vandalism" has a very specific Wikipedia meaning. You can read about it here. I'd be careful about throwing it around too casually. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:25, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

The plural of bete noire is betes noires. I wouldn't usually trouble to point this out, but if you are correcting someone else's errors... RolandR (talk) 13:58, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the note, it looked wrong when I typed it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:11, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Just 3 days ago Flyer22 had this to say about my edits (keep in mind that i've not edited the article since): "You have significantly improved it, and it does seem to live up to C-class. But I'm willing to listen to what other cuts you are aiming for and what WP:OR you are speaking of. I just ask that you propose the cuts here on the talk page first. There is no rush, and you've already significantly downsized the article. I'm fine with you summarizing quoted material without discussion." As you can see there's a huge discrepancy between that and what he or she now claims about my edits. This is harassment. I will not make negative comments about the subject again, you have my word. I want to contribute to this article and I personally agree with Flyer22's earlier assertion that I have "significantly improved it". Bacondrum (talk) 06:24, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

As I said above, please be careful about throwing around "harassment". Criticism of your editing, with supporting evidence, is in no respect "harassment". Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:26, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Bacondrum stated that I have "repeatedly accused [him] of being a POV editor in violation of policy." What is he talking about with regard to the wording "POV editor"? Perhaps he can provide diffs for this assertion? The harassment and personal attacks claims are obviously without merit.

Bacondrum stated, "I'm trying to be civil, but they are making it all but impossible." How? By pointing him to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, such as what WP:Lead states and his WP:BLPCOI?

Bacondrum stated, "I think Flyer22 is just mad that I got a significant number of edits through that he or she objects to and is seeking to punish me for it." If this were the case, then I would not have stated, "You have significantly improved [the article]." If I had objected to all of Bacondrum's latest big cuts, I would have reverted and made my case on the talk page (just like I've reverted him and made my case on the talk page before). This is not about a content dispute. It's about Bacondrum editing based on his personal opinions rather than what our policies and guidelines state and him not being able to refrain from making derogatory comments about Yiannopoulos. If one has valid reason to make cuts, then cut away. But to cut because you don't like the material and feel that the subject doesn't deserve an article as big as Einstein's? That is a problem. Bacondrum having made some good edits to the article doesn't mean that he's not still making problematic ones, such as having cut all of the Gamergate material, which another editor had to salvage in a smaller form. Bacondrum doesn't understand WP:Preserve. Or, if he does, he doesn't care. This is the size of the article now. Look past the headings (which can make an article look bigger than it is) to what is in the sections. I get the impression that Bacondrum is aiming for the article to be barely bigger than a stub. And it's all because of his feelings on Yiannopoulos's noteworthiness. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:49, 11 September 2019 (UTC) Updated post. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:55, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Shifting goal posts now? This is what I mean by harassment. Three days ago you were saying, that I had "improved the article significantly" I've not made a single edit since you said that. I've not argued for anything near reducing it to a stub, that's an outright lie. Bacondrum (talk) 11:48, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

This is clearly a personal attack, I've edited in good faith and been mindful of my personal bias. "I get the impression that Bacondrum is aiming for the article to be barely bigger than a stub. And it's all because of his feelings on Yiannopoulos's noteworthiness." This is a clear and obnoxious violation of WP:PERSONALATTACKS. I've worked to improve the article and any insinuation to the contrary is deeply insulting. Bacondrum (talk) 11:55, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

"You have significantly improved it" - Flyer22_Reborn 09-09-2019 (one day after the last edit I made to the article in question) Bacondrum (talk) 12:03, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Not "shifting goal posts" in any way. You keep using the "Flyer said I significantly improved the article" statement as some "get out of jail free" card. I already stated, "Bacondrum having made some good edits to the article doesn't mean that he's not still making problematic ones." And Simonm223 stated similarly below. I told you at the end of this section on the article's talk page. "Looking at this version of the article, it appears to me that you've cut enough. There is a little bit of material that can be summarized instead of including quotes. But you have significantly downsized the article. The goal certainly should not be what the goal was in the 'The article is way too long for a person whom history will likely forget in a few years' discussion. And this is for reasons stated in that discussion. And by 'goal,' I obviously mean downsizing the article because of what one personally feels about Yiannopoulos's noteworthiness or relevance." So my concerns expressed above are the same ones I've expressed on the talk page. Above, I stated, "Look past the headings (which can make an article look bigger than it is) to what is in the sections." For most sections in the article, there is not a lot of material in those sections. So what else am I to think when you continue to speak of cuts and wanting to reduce the lead, which, in its current state, does adequately summarize the article? You don't understand what WP:Harassment or WP:Personal attacks mean, just like you don't understand WP:Preserve and WP:Lead. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:11, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

As political movements are one of my preferred edit topics I've run across Bacondrum a lot and frankly their edit history confuses me. At times, they've made WP:BOLD edits that I actually supported as improving WP:DUE and WP:NPOV in contentious areas, while at other times their edits are just as bold, but entirely perplexing, removing large chunks of text, declaring significant things irrelevant and generally coming across as haphazard. I don't think this matter is as simple as a WP:BLPCOI issue. The article talk on arbcom sanctioned far-right figures has always pushed the bounds of both WP:BLP and WP:CIV and, in the case of Yiannopoulos, there are actually WP:RSes that support some of Bacondrum's more POV talk page comments (such as his history of dissembling and his involvement with nazi groups).

But that being said, I certainly don't think Bacondrum's comportment has been perfect. I don't think they understand the line between WP:BOLD and WP:RECKLESS well, and I think that they should demonstrate far greater caution in mass-deletion of content. The recent RfC about Gamergate at Yiannopoulos is confusing nearly to the point of disruption and I think it centers around a post-hoc justification for one of these deletions. My proposal for a solution would be to impose a time-limited restriction on non-minor deletions unless a clear consensus has been achieved at talk (somewhere between 3 to 6 months) along with a formal warning that, should they not abide by this restriction, or should they return to bad habits after the expiry of it, they will face a more severe penalty. Simonm223 (talk) 12:25, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

That's fair, I'll wear that. I can see my faults and think that's a fair criticism. Thanks for being reasonable, and I'll endeavor to do better in the future. Bacondrum (talk) 12:50, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

I would probably agree with Simon's suggestion on the restrictions on non-minor edits without consensus, based on patterns. This is not yet at a point of major behavior problems (no EW/reverting, etc.) but should be cautioned that large-scale edits on pages on controversial topics should probably be discussed first rather than BOLDLY made. But I will add, related to the content side, that I think Bacondrum is right that the article on Milo is far too long for what he actually has done. (insert my usual tirade on NOTNEWS/RECENTISM here)' which has caused unsavory figures as seen by the media to get drastically far more coverage comparatively, which ends up making article that highlight every complaint the media has taken with these people. These types of bios should not be seen as scarlet letters to gather everything bad that can be said about them, and editors should take caution to focus on facets that will have enduring important to who Milo is years down the road. That's not to whitewash any negative stuff, just that there's no need to document everything an RS speaks negatively of him. --Masem (t) 14:36, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Masem, again this is the current state of the article. Like I noted above, for most sections in the article, there is not a lot of material in those sections. So exactly how much more should be cut? And based on what policy or guideline? What in the sections is not due? And should the lead not adequately summarize the article? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:11, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Without spending a bunch of time heads-deep into sources "Remarks on paedophilia and child sexual abuse" reads like a section purposely there to shame Milo. I'm not saying it should be removed, but reads as a laundry list of every time something Milo may have said something that inferred paedophila is listed. That's a RECENTISM issue, related to trying to apply UNDUE in the state of the "now". Just because something he said got media attention doesn't make it long-term appropriate. Think about how you'd be writing this section for the first time if it was 20 years down the road, Milo long disappeared from public view into the tapestry of this period. Would that section be how it would be written, assuming you otherwise had access to the same sources? Of course not. This is where I think Bacondrum is coming from , in comparing this to Einstein's article, which there is not reporting every little thing that happened but a broad overview like a tertiary source should. --Masem (t) 20:55, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Masem, I've never supported including everything in that section. And I did ask Bacondrum what more from that section he thinks needs cutting. He stated he "reckon[s] that [the] section would be fine [after the 'Yiannopoulos's comments were widely characterized as endorsing paedophilia or pederasty' line was re-added with a piece making clear that Yiannopoulos is technically correct about the definition of pedophilia.]" All that Bacondrum had focused on cutting from that section was the "Yiannopoulos is technically correct about the definition of pedophilia" piece, which was only there after an RfC deemed it appropriate. He also stated, "[T]hat's one section where most the detail is due IMO, after all those comments are one of the only reasons anyone has ever heard of him." When he said that the section is fine as is, I disagreed in my mind, but I did not voice my disagreement. As for WP:Recentism, I often do bring up WP:Recentism, including in this July 2019 case regarding Michael Jackson's legacy after the Leaving Neverland documentary. In that discussion, I, for example, stated, "we will have to wait years to see the full impact." So I understand what you mean about that. We don't fully agree on where Bacondrum is coming from. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:27, 11 September 2019 (UTC) Updated post. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:32, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I should say is that in light of what is being asked for here at ANI, Bacondrum's statements about the length and size of Milo's article are inline with guidelines like RECENTISM, or at least within that ballpark that discussion of their points should not be taken as a POV/behavioral issue, and something from a content side more editors involved on that page should be aware of. I've been on that side where I'm trying to argue related to policies and guidelines and have been told that I'm pushing a POV, hence my concern this is what's being done here, and I am just hoping to have this lead more editors to be open to discuss with Bacondrum valid changes to the article without presuming they are trying to whitewash it by removing information, while at the same time Bacondrum be very aware that massive BOLD changes prior to discussion will draw attention. --Masem (t) 22:05, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Then we disagree on a number of points regarding Bacondrum, considering that his beliefs about things like what is due for inclusion and how and lead length have repeatedly been out of step with WP:Due and WP:Lead, as noted by others. Like I made clear above, he isn't even in agreement with your viewpoint on the pedophilia/child sexual abuse material, and it's clearly based on his personal POV. Also, I've never viewed his edits as whitewashing attempts. I think him wanting to have the lead of the article state "Yiannopoulos has been accused of being an apologist for or supporting paedophilia" without any statement from Yiannopoulos on the matter saying "he is not a supporter of paedophilic relationships" is evident that this is not about whitewashing. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:10, 11 September 2019 (UTC) Updated post. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:20, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Would you please copy this part into perhaps 2 dozen articles! These types of bios should not be seen as scarlet letters to gather everything bad that can be said about them, and editors should take caution to focus on facets that will have enduring important to who [BLP] is years down the road. It's very clear when the subject of a BLP (and sometimes non-LP or just an organization) is written by those who dislike it rather than from what could be called an archaeological POV. Sadly it is often more important to put in inflammatory quotes etc vs trying to help readers understand the picture. Springee (talk) 14:51, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Only 2 dozen articles? We have something like 185 million BLPs, seems like that should be copied into most of them. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 15:20, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Wouldn't only be BLPs that need this - thank goodness we don't have yet have a separate article on "Sharpiegate". However, I also know my views related in this RECENTISM area are not universally shared, I'm just expressing that I think some of the conflict in the current content discussion at Milo's page should be considered in this light.--Masem (t) 17:55, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

I couldn't agree with the views expressed here more, I see the same problem on many of these new/newish far right articles, huge amounts of undue detail, lousy prose etc. Seeing as how I'm essentially no longer able to improve the Milo Yiannopoulos or the Alt-right page because I tried to remove too much guff at once and I'll be sanctioned if I keep it up, I'd strongly urge you all to look at these pages and help improve them, they are drowning in undue detail (well, Milo less so now). The Alt-right article is a shocker, full of tendentious details and teeming with RECENTISM. Bacondrum (talk) 22:54, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Proposals

Proposal 1

WP:TROUT the following people:

• Flyer22 Reborn: For filing the complaint over something that's seems to have been settled.
• Bacondrum: For prior remarks and for future remarks that he hasn't typed but was probably thinking about (humorously pick WP:AGF out of the trash can)
• Beyond My Ken: For further inflaming the situation with snarky remarks, but then backing off replete with spelling errors
• ONUnicorn: Because he was the last to reply + had an excellent suggestion!
• Buffs: because he likes fish

In all seriousness, this feels very much like this is a litany of points that has been brought up in AN when it really didn't need to be. It feels like a grudge that is festering. Everyone go back to your own corner. Take a deep breath and relax. Then keep your future remarks collegial. All of you are better than this and I've seen it in the talk pages (yes...I'm admonishing myself too).

Now, I am off to read other parts of Wikipaedia for no raisin whatsoever! Buffs (talk) 17:57, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support a thorough Trouting of all involved Buffs is right, this really didn't need to make it to ANI. Let's all take a breather, remember to be civil, and go grill some fresh WP:TROUT Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:10, 11 September 2019 (UTC).

Given what SportingFlyer and Simonm223 stated above, how do either of you figure that I "[filed] the complaint over something that's seems to have been settled"? What has been settled? How is pointing out WP:BLPCOI and WP:BLPTALK about a grudge? Things were going okay-ish with Bacondrum until he started making derogatory comments about Yiannopoulos yet again. He's already had two chances twice before to stop making such comments. Because of his view that Yiannopoulos is "a habitual liar who was "desperate[ly] backpedaling" and that Yiannopoulos is "a pathological liar," Bacondrum has felt that we should just have the lead of the article state "Yiannopoulos has been accused of being an apologist for or supporting paedophilia" without any statement from Yiannopoulos on the matter saying "he is not a supporter of paedophilic relationships." To have the lead formatted like that is a BLP problem. It's not like Yiannopoulos is a convicted child sexual abuser. It is not as though Yiannopoulos has been caught with child pornography. With more discussion, Bacondrum finally agreed to retain Yiannopoulos saying "he is not a supporter of paedophilic relationships." But now he questions including Yiannopoulos saying "his statements were merely attempts to cope with his own victimhood, as an object of child abuse by unnamed older men." He objects because there is no evidence. I've told him that this material "does seem due to me in a BLP context because [Yiannopoulos is] explaining himself. Whether editors or readers believe him is irrelevant. It's covered in detail below and the lead should adequately summarize the 'pedophilia/child sexual abuse' matter." I also told him, "As for people saying that they were sexually abused, there often is not evidence that the abuse took place" and "false allegation of child sexual abuse is rare, especially when coming from the person who says they were abused," and "some survivors of child sexual abuse, especially male survivors of child sexual abuse, have tried to downplay such harm, whether with regard to themselves and/or others. So Yiannopoulos's claim that his 'statements were merely attempts to cope with his own victimhood, as an object of child abuse by unnamed older men' does align with that." What to include in the lead of a BLP should not be based on whether or not we think the person is a pathological liar. Furthermore, regardless of whatever reliable source has called Yiannopoulos a Nazi scum or a pathological liar, although I've seen no such sources state so, it doesn't give us a pass to call him such on the article talk page. What confidence do either of you have that Bacondrum won't continue to make derogatory comments about Yiannopoulos? How many chances does he get? Considering Buffs' "Bacondrum: For prior remarks and for future remarks that he hasn't typed" comment, he doesn't have any faith at all that Bacondrum won't continue to make derogatory comments about Yiannopoulos.

Looking above in this thread and at things like this comment by Joel B. Lewis and this statement by Bishonen, I can't help but feel that the "trouts for all" viewpoint is more so about feelings toward Beyond My Ken and should be disregarded. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:11, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

CaptainEek and Buffs Hahaha, yes I'll cop a well deserved trout slap. Looks like Flyer22 might need a couple. Bacondrum (talk) 21:45, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Flyer22 Come on, blind Freddy can see you've got a grudge, this has been unnecessary nasty and personal. Lighten up, cop a trout WP:DEADHORSE. Peace. Bacondrum (talk) 21:51, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Of course you would say that. I expect you to say it the next time you are brought to ANI as well. I've noticed that the above comment aligns with your typical response to any concern regarding your behavior. But I won't say "I told you so" to editors the next you are brought here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:01, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Jesus, you just don't let up do you? Bacondrum (talk) 22:04, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 2

After reading this thread, I support what Simonm223 said above: My proposal for a solution would be to impose a time-limited restriction on non-minor deletions unless a clear consensus has been achieved at talk (somewhere between 3 to 6 months) along with a formal warning that, should they not abide by this restriction, or should they return to bad habits after the expiry of it, they will face a more severe penalty. I think multiple editors have made clear that this is an ongoing pattern of behavior that should be addressed. Also, even if Bacondrum has done some good work, that does not mean they are without BLPCOI on Yiannopoulos. Just saying everyone behave! won't fix anything, and the bad habits can easily resurface. -Crossroads- (talk) 20:30, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm happy to wear that, assuming this proposal means restrictions on non-minor deletions applies to all, not just me. Bacondrum (talk) 22:02, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Have all shown a WP:BLPCOI on this article? No. Different editors agree that you have shown you have one. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:20, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

No, but you've clearly got a grudge. We've clearly been involved in a content dispute, it's hardly fair that you are given different editing conditions in this context. Bacondrum (talk) 22:28, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware that you perceive valid criticism of your behavior to be a grudge. I stated above, "Things were going okay-ish with [you] until [you] started making derogatory comments about Yiannopoulos yet again. [You've] already had two chances twice before to stop making such comments." How many chances should you get? As for your statement that "it's hardly fair that [I am] given different editing conditions in this context"? Do you understand how this site works? I mean, truly? It has often seemed that you do not. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:35, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

And it's not like I brought the "derogatory comments" matter straight to ANI. I first addressed it on the article's talk page. I then took the matter to your talk page. And, well, I documented above how you responded. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:48, 11 September 2019 (UTC) Updated post. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:51, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Jesus wept. Bacondrum (talk) 23:02, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: I would be fine with this thread being closed with Bacondrum being admonished to watch his WP:BLPCOI and to refrain from making any more derogatory comments about Yiannopoulos. The thread serving as a warning is fine with me. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:04, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Wow, that's an about face, thanks for calling off the hounds. I'll gladly accept that. Thanks for suddenly being reasonable. Bacondrum (talk) 23:08, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

It's not an about face. I stated from the beginning, "I'm not sure what the solution should be. If editors feel that Bacondrum continuing to edit this article is fine, I'll just have to accept that. But I felt that I should bring this matter to the wider Wikipedia community." Others here have agreed with me about your problematic editing. It's simply that there is not yet any consensus on what to do about it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:18, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Regarding personal attacks

I accept reasonable criticisms made of me. However, BMK and Flyer22 have clearly gone well beyond that, as other editors have pointed out. I have been subject to a significant number of personal attacks here. Are personal attacks now permitted once we enter and ANI? If not are there any consequences or will these two be permitted to continue personal attacks whenever they complain about me? Bacondrum (talk) 22:23, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

More ridiculousness. And "as other editors have pointed out" is clearly false. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:26, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Clearly false? "It feels like a grudge". Jesus wept. Bacondrum (talk) 23:05, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Your statement that "other editors have pointed out" that my comments have "clearly gone well beyond" reasonable criticisms is false. One editor in the first proposal section stated "It feels like a grudge that is festering." And I noted why that editor's comment is without merit. You not taking this ANI thread seriously is more evidence of your problematic viewpoint on this matter and other BLPs. Like I stated, you'll be back at ANI again for your problematic editing, and it won't be because I brought you here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:18, 11 September 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.

Vodafone India IPv4 vandalism

• 42.106.0.0/17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log)
  • 42.106.28.195 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
  • 42.106.112.50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

The range is infested with vandals and otherwise poor editors. IP-only range block seems to the only workable response. BTW doesn’t anybody know a LTA with similar signature? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 17:18, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Tedentious editing at Battle of Karbala

I have been working on Battle of Karbala for quite a while to nominate it for GA, and the effort consisted of almost a complete rewrite of the article from POV riddled gibberish into something that falls short of FAC only in prose. This is a religiously sensitive topic and various opinions by various author exist, and conscious effort has been put into portraying opinions as opinions. Recently, there has been effort to rollback the improvement, especially by Snowsky Mountain (talk · contribs), who has a previous record of POV-pushing and tendentious editing (this is not casting aspersions, evidence of previous behavior can be supplied if needed) is now again after inserting POVs and factually inaccurate claims. [47], [48]. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 21:52, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

My recent edits to the page that AhmadLX mentioned are not simply tendentious opinions, but rather facts sourced with multiple references. The first edit mentioned by AhmadLX includes information from two books published by Oxford University Press. The second edit concerns the size of an army in the mentioned battle; sources list two possible sizes of the army, but AhmadLX seems to believe that listing both sizes is "tendentious." Snowsky Mountain (talk) 22:06, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Ah, so you will present something as a historical fact because it appeared in a book published by Oxford? Then what about other 48 books listed in bibliography also published by Oxford, SUNY, Brill etc? Are all the conflicting views to be presented in the lead as facts? The source of the army strength cites another source (Aghaie 2004) which doesn't contain the claim. On the other hand, 4,000 figure is cited by all the primary and secondary sources on Islamic history including Encyclopedia of Islam and virtually every other source. You will write 30,000 because it appeared in something completely unrelated to the topic [Discourses of (De)Legitimization: Participatory Culture in Digital Contexts] while ignoring the scholarship on the topic? --AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 22:23, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

I gave two sources for the size of the army. Even if a book was about a certain topic, if it contains information relevant to the topic at hand, what is the problem in using it? Further, even if you did not want to use the two sources listed cited, then the fact that multiple sources note the figure could make it noteworthy. If you look, you could also notice that older versions of the page also provide both figures. That said, how exactly is having two possible (sourced) sizes of the army "tendentious"? Snowsky Mountain (talk) 22:37, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Alright both of you, stop going at each other, and remember to be WP:CIVIL. Step back for a bit, think, and let some other folks examine the discussion before posting here again. Now, from what I see, this is still mostly a content dispute. A content dispute that neither of you appear to have discussed prior to coming to ANI. So I highly recommend you open a new talk page thread on the issue, and talk it out first. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 00:02, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

@CaptainEek: Discussion with this user normally turns into mountains, not walls, of text, like this.AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 00:17, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: I don't endorse AhmadLX's edits. Before Snowsky Mountain appears up, he did the same thing to me! AhmadLX needs to engage in talk page discussions instead of making reverts. That said, Snowsky Mountain is also encouraged to bring his objections to the TP. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:32, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

I did not seek your endorsement. --AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 13:45, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

• Content dispute – ANI is for urgent or intractable behavior issues. This is a content dispute. While folks may not be interested in talking this out, that's how the process works. Go back to the article talk page and discuss it. If you find that your discussion is hitting walls of text, or that you can't agree, you can always ask for a third opinion, open an RfC, or ask for formal dispute resolution. Now, if in the course of discussion there are behavioral issues, you can come back to ANI. But I believe in y'alls ability to play by the rules and collaborate, and hope this doesn't have to come back here. My other advice to ALL involved parties: keep your answers short and concise, keep it WP:CIVIL, and remember that you may have to compromise. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 16:42, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

• Content dispute. This is a clear content dispute that has received ZERO discussion on the article's talkpage. Please don't come to ANI because you disagree with the content of someone's edits. Please don't repeatedly accuse an editor of bad faith and "old tactics" via edit summaries. Treat every edit and every editor neutrally, and discuss content, not editors. Please don't edit war. Please go to the article talkpage and arrive at WP:CONSENSUS regarding the various content in question. I will say one thing: Snowsky Mountain, this was a fairly massive change and in my opinion should have been discussed on the talk page prior to making it (and the text should go back to the immediate status quo ante until there is consensus for it). Now please all three of you go to the talkpage and discuss content, not editors. Utilize any form(s) of WP:DR necessary. Someone please close this thread now. Softlavender (talk) 06:27, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

A content dispute? How is clear violation of NPOV and POV pushing supposed to be a content dispute? How would you "discuss" with somebody who specializes in pointless discussions which go nowhere and only result in mental fatigue? This is a chronic problem and this user is only here to damage the encyclopedia by writing religious BS all around the articles related to Islam, and should be indefd. It is inappropriate to jump in and jeopardize matters one has literally no understanding of just so that it may potentially be counted as plus point in any future RFAs. This is an admin board and the issue was brought here for admin attention. However 7 days on and their indifference and disinterest in this is appalling. As if this were some issue of some Arabpedia or Islampedia and not of this encyclopedia and hence none of their business. I thought adminship was not a cuteness, fragility or incompetence contest. Seems it is on all three counts. 1100 of them and can't handle very basic of their functions; attending to issues brought to their attention. Jimbo bless this site. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 17:49, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Help needed with complex page moves of user pages

Probity22 (talk · contribs) has been moving their user talk page around, presumably in an attempt to change their user name - they have moved the page several times to various unregistered user names (to User, not User talk), and the resulting redirects have been fixed by EmausBot so it's now impossible to revert the moves. I reverted the most recent one, but admin help is needed for the rest. I will of course post a notification of this discussion to Probity22's real talk page, but that will unfortunately mess up the restoration process even more... Probity's old talk page history is currently located at User:Jgvcbl. --bonadea contributions talk 18:20, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

I think I've gotten it all sorted with reverting the page moves, merging the relevant page histories, and deleting the redirects. Please let me know if anything doesn't look right. -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:53, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

@Probity22: If you need assistance with how to change your username, please see the directions at Wikipedia:Changing username. After reading that, if you still need help, you can ask at Wikipedia:Help desk. Regards, -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:56, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

@Ed (Edgar181) and @bonadea Thank you very much for your help and assistance. I was unaware of the protocol regarding unregistered user name redirects, and inadvertently created them in an attempt to change the user name. The issue is now resolved thanks to you. If possible, I request you to please remove this notice now as no further action is required. Thank you again. -- Probity22 (talk · contribs)

Personal attacks, WP:Civility

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

I am sorry but I have no choice to make this report (nota bene, I've waited if the correspondent editor retreats or at least apoligize for his untenable accusations, but unfortunately this did not happen.)

We have a discussion on a content issue, where Jac Hodec unfortunately made as well an ad hominem personal attack ([49])

Quote:

"I'm sure that if Wikipedia existed in the 80s, you'd have Soviet communists arguing that Pravda is the only reliable source of information on the Soviet Communist Party, and that all accusations by the hostile Western media and their internal allies should be disregarded as propaganda."

I responded him ([50]) and pointed out this should be retreated imemdiately or to apologize because even if not my personal views would be deep anti-Communist or my family would not be presecuted by the Communist, such personal attacks and incivilities are harmful in our community and deteriorating from the topic with such personalizations as well is heavily unprofessional.

Suprisingly by his answer ([51]), he did not mea culpa even a little but openly stated:

- I apologise for nothing

and repeated the same nonsense personal attack:

- The whole premise of my point is that the arguments being forwarded by Fidesz and by proxy repeated by New00100 and yourself are the same as those that were made by the Communist regimes against their outside critics"

This such disgusting, that I still cannot come out of the schock, since all of my arguments were factual, professional and served accuracy and WP:NPOV and I proudly stand for them and anyone may check them, practically this is as open accusation of lying, just because Jay Hodec does not like I have an opinion and a first-hand knowledge and experience in the politics of Hungary, that anyway I live on my own skin and on the contrary Communism taught Hungarians how to identify, debunk and fight agains propaganda or manipulation, shall it come from any party... But what concerns me as well, in the discussion he pinged in as well a sockpuppet "@WyGolf:", but since I know WP:Civility and WP:NPA, WP:AGF and WP:AAGF, I hope just by mistake he did this...(KIENGIR (talk) 22:12, 9 September 2019 (UTC))

The first of these comments is an analogy about style of argumentation (and also perhaps about countries with state-controlled media), the second is about the form and nature of your argument. Neither of them is a personal attack. --JBL (talk) 22:29, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Joel B. Lewis, unfortunately my arguments or their nature does not have any similarities to any "Communist regimes", on the contrary, I am scientist with a high level mathematical and logical expertise, and my argumentations and their details may be decomponated such way as well, try me if you want, but any comparison that was performed above is above all level of a civilized and moderate discussion.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:53, 9 September 2019 (UTC))

It's still insinuating bad faith. The sentence before the first quoted sentence was "I must also point out that arguments put forth against the right-wing to far-right designation by KIENGIR and New00100 in this section are eerily reminiscent of proclamations made in Soviet propaganda denouncing the adversarial mendacious imperialist capitalist media of the West." EvergreenFir (talk) 22:35, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Pointing out the perceived weakness of an arguement or proposition (ie that it is a "poor" or "bad" arguement - and why) does not intrinsically imply that the person making the arguement or proposition did so in bad faith. However, characterising a rebuttal as an "accusation of lying" does intrinsically imply bad faith and might fall to WP:POT. Also, the statement: just because Jay Hodec does not like I have an opinion would appear to be an assumption. Disagreeing with the opinion of another is not the same. Such a statement is personalising the dispute, and would appear to be attacking the person through attacking their perceived motives. (edit confict) Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 23:52, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Cinderella, the point is there is not any weakness of my arguments on my side - if it is, please demonstrate them somehow - that bad faith is the proposed analogy here with the Communist regime (that would imply lying/twisting and other horrible things) that evidently does not hold, on the contrary would take the discussion away from the point, and yes, it may seem an "accusation of lying", like I would do it deliberately. My "assumption" does not qualify that heavy weight I received, I recognize I should have added at least "appear to be", I am sorry for this. Please also have in mind, he just declared the third time of feeling NO apoligize on the talk page and I did not start personalization towards him, so excuse me...(accusing with Communist alike crimes is such a casting aspersion that are really may be considered as "redflag").(KIENGIR (talk) 00:07, 10 September 2019 (UTC))

Firstly, I have not and am not commenting on the actual strengths or weaknesses of arguements in the TP discussion. The analogy being made is between "arguements" (ie this is the same sort of arguement as made by ...). It is not asserting similarities between those making the arguements - ie it is not equating you with being a communist. This would be a syllogistic fallacy. To the second part of the allegation being an "accusation of lying" and now "accusing with Communist alike crimes", the analogy is explained and does not assert or suggest either accusation. It is simply not evidenced by the TP posts. There are several premises missing for a logical conclusion to such an effect. The allegations appear to be an erroneous conflation rather than a matter of insinuation or casting aspersions. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 07:36, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Cinderella, if someone two times reinforcing that an argumentation is alike with the Communist regime's and insisting what other editors would do if WP would exist in the 80's and openly saying they would support the horror regime is an offensive and shocking assertion and implying those things I draw the attention. Not I am the only one who noticed the very bad faith charachter of this -even if the original contributor would mean attacking just arguments, this is definetly not the proper way for it - to say nothing of is very unprofessional and aspectacularly lame and loud trial to deteriorate the discussion from it's root, especially when my arguments have zero analogies that the accusator introduced and at the time of the discussion he did not have better tool to attack in such a way, i.e.(KIENGIR (talk) 07:54, 10 September 2019 (UTC))

That: an argumentation is alike with the Communist regime's and insisting [added for emphasis] what other editors would do if WP would exist in the 80's, is not an unreasonable observation except in the way it has been paraphrased by editorialising (per emphasis). Openly saying [empasis added] they would support the horror regime, is a misrepresentation in many ways. They have not said any of what you infer and to represent it as such, might be construed as a personal attack. What they said, is: I'm sure that if Wikipedia existed in the 80s, you'd have Soviet communists arguing ... You are a self-professed logistician. As such, I had hoped that you might have studied my comments more closely. Not I am the only one who noticed the very bad faith charachter of this - your evidence please? Personalising an arguement into a personal attack can cut both ways, with conflation being the converse course (ie I take your comments personally v asserting you are ... or you did ...). Insisting that these have been made as personal attacks has the potential to WP:BOOMERANG. You have received an apology to the extent that the posts were not intended to be perceived as you have done. This would appear to be a positive step forward. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 12:11, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Cinderella, see EvergreenFir's opinion. Yes, it is a step forward, but seems after realizing the very happenings, I disagree it would be anyway close to boomerang, since I did not do anything on such weight like he did, you are criticizing partially of my observations and summaries here, that is not part of the original incident/root cause. Regarding logics, there is no any resemblence to my argumenation to that one the editor tried to compare or make an analogie, since my argumentation may be decomponated into logical variables and a proper inference may be done, and it does not lead to contradiction or falsity in such manner, that his assertion would imply (simply we may argue of mathematical satisfiability on a logical statements with universal quantors and variables, if we really try to enter in scientific/advanced logic, however I'm qualified on this in academic level, not a self-invention). I am sorry you don't feel and see how stigmatizing and prejudicative was his assertion. Regards.(KIENGIR (talk) 12:33, 10 September 2019 (UTC))

Copied material from original discussion – Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 03:46, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

The statement with which KIENGIR takes issue was part of a larger disagreement that must be viewed in context. Here are some of the statements I was referring to: "The problem is all of these trials are coming from only those news and media concerns, individuals who in the past eight years as well attacked Fidesz and the Hungarian Government, many times with groundless or exaggerated accusations with a huge double measure comparing to other states where the same or worse happened, but just because they did not share conservative right-wing views and disagreed on more high-level political questions, they were not attacked at the same manner." - KIENGIR "Sorry, the problem is regardless some media goups are officially regarded "independent", there are those groups who consistently attacking/labeling/accusing the party with some designations that does not hold (regardless what it is, if there is a chance it is done, even if the epithes are varying...mostly the left side and media groups nationally/internationally who traditionally criticizing and labeling right wing parties, or their policies (even if the right/left designation in some other countries have no interpretation based on different political heritage, but the direction and idea have common directions)...Hungary and it's government is recently a target mainly beucase of it's anti-immigration policy and opposition to the some European policies (European United States vs. Federalism of strong national states, etc. in scope of the forthcoming European Parlamentiary Elections). Fidesz factually has no connection to any far-right agenda, not even commited such. Thus such opinons may only represented as an opinion of some circles." - KIENGIR "This is funny how the hysterical leftists & their far-leftists friends happen to spam "far-right" when new antisemitic acts took place in France. Moreover, it shouldn't be forgotten that those same leftists tolerate the islamo-leftism & radical Salafist movement & mosquees in European countries (especially on the West). You should stop look for scapegoats on the right-wing side & behave like real adults with a free will by questioning yourselves. And to end it all, fascism is the intolerance of point of views which is typically characterized by the leftists again nowadays by censoring EVERYONE who got anti-immigration views (Illegam Muslim wave), national conservatism & nationalist views (as people who actually love their country & opposed to multiculturalism that doesn't work at all) of "racists, xenophobes" etc. Actual censorship took place by banning people like Candace Owen, Sargon of Akkad (Twitter) etc. from the big social media techs companies, to hide their embarass. Fascism originally didn't have a specific political position. Before spreading your mainstream media fake news & your defamations, go read some decent alternative media. You should wonder WHY mainstream media actually got very poor ratings & why they're so unpopular, & why there are more & more people who are mistrustful of them. And finally, you've ironically become what you desperately claim to fight: https://ukusablog.wordpress.com/2016/11/05/the-nazi-party-was-a-left-wing-liberal-elite-progressive-political-correctness-movement" - New00100 "[...] the opponents of the governing party make every effort to maintain defamation, thus every such attempts should be reverted, Wikipedia cannot be the battleground of the recent pre-election campaigns, shall it be Fidesz or any other party." - KIENGIR "Communists Socialists are only good on lying (i.e. 2006 protests), crying & bitching. I'd like to remind those ignorants that the MSZP got Communist roots, that it is a party formed from the fall of Communism to succeed that same Communist party. If those immature kids got time to spam their shit propaganda, they should spend it on changing Jobbik position "from center to far-right" due to how their current leadership is swapping MASSIVELY to the left liberal block, as it was stated both by Fidesz & the new right-wing party "Our Home Movement"." - New00100 While making the analogy, I also had in mind (however, I failed to point this out in the comment in question, for which I apologise) additional comments levied by the two editors: "yes many of the English sources coming from opposition media are often twisting the words or qualify the real happenings differently as they happened." - KIENGIR "Political position changes: We don't need your "far-right" change that comes from mainstream media & whose usage frequency is highly questionable" - New00100 Additionally, New00100 [52] and KIENGIR[53][54] used as reference to refute the right-wing to far-right designation the following statement by government spokesperson [55] (quoted here in part): "“A campaign of disinformation against Hungary has been going on for eight years; it has been built on a narrative that is perfectly suited to ensuring that people who want to find out about Hungary from traditional media get a totally different picture of the country than is the reality”, State Secretary for International Communications and Relations Zoltán Kovács declared. Speaking at an event to launch the report published by media observer Médianéző entitled Still Against a Headwind - Hungary’s International Media Image 2018, Mr. Kovács said: “It is pointless trying to reposition ourselves against a narrative that has already placed us in the corner, and which has painted an image of us that we know very well from the international press. The most and best that we can do is to stick to the narrative that we tell about ourselves, he added. “The story and statements we tell about ourselves (…) are definitely closer to reality than the narrative that is being spread about us, for instance in the Western European press”, he said. “There is no better proof of this than the three consecutive two-thirds majority victories at the parliamentary elections, and the fact that the Fidesz-KDNP party alliance has been leading the popularity lists continuously for thirteen or fourteen years”, he added. “The Government’s efforts have been aimed, and are aimed, at providing opportunities. We have made nothing mandatory, (…) we have opened up opportunities that the Hungarian people can take advantage of if they would like (…), and if those work, then everyone can take a step forward”, Mr Kovács stressed. “If something didn’t work, the will to correct was always present in the Government”, he noted. According to the State Secretary, during the past two to three years, and particularly since the migration crisis, a marked turnaround can be seen in what the press actually thinks about itself. “Western European papers, opinion formers and publicists are engaging in politics. They have become the primary tools and bearers of those political statements that they believe to represent the Western European majority”, he said. “This is not the case, and the divide that exists between Western opinion formers, left-wing liberal politicians and ‘consumers who have a sensible view of reality’ is opening to an increasing extent”, he stated." Lastly, I would like to present the full paragraph of my reply that KIENGIR referenced: "Some of my ancestors were also maltreated during the communist era. What's your point? Why do you think I'm using the Soviets as an example, because I agree with the discredited Kremlin line? The whole premise of my point is that the arguments being forwarded by Fidesz and by proxy repeated by New00100 and yourself are the same as those that were made by the Communist regimes against their outside critics; the arguments that are now almost universally ridiculed and dismissed. If you'd like a more contemporaneous example, take the Venezuelan government. My assessment stands. I apologise for nothing. Please abstain from using appeals to emotion to undermine legitimate criticisms." - Jay Hodec ... And part of his following reply: "[...]NO way, I refuse this again - and I can speak obviously my own behalf - NO, my arguments are not by any means same of any "Communist regimes" arguments and you commited a very big mistake insisting this again, since you again try to deteriorate from the point! I did not say or agumented that would not be true, or would not be factual or neutral (while the Communist regimes have generally twisted information, lied, manipulated and caused a horror to the people), thus you assesment does NOT stand, it is your personal and mistaken opinion, a shameful and offensive one. It is not may fault that there are some media opinions that have overexaggerated opinions that are many times far from the reality (and may be "universally ridiculed and dismissed" as well in some particular cases and the Venezuelan Government and Fidesz have zero connection to each other, cannot be compared by any means) [...] [...] "Please abstain from using appeals to emotion to undermine legitimate criticisms." -> This you should address to yourself, when you started to deteriorate from the topic and create a pseudo West (East?, North? South?) conflict and with an unprofessional way you made a horrible accusation, insisting a false analogie with the Communists. This is definately not as "legitimate criticism", since all my arguments are standing and are factual and struggling for ultimate neutrality." - KIENGIR Kind regards, -J Jay Hodec (talk) 23:39, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Jay, did you notify the other editor you mentioned?

I provided the diffs to the community, including many that you present here on our behalf, you can be sure, the whole context they will check, don't worry about this, they can see the talk page as well.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:46, 9 September 2019 (UTC))

You mean New00100? I'm not sure, you're free to ping him if you want.

Look, I'm really sorry you feel this way about this issue, however, my intention was never to attack your person or impugn your character per se, and retracting my comment because of how you feel about it would be disingenuous on my part because I simply do not believe that I have done anything to offend you. The core of my argument - and I may have phrased it too forcefully since I'm writing the replies on the go, but nonetheless - is that the argument put forth by some governments that most internal and external criticism is rooted in political animus and pure political power-games and propaganda is deeply problematic and has a rich history of disingenuous use by abusive political forces. I was trying to illustrate this contradiction in your argument by appealing to a more notorious historical example, and one that you may likely find particularly jarring since it's in many ways the ideological polar opposite of the one in question. I hoped this would illustrate the arguments you advance is fraught with issues, and that one should always be weary of adopting it, even if one may view it more favorably in certain circumstances due to e.g. personal proclivities, societal factors, etc.

Kind regards, -J Jay Hodec (talk) 01:19, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I mean New00100. Excuse me it is your obligation to notify the user about this discussion, since you mentioned the user, per our policies.

On the further, even if you claim it was not your intention and you do not believe that you offended me, I explained several times why it is an obvious and insulting offence, I am sorry you still don not see this. About your description of the core of your argument, I know this phenomenon, but it has completely zero connection to my argumentation. I perceive, experience, research, assess like a machine with targeting the infinite neutrality possible. Anyone may check any of my argumentation, not just generally but many discussion when we went into the details, simply nobody may show any evidence I went against factual things, on the contrary I identified mistakes, inacurracies is many contents, as I am interested in an accurate and neutral encyclopedia, as everybody should.(KIENGIR (talk) 01:32, 10 September 2019 (UTC))

Am I supposed to ping him here, or on the talk page? Is there some guideline that mandates this?

"that bad faith is the proposed analogy here with the Communist regime (that would imply lying/twisting and other horrible things)"

No, no. I'm sure some Soviet communist supporters actually believed the party line and parroted it faithfully. There are plenty leftists that genuinely believe that the Hong Kong protests are a CIA propaganda ploy and that concentration camps in the Xinjiang region are a fabrication by the "Western" media, likewise with food shortages/human rights abuses in Venezuela ... I'm not impugning your character, I'm impugning your argument.

"Please also have in mind, he just declared the third time of feeling NO apoligize on the talk page and I did not start personalization towards him, so excuse me...(accusing with Communist alike crimes is such a casting aspersion that are really may be considered as "redflag")."

I do not feel I have wronged you in any way. How can I apologise if I do not even understand what part exactly you feel offended by?

I'm not accusing anyone of "Communist alike crimes". I'm saying that the Eastern Communist states (and their supporters) labelled all criticism in "1st world media" as ideological propaganda (either mendaciously or fully believing), and that Fidesz appears to be following the same approach. If you find the former troubling, you should also reconsider the latter.

Facts are a difficult thing. I'm sure that Michael Parenti would find our position on the Communist states deeply counterfactual.

Regards. -J Jay Hodec (talk) 01:49, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

You're required to notify the on their talk page - you can use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Pinging in not sufficient. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:49, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Jay,

I do not feel I have wronged you in any way. How can I apologise if I do not even understand what part exactly you feel offended by? -> Still this is the major problem, since none of my arguments are analogous with believed the party line and parroted it faithfully thus impugning my arguments with this is ridiculous & unprofessional. I just draw the attention to inaccuracies, corrected mistakes, supported neutrality, but you've made harsh accusations towards to editors in a an unacceptable way. Your major problem is since my arguments holds, you seem to only try to draw mistaken analogies an appear them in a negative manner, however - as it has been demonstrated more times - on more degree your analogie is failed.(KIENGIR (talk) 07:18, 10 September 2019 (UTC))

• Comment WP:AGF is not a suicide pact, and I'd doubt the good faith of a person arguing that Victor Orban's party, widely referred to as a far-right party, is not far-right. Simonm223 (talk) 12:38, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Simonm223, did you entirely read all te discussion of the talk page, that is still ongoing and have been discussed also without me more times in the past? How could you doubt my good faith? Because I recognize mistakes, falsities, inaccurate information and serve ultimate NPOV? Can you demonsrate that any of my statements on the matter was not true or observable? Could you make a difference between "widely referred" and "factual matters"? Did I deny that some sources refer in such manner to the party? NO. The discussion is about something else.(KIENGIR (talk) 12:43, 10 September 2019 (UTC))
    • Yes I read it. And then I said what I said. Simonm223 (talk) 12:44, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
      • Frankly I'd concur with Cinderella157 that you should probably withdraw this complaint or face the risk of a WP:BOOMERANG. Simonm223 (talk) 12:51, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
        • Well, then I have to disagree with you and reject your doubt on my good faith (that is by default). However, factual matters are independent of anyone's faith. Sorry, I don't see this justified, since I did not engage with any personal issues to the editor in the talk page, that he started, I ask you from you a more neutral approach and seriosity. Anyway we were discussing afterwards, he reinforced he had no intention to hurt, bu he has to see what he did is very unprofessional and avoidable. With Cinderella we were discussing on the potential interpretation here of what happened regarding as well everyones's post-reactions, but the complaint was about what happened on the talk page, please do not mix the two, anyway not having even a minor equal weight.(KIENGIR (talk) 12:55, 10 September 2019 (UTC))

What I see on the talk page is you taking immediate offense to somebody comparing the demand that preferential weight be given to sources that favour Orban's party to a hypothetical demand that statements about the Soviet Union in the 1980s be sourced to Pravda because you, personally, don't like communism. None of the difs you presented suggest Jay Hodec has ever engaged in personal attacks, and nothing in WP:CIV requires an apology for an imagined slight. With that said there's pretty clear evidence that you tend to escalate matters when disputes are ambiguous. For instance here [56] you were engaged in a dispute about content in Ultranationalism and broke the WP:3RR brightline restoring your preferred version. Your next edit was to warn the other user (who was at 2 reverts by my count at that point) that they were edit-warring [57] if I've misread the article history please feel free to demonstrate it, but this sort of behaviour seems somewhat like WP:BATTLEGROUND while I can find little of that sort of behaviour in Jay's previous history. And so I'll reiterate, I'd suggest you should withdraw this complaint and try to have a thicker skin when editing in articles related to far-right politics. They do tend to be rather... heated areas, as I know from extensive personal experience. Simonm223 (talk) 13:53, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Eta This statement here actually does seem like a personal attack. That you made. Toward another editor, who you described as holding radical left views in response to user page infoboxes. Simonm223 (talk) 14:10, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

So, you still do not feel that accusing improperly someone's argumentation and compare to inappropriately to former regimes ones (that have well-accepted negative qualifiers are associated and may be interpereted offensive to reflect it to editors) is unprofessional and a deterioration the discussion, instead on commenting on the subject? Your summarization on this issue your own opinion, that I disagree.

On the other case sorry, I did not broke any 3RR, on the contrary the user broke several WP:Rules I did not even one, the resolution is ongoing, as well the user engaged himself in many NPOV issues. It is quite striking you accuse in this issue where I am fully innocent, please analyze more thoroughly WP:BRD, WP:NPOV, the frame of edit warring (necessarily after two reverts), I immediately entered to the talk page that the user ignored, moreover he argued is amisleading way disregarding all the rules (Informing Wikiprojects of problematic issues is recommmened by Wiki officials as has been discussed years ago, it is not any means a personal attack, but an NPOV concern, since the page blanking have been made instantly before the problematic edits). This is such a crystal-clear case, despite you target me in your summarization as someone who'd have guilt. Unaccaptable and after this your neutrality towards this issue is highly dubious, and what you did right now is a true WP:BOOMERANG. (yes, you heavily misread it, the user made 3 reverts next to it's bold addition, it in total four, a deliberate edit warring after multiple warnings, with full ignorance of any resolution process, WP:Battleground stands for him, while I have followed the well-established process with good faith in accordance with administrator recommandations, without harming any rule, sorry!)

Please before making such comments, investigate properly the happenings/issues, beucase you hevaily failed to to that precisely and properly (especially counting the number of reverts, or the knowledge or application of basic WP policies), but I think after this huge fiasco, it is better if you don't turn this discussion away from the real topic/issue.(KIENGIR (talk) 14:20, 10 September 2019 (UTC))

With regard to the Ultranationalism edits I'm reviewing the history here and what I see is that you reverted at Jeff605 at 08:26, 09:47 and 10:36 while Jeff605 reverted at 08:53, 10:13 and 11:20. I will concede that I was wrong that you sent your edit warring warning when they were at two reverts. Your warning was at 11:36. However that doesn't change that you did, in fact, breach the WP:3RR brightline first and did, in fact, engage in personal attacks against them at Wikiproject Hungary per my previous dif. Simonm223 (talk) 14:47, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

And regardless, the central point of my statement remains, you have engaged in WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour including personal attacks with regard to far-right politics in Eastern Europe, while Jay has not. As such, your inflated complaint about a personal attack suggests you're trying to forward your POV through WP:AN/I which is frowned upon. I'd Support a mild boomerang if anybody feels it appropriate to propose one in this case. Simonm223 (talk) 14:53, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Simonm223, now you demonstrated you don't understand what means "breaching WP:3RR ans as well the BRD process". Jesus Christ...read please WP:BRD, WP:3RR as well what it means. As a consequence your further argumentation cannot be taken serious, you've totally "lost the ground". The editor you referred after the second revert should stop any activity further on and engage on the talk page, since the official warning get's always later on if the editor do not follow earlier referred WP policies in the talk, when the deliberate state of edit warring get's clear. I entered the talk page even earlier than recommended.(KIENGIR (talk) 15:15, 10 September 2019 (UTC))

I mean, I actually noted the precise times of your reversion. There is nothing in WP:3RR about the first revert not counting. Nor does an initial edit constitute a reversion. Furthermore I would suggest that use of even mild expletives such as immediately above is doing nothing to support your case here and would recommend you tone that down. Finally, WP:BRD is an explanatory supplement while WP:3RR is, in fact a rule. As such, WP:BRD does not provide an out for WP:3RR. Simonm223 (talk) 15:23, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

And of course, your claim that Jeff605 was edit-warring (when clearly two were tangoing) is neither here nor there for the personal attack you made against them in this edit. And that is what I find principally significant to this action. Jay did not engage in personal attacks against you. But you did engage in personal attacks against Jeff. Simonm223 (talk) 15:26, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, your argumentation does not justify you or disprove my proper conduct of the issue in accordance with the relevant rules and administrator recommendations. Still you cannot count properly, that is a problem, and still you don't interpret and understand WP:3RR properly, that was not breached by me. Per WP:BRD I may conduct a few legitimate reverts, even reinforced by the talk. Moreover, please stop accusing me about personal attacks that I did not do against anyone. Your accusations and lack of AGF, AAGF towards me seems more and more strikingly apparent.(KIENGIR (talk) 15:27, 10 September 2019 (UTC))

You are, in fact, mistaken. WP:BRD does categorically not give you the right to exclude your first revert from WP:3RR counts. You did in fact breach the edit warring brightline first. Unless you are saying that some of the edits in the edit war that led to your personal attacks against Jeff were unrelated edits. They certainly doesn't appear to be but if that's the case I'll strike through anything I've said which was factually inaccurate. As I've said before, the most significant point here is that you engaged in personal attacks against Jeff while Jay did not engage in personal attacks against you. Simonm223 (talk) 15:32, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

For the record, the statement I'm saying is a personal attack is he openly advertized his radical left views and involvement on politics. Now as has been discussed many times, even if Jeff believes themself to be a radical leftist (which I honestly doubt based on the infoboxes presented) your use of those infoboxes to attempt and drum up support against their edits on another page definitely constitute a personal attack and WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour. Simonm223 (talk) 15:35, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

I am confirming that KIENGIR did not, in fact, breach 3RR. In terms of 3RR, they have made two (continuous) reverts at Fidesz and three reverts at Ultranationalism. El_C 15:40, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

I missed that and will strike through those statements accordingly. I thought I saw a 3rr back and forth at the time stamps I mentioned previously. Apologies. Simonm223 (talk) 15:41, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

@Vanjagenije:, please explain to Simonm223 how many reverts needed to breach WP:3RR, since he still cannot countr properly, neither professionally examined the rule, although he seems to have a long WP career. Also explain to him to notifiing a Wikiproject of a problematic POV issue is not a personal attack. Also inform this user if he does not stop the improper rallying against me along with fundemental problems of understanding of basic WP policies and increasing by every comment he is accusing me with personal attacks against Jeff- yes now in plural - than he will be hois by his own petard, if what happened until now would not be enough. To your attention more, the issue this user is referring have been already forwarded to an admin. Thank You (and excuse me pingin you in, but this starts to be a comedy)(KIENGIR (talk) 15:42, 10 September 2019 (UTC))

El_C, thank you, and excuse me I did not notice the intermediary edits. Getting really tired of this crossfire against me...(KIENGIR (talk) 15:45, 10 September 2019 (UTC))

I have struck through my statement that you broke WP:3RR - however I stand by that you engaged in personal attacks on Wikiproject Hungary. And I stand by that Jay has not engaged in any personal attacks against you. Simonm223 (talk) 15:49, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

I see, as well your opinions I understood. However I have to add I disagree with you on the two matters. Regarding the notification of the Wikiproject, a raised a POV concern to be examined, and did not attack Jeff's person by any means. Regarding Jay, the issue is already overdiscussed. It is good that he made clear he did not wanted to hurt, but I uphold his proposed and comparison was unfair and sudden and may be interpreted in an insulting way, that should be ignored in any WP discussion. I think we should stop here, let other's share their opinion, your's became entirely known.(KIENGIR (talk) 15:59, 10 September 2019 (UTC))

Agree with Simonm223 that there was no personal attack, and think this should just be closed. If KIENGIR won't drop the stick, maybe closed with a warning. Grandpallama (talk) 18:46, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes. --JBL (talk) 21:05, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

I used the Soviet example as the most notorious/well known example of a regime that controlled all internal media and then proceeded to smear all external critics as untrustworthy and motivated by ulterior motives. (I in fact considered listing a couple other notable examples right off the bat, but chose to limit myself to one for the sake of conciseness.) Any human rights abuses or political disagreements one may have with the regime are besides the point for the sake of this argument, and should therefore not - at least I don't think - be taken as a personal denigration/smear by association.

Regarding any errors I may have made editing the Fidesz page or possibly other pages ... I added a significant portion of content and had a number of arguments with KIENGIR, most of which I remember vaguely at best, but most centered around the reliability and proper interpretation of source content and its subsequent presentation.

I'm generally reluctant to start new discussions on Talk pages if disagreements could be hashed out through successive argumentation in Edit descriptions. I always justified my reverts/contested changes. I'm not sure if there is an exemption to the 3RR/edit warring when making 3+ reverts while trying to arrive at consensus without opening a talk page discussion, but if I had done so, it was with the aforementioned intent.

Since the above discussion is quite convoluted, if there are any other issues with my editing, I'd kindly ask for objections to be voiced clearly, possibly in a separate paragraph.

Kind regards, -J Jay Hodec (talk) 22:46, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Harassment by edit-warring SPA

Qwlddm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is edit-warring at Greco-Turkish War (1919–1922) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) using youtube as a source from someone called TimeGhost History. I have warned the account on their talkpage about RS, PAs etc., a few days ago, but today he started the edit-warring and left a base PA on my talk, and multiple PAs on the edit-summaries at the article: edit-summary attacks on the article ex 1, another edit-summary attack ex 2. Can someone please block this account? Thank you. Dr. K. 00:48, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

I decided to go with an indef for the rather egregious personal attacks (after warning) as well as other troubling conduct. But if there is a convincing unblock request, I would certainly give it due consideration. El_C 00:58, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, El_C. Dr. K. 01:09, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Hide and cross out IP address

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 person has the right to want to disclose their location and information and respect their safety and privacy. Hide this IP on their edits.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2600:8801:3400:2508:F81C:50E0:7BDE:7EAB

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=African-American_studies&action=history

Do this

(Username or IP removed)‎

changed visibility of a revision on page African American studies content hidden and username hidden — Preceding unsigned comment added by 私は子犬が大好きです (talk • contribs) 04:14, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

@私は子犬が大好きです: The edit in question has already been removed. The fastest way to get any edit removed is to email the oversight team. I will note however that IP geolocation is pretty inaccurate. Your IP can be geolocated to a city, but not much closer than that. Random folks on the internet can't just find your house through your IP. If you believe you are being stalked, you should speak to the authorities. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 04:40, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

To any admin, the original IP has been blocked and talk page locked, and this ANI edit is the only one 私は子犬が大好きです has made, so sock possibility is high. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 04:40, 13 September 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.

Identical pattern of vandalism from three accounts

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.

---

While looking through the new pages feed, I came across these accounts:

• Lesliekitten (talk · contribs)
• Tomatejerry (talk · contribs)
• Buckaroojohn (talk · contribs)

All three accounts have the exact same pattern of edits: creating a user page and talk page, adding a sequence of letters to their sandbox until they have reached 10 edits, and then creating a redirect that is pure vandalism (Pedophile state, Hates her mother, and Blatant cheaters, respectively). I'm not sure if any administrative action is necessary, but I haven't encountered a situation like this before and would like to get a few more eyes on it. Should a checkuser perhaps be performed to see if these accounts are operated by the same person?

Pinging the admins who deleted the redirects: ONUnicorn and Anthony Bradbury – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 22:01, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

That's interesting. All three put the exact same content on the user page, talk page, and sandbox. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 22:07, 11 September 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.

Astra1999 & CIR

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, Since being here Astra1999 has made edits such as this, this, this and this,

They've also repeatedly replaced car images with theirs here (top left images), here (3rd and 4th images), and here (last 2 images),

On 1st August, They was blocked for 31 hours by Ferret for their disruptive edits[58],

Astra continued to replace images and generally be disruptive so I gave some friendly advice[59] which went ignored,

On 1st September, they were blocked for 72 hours by kingboyk for the exact same reason[60],

After the block they had resumed their disruptive editing and so I gave a final warning[61] however this has fallen on deaf ears like every other warning and message they've received,

I get the impression Astra is a young person who doesn't understand what they're doing wrong at all so IMHO they should be indeffed as per CIR?, (They certainly don't appear to be here to vandalise or troll .... there just doesn't seem to be any understanding or knowledge that they understand anything that's being said), Warnings and blocks don't seem to achieve anything,

Thanks, –Dave | Davey2010^Talk 19:50, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Could I also ask that their alt account User:Astraboy1999 is blocked too - They've made no edits here with it but they have over at Commons and so if blocked they'd obviously start using that one, Thanks, –Dave | Davey2010^Talk 19:54, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

• Come now, Davey2010. These things happen at ANI — sometimes nobody's job gets done by nobody. I've blocked indefinitely. Thank you for reporting. (Posting inside the archive templates so my comment isn't lost when this gets archived.) Bishonen | talk 19:21, 12 September 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.

Undiscussed moves-copying-merges of set of Brexit related articles

Ssolbergj has on 11 September 2019 performed a series of moves and merges on a set of Brexit articles in a short period of time between 14:35 and 17:30 on 11 September 2019 without seeming to give proper attribution by per WP:CWW including creating the article Ratification of the Brexit withdrawal agreement copied from Brexit negotiations with attributions whatsoever. While WP:BRD is a good thing when pursuing undiscussed over a series of related articles the result should seem likely to a reasonable editor to be possibly contentious. Muboshgu has helped move back one article and John Maynard Friedman has suggested to raised at ANI at Talk:Brexit negotiations#Surely page move is controversial. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:19, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Just to be clear, my suggestion of a reference to WP:ANI was just to ask for an administrator to undo the page move (subsequently resolved by Muboshgu, so no longer needed). Per WP:BEBOLD, Ssolbergi's actions were unwise but not in bad faith. I would not support a request for sanctions at this stage. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:37, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

@John Maynard Friedman thankyou for clarifying you position and I apologise if I misrepresented you. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:41, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Also please delete Ratification of the Brexit withdrawal agreement. It is content moved from the negotiations article, and that move have now been reverted. I think we then have reverted all the mass moves now. I will write a message on Ssolbergj's talk page about this. ― Hebsen_{(previously Heb the best)} (talk) 21:10, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Hebsen, deleted. – Muboshgu (talk)` – Muboshgu (talk) 21:15, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Not sure if this warrants any investigating ...

I saw this edit pop up on another user’s talk page. It may be a joke, thought someone would like to know. Gleeanon409 (talk) 19:10, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Better diff. D7a894f1d (talk) 20:13, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

I added nowiki tags around the {sockpuppet} template that the IP editor left on Magitroopa's talk page. Also, D7, I have to say I found your contribs to be unusual, particularly your 20th edit creating Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Nerlo123, which is a sockpuppet Bbb23 blocked today. – Levivich 22:06, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

@Levivich: Thanks for the ping. I removed the section from Magitroopa's Talk page and blocked the two IPs for a few days. As for D7, highly unusual for a new user to be making the kinds of edits they are making, but there's no particular harm in having created the cat.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:30, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

This page is too large and busy for me to track and load. This issue looks resolved so I’m signing off, ping me if I’m needed. Thank you for looking at this! Gleeanon409 (talk) 06:40, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Elizabeth Holmes

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 dynamically changing IP from Finland (ie. same user) has been conducting a forum discussion here theorizing that the "mainstream media" is run by "feminists" and this is why Elizabeth Holme was successful. I have reverted this as it is unsourced (unsourceable) bigotry and a violation of WP:BLP and WP:NOTAFORUM - this isn't a place to promote original unsourced conspiracy theories. The IP has reverted multiple times over a 24hr period with warnings in edit comments. I also requested a talk page semi-protection. -- GreenC 12:53, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Now semi-protected but removal from the edit history might also be an option if someone thinks it appropriate. -- GreenC 13:06, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

You are not being honest. I did not say that the mainstream media is run by feminist. This is what I said:

No need to continue to post the WP:FORUM content here, a diff would have sufficed
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"The feminist desperation for female inventors (see reactions to the recent Forbes article that listed the 100 top inventors in the world, 99 of them men) and STEM heroes boosted Holmes's profile in the liberal mainstream media, with no regard for objectivity, balance, healthy doubt. At last there was a female that could be ranked alongside the likes of Steve Jobs and Bill Gates. Holmes exploited and capitalized on this blind adoration and advocacy the fawning feminist mainstream media heaped on her. She leveraged her position as one of the most revered feminist icons in the world. Without the desperate, ideology-driven search for female heroes in STEM, her story would not have been possible. There should be a section in the main article on this. It's a crucial part of the full story." This is not a conspiracy theory. It is a clear fact, easily sourced from hundreds and hundreds of media articles before WSJ blew the lid on her fraud. How is it "bigotry" to note these three facts, that the mainstream media is overwhelmingly pro-feminist, that there is desperation for female heroines and role models in STEM, and that for years this boosted Holmes's profile in the mainstream media. Here's a woman and a feminist noting the same and discussing it: https://www.thedartmouth.com/article/2019/02/levy-the-era-of-exploitative-feminism Quote: / "I remember sitting at my kitchen table over a family dinner, listening intently as my mom enlightened me of the story of Holmes and her groundbreaking company. In line with how the media was portraying Holmes at the time, my mother unconsciously spun Theranos’ narrative as a gilded story of female achievement and innovation — a feel-good account of a woman breaking through the glass ceiling and designing something better than any man had ever produced." ... "It’s sad, but undeniable, that it has become unbelievably profitable for women to exploit feminism for the pursuit of wealth and fame. As a woman, I am hesitant to phrase the acts of Holmes, Obokata, Sandberg and others in such blunt terms. Indeed, these individuals’ acts of capitalist exploitation perpetuate the stereotype of the ruthless and immoral careerwoman, set in dichotomous juxtaposition to the dim, but caring housewife. At the end of the day, it was wrong of these women to abuse the willingness of the media and public to fall in love with the story of a successful female. Nonetheless, I also argue that it was wrong for so many of us to be so eager to worship at the altar of these powerful women in the first place. The three women discussed above are simultaneously the engineers and products of an exploitative feminist dynamic." / Just one of countless such articles. If you do a Google search Elizabeth Holmes feminism, you can find countless more on the theme, the feminist icon, the woman of the year, that disappointed her admirers and what to learn from her media portrayal. Here in Finland I accidentally came across at least half a dozen heroine-worshipping stories of her prior to fall 2015, i.e. she was everywhere. She was a global feminist icon, most of the publicity was because of her gender. That is a part of her story, that is part of the public phenomenon and the story of her and of Theranos. Not the full story, but part of the story.

How to include this in the main article? There should be a section of considerable length on her public/media portrayal prior to the WSJ article. As it now is her being a revered feminist-icon for her couple of years of glory never happened, if you go by the main article. Erased from the annals of wikihistory. You can't omit such a crucial part of her story if you aim for neutrality and objectivity. 37.219.202.169 (talk) 17:16, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

• And you proudly offer this WP:FORUM [personal attack removed] on this noticeboard, IP user, for more better attention, together with a "quote" apparently from nowhere in particular? And you have persistently edit warred to keep it on the article talkpage? Interesting. Of course we don't like to semi talkpages, and I note that User:Lectonar, sensibly, only semi'd for three days. But might it be possible, as an alternative, to block the range of the disruptive person for some time (as long as possible, for my money)? It's a /17, unfortunately. I took a look at the range contributions, and far from all of them are disruptive, so I didn't block it. Could somebody smarter than me please see if there's a way to block several smaller bits of the range? It really sticks in my craw that this [personal attack removed] should enjoy immunity from all sanctions simply because their range is so dynamic and so big. @RexxS and Johnuniq:? Anybody? Bishonen | talk 18:40, 11 September 2019 (UTC).

• I disagree that the range is too wide to block for a short period of time, so I've blocked 37.219.0.0/16 for one week. I've also removed all of the IP comments below me.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:09, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

• Cool, thank you very much, Beebs. Bishonen | talk 20:46, 11 September 2019 (UTC).

• Beebs, there's also another range involved: 176.93.178.231 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), which supported 37.219.xx on Talk:Elizabeth Holmes, as well as 176.93.162.121 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), which has vandalized this ANI thread. Obviously the same person as 37.219.xx. Their range, so far, is 176.93.160.0/19, though I suppose it may well grow if there's more input from them. Would you like to block those as well? Bishonen | talk 21:35, 11 September 2019 (UTC).

• Sure, I'm easy, range blocked for one week, although two of the IPs in that range were already blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:12, 11 September 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.

Another problematic IP range

An IP range originating in France is being used by an editor exclusively to complain that WP:NONAZI is stifling free speech. They tried to delete elements concerning fascist appropriation of free speech (which was derived from the Paradox of Tolerance) here and then went to article talk to complain about this [62] [63].

Now that alone wouldn't merit attention, but the IP range has recently progressed to making racist statements here. Since the behaviour has escalated from complaints about free speech to actual explicit racism I figured it was time to mention that this IP range is being used for WP:NOTHERE reasons. Simonm223 (talk) 12:30, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

A workable range block seems unlikely. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:09, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Well that IP is blocked now for racist commentary. Drmies (talk) 01:00, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for that. The ranges are always a painful subset. Simonm223 (talk) 18:53, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Arksneat & TfD

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:Arksneat is persistently ([64], [65], [66]) removing a TfD notice from Template:Locked userpage; even after being made aware that they should not. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 01:02, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked. After edit warring to remove a deletion template, moving User talk:Curps to a nonsense title, and editing administrative categories about blocked editors, I think it's safe to say this is a returning nuisance. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:24, 15 September 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:Openmy

Openmy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) FourFive separate users [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] have now written on this users talk page about WP:NOPIPE. In addition to having been reverted with these same concerns. They have been reminded that they are required to WP:ENGAGE in conversation [72]. Yet they continue to make edits in this same manner (as of yesterday [73]), and are refusing to ENGAGE.

I believe this user is not here to build a collaborative project, as is obvious by their refusal ENGAGE. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 14:41, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Note I have edited my original post because I realized another person mentioned the same thing to this user 4 years ago. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 14:33, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

• I'd say a short block to get their attention might be warranted. But if they refuse to WP:ENGAGE, I'd say a WP:NOTHERE indeff is warranted. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:09, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Range Block needed

We have multiple IPs vandalizing political bio articles in the US.

• 104.4.65.209 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 104.49.60.241 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2600:1702:1B20:7A40:9810:BA87:20F8:AB99 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 74.143.47.243 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

There might be more. As soon as one is blocked, another IP takes its place. It's happening so rapid fire in how the address changes, might be more than one individual involved. All are targeting bio articles of past Democratic Party office holders. — Maile (talk) 19:46, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

@Maile66: I added the ip links here for you. Cards84664 (talk) 19:53, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the IP addresses above are all on different networks. If more show up, it might be possible to find range blocks eventually, but they're too spread out right now. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:53, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

User inserted non-RS Scientology source for tenth time, after prior ANI and sanctions alert

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.

---

Iamsnag12 (talk · contribs), an eight-year-old account with less than 100 edits, has repeatedly added the same non-reliable source to multiple articles. The first four times on 14 August: [74] (Bridge Publication) fixed [75][76]

Upon removal as a non-RS, user promptly readded without discussion on 15 August: [77][78][79][80].

User was reported to ANI and alerted to discretionary sanctions [81], and on 20 August, the material was removed from the four pages by admin User:JzG as a non-RS. [82][83][84][85]

On 31 August, the user re-added the same source for a ninth and tenth time. Feoffer (talk) 06:54, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support a block Thank you for such a clear presentation of the situation. Perhaps a short block will bring this user's focus to the goals of WP, not a personal endeavor. Buffs (talk) 15:32, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose a block - There is no consensus that this source is unreliable and in fact, discussion is ongoing at the Talk page for L. Ron Hubbard. I think this is a simple content dispute that does not require admin intervention. Requests for admin sanctions should not supplant the normal editorial process, even if DS are in place. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ^Talk 16:20, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

  The way I see it, the issue isn't the adding of the source, but the perpetual re-adding without discussion when objections are indeed noted. This is a violation of WP:BRD. Buffs (talk) 17:16, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

The flip side of the coin is that the users who claim that CESNUR is unreliable source are not really participating in the discussion either. From what I can tell, the users who had been immediately reverting Iamsnag have not been engaging in discussion about the source (unless it's happening somewhere that I'm not seeing), with the only exception being Feoffer. And Feoffer made only two comments, and has apparently decided to come to ANI instead of replying further. So the lack of discussion seems to be present on both sides of the fence here. I would really prefer that this be hashed out among the involved editors instead of resorting to ANI. ANI should truly be a last resort. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ^Talk 19:52, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Iamsnag12 knows the source is controversial, repeatedly adding it ten times in such a short period suggests WP:NOTHERE, though that's for others to say. Feoffer (talk) 22:44, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

@May His Shadow Fall Upon You: Please note that this has been found to be a sockpuppet/sockpuppeting account and isn't a new user. Request you reconsider your opposition. Buffs (talk) 15:58, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

@Buffs: - I'm disappointed that he turned out to be a sock. Given that he's blocked, though, my position on a block here doesn't matter anymore. I still think the editing conflict here was too minor to support a block. Socking? Yes. The dispute as presented at ANI? No. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ^Talk 16:06, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Fair nuff! Buffs (talk) 16:09, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

• Unless I'm missing something and I don't think I am since I checked the edit history, the user was not notified of this latest ANI thread as required per the box all over the place. I won't do this myself as I'm on a mobile device. Nil Einne (talk) 17:19, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

  Good catch; notified. Buffs (talk) 19:13, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

• Also the editor concerned has not edited since 31 August. Finally AFAICT 3 of the first 4 diffs are the addition of the journal of CESNUR. One of them seems to be some Bridge Publications book so I'm not sure if its inclusion is a mistake. Back to CESNUR I won't comment on its reliability except to say it may be unreliable for the stuff it supported with those 3 diffs but reliable to support the claim a long past BLP person received an honorary degree. And even if it isn't, the Daily Olkahoman was added as well for both of those latest diffs. I'm not sure of the reliability of the Daily Olkahoman but it doesn't look like it was disputed in any of the early diffs and I'm unconvinced just because someone made some mistakes in the past means they need to open a talk page discussion before adding a completely different RS on what seems like a relatively uncontentious issue. I'd also note if those 2 latest diffs are a problem because the Daily Olkahoma is not an RS I'm unsure why they remain. Nil Einne (talk) 17:54, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

The fourth CENSUR addition has been fixed. Upon discovering the additional insertion, I reached out to an admin for a sanity check and was referred here. Feoffer (talk) 21:56, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

• Have you taken this to WP:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement? —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Fram was railroaded!} 21:01, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

As the person who is under discussion, I have raised this issue on my talk page regarding why CESNUR is disputed and never got a response and it seemed like my material was blocked without explanation that it was allegedly unreliable, yet no reasoning was given. I had not readded, rather because no reasoning as to why it's supposedly non-RS I reversed the reversal on mine as I thought it might be a troll (just as had been assumed with me). I was subjected to being accused of and asked of being a Scientologist which I explained that I am not nor am I associated with their other groups - which even if it was a problem in the past, does not change the content of my submissions.

Additionally, one of my edits (on the Charles Manson page) was already approved which itself was reverted - but because it was assumed that I have ill intentions off of the bat and I was accused without any recourse or explanations as to why CESNUR is supposedly non-RS. Moreover, the links provided to CESNUR actually provide photographic copies of the evidence/material/documents cited. Also had added a different CESNUR article elsewhere and not to the same articles. Additionally, the bulk of my sources are not from CESNUR, as discussed. I was under the impression that the sources cited were read by the editors/administrators to see if there's validity to them vs. dismissed outright based on origin. Iamsnag12 (talk) 23:30, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support block, Clearly WP:NOTHERE. They're at it again and edit warring. Such a narrow focus in edit history and their refusal to accept that their edits have been contested repeatedly, over years. This behavior suggests that this editor may not have been completely honest about their connection to Scientology. They need to learn about consensus and edit warring, POV pushing etc. A temporary block has helped me see the error of my ways in the past. Bacondrum (talk) 01:44, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

  Are you referring to Iamsnag12 or someone else? Because looking at Iamsnag12 editing history: I see they have 2 edits back in 2011 [86] [87]. Neither of these seem to be well sourced, but neither of these seem to be related to Scientology in any way, and while I'm not going to check what happened to their edits, it's a little silly to suggest these 2 edits were "repeatedly contested". They then left 3 talk pages comments over 5 edits in 2018 [88] + [89] [90] [91] + [92]. I haven't looked in detail at these comments but they don't seem to be the sort of comments that are extremely disruptive and nor that is there a great sign of them "refusing to accept their edits have been contested repeatedly". Taking part in talk page discussions is of course one of the things we generally want from editors, even if in this case it seems to have been partly forced by semi protection. All their other edits are from July 2019 or later. And their talk page was created in 2019 [93]. So where on earth are you getting "refusal to accept that their edits have been contested repeatedly, over years" (emphasis added) from? Nil Einne (talk) 15:16, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

I feel like the reaction to Iamsnag has been disproportionately harsh and a prime example of WP:BITE. Editors have made only minimal efforts to interact with him, instead preferring to seek resolution at ANI. Just not an appropriate way to handle such a minor problem in my opinion. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ^Talk 16:28, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

With regard to Biting the Newbie, user is a not newbie: "I've not recently joined I've been on since 2011. Also, I've posted elsewhere and had other usernames too which tried to merge under this one, not sure if those work but I can point to those edits if needed".

With regard to disproportionate harshness, I will say this: nothing in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology suggests actively inquiring about editor's personal beliefs, as was done to this user [94]. While the suspicion is certainly understandable given the problematic behavior, it seems unhelpful to directly inquire in that way. Wikipedia is not the inquisition or the thought police and the project should keep a laser-like focus on problematic behavior. Feoffer (talk) 23:08, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Maybe he's not a newbie so to speak, but I still feel that sanctions are inappropriate given the circumstances. This was a low-grade editing conflict that ended over a week ago. Although misguided, I can see why he might have thought that discussion on his own talk page was the place to have the conversation about the source, and when he got no response he proceeded on. That's a wrong belief, but I can see how someone might have it. He now appears to be discussing the sourcing and hasn't made a controversial edit recently. Rushing to a block would be inappropriate. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ^Talk 17:47, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Just saw Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Iamsnag12; user appears to operating multiple 3+ year old accounts. Be on the look out for organized efforts related to Scientology, CESNUR, or Sequoia University Feoffer (talk) 23:41, 11 September 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:Davey2010 and uncivil behavior

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.

---

Note 1 :my two correspondance with this user are at [this revision], and [this revision], as the user removed it all from their talk page.

Note 2 :much of the content of this is based off of my initial [post here], which I deleted when I saw the user apologized to the person they were singling out.

On 14 August, I noticed Davey2010 had reverted an edit by FaZeBlueThunderShocker (talk · contribs) to Jake Paul which removed alot of cruft and unsourced content, re-adding all of the poor content. I reverted the readdition of the content and I left the user this message: "Hey, I know it may not have been your intention, but you should pay closer attention to what you revert. Your reversion at Jake Paul re-added a huge amount clearly unacceptable material, including two entire sections of unsourced content, which was also poorly written fancruft. ([95]) The edits by User:FaZeBlueThunderShocker, while not described well, were very helpful in removing alot of that. Please pay closer attention in the future! :)

I did a little digging and then noticed Davey2010 seemed to be singling out FaZeBlueThunderShocker (talk · contribs) by following their edits across Wikipedia and reverting them: Actually, I'm now noticing you happened to revert another edit by the same user and claim it was "unsourced," when it was very clearly sourced.([96]) What are you doing?

I did some more looking and realised Davey2010 had inappropriately given many warnings to FaZeBlueThunderShocker (talk · contribs) for "vandalism," which were not warranted:Hmm the more I see your editing patterns, the more concerned I am that you are abusing your editing privileges. It's not appropriate to have warned User:FaZeBlueThunderShocker with a final warning and you definitely should remove that. (Note that you cannot immediately use a final warning when there have been no other warnings issued or instances to be noted.) Secondly, you warned them for vandalism, but their edits clearly aren't vandalistic, they aren't even disruptive. Actually, you shouldn't have even warned them at all since the edits were valid. Please see Wikipedia:Vandalism, specifically Wikipedia:Vandalism#How_to_respond_to_vandalism and the subsection "For beginners." While you're at it, please also see Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers.

The response from Davey2010 was to remove my post and call me a dick, in breach of WP:CIVIL: [Mistakes happen, and I would've apologised right here had you chosen not to be a dick about about it.]

I posted my initial post here because I assumed the worst but upon seeing that a few minutes later that Davey2010 had issued an apology to FaZeBlueThunderShocker, I removed my post to ANI as seen above. [Here is the apology and action which Davey2010 took]: Hi FaZeBlueThunderShocker, Apologies for the reverting and warning which I've now struck, It looked like you were vandalising and blanking content which is why I reverted but indeed you were actually removing unacceptable content (thanks for doing that), Unfortunately I only ended up having 4 hours sleep yesterday and then the day went wasn't great either but that still isn't an excuse to not pay closer attention to what I'm reverting so again apologies for reverting and warning you yesterday, I hope you stick around and continue editing :), Happy editing."

I removed my post to ANI because of this, and instead issued friendly reminder to Davey2010's talk page [here]: Not matter how annoyed you are, you need to keep in mind that personal insults are against WP:CIVIL. There are two sections on this, one explicitly devoted to edit summaries. Thanks!

Davey2010 responded by removing my comment and telling me to ["Fuck off."]

The user, who has been editing here for 8.9 years now, needs to read up on alot of Wikipedia policy, and in regards to the last incident, WP:CIVIL, especially Wikipedia:Civility#Edit_summary_dos_and_don'ts, which clearly states:

Review your edit summaries before saving your edits. Remember you cannot go back and change them.

Here is a list of tips about Edit summaries:

• Be clear about what you did, so that other editors can assess your changes accurately.
• Use neutral language.
• Remain calm.
• Don't make snide comments.
• Don't make personal remarks about editors.
• Don't be aggressive.

- R9tgokunks ⭕ 20:03, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

• I'm not really sure how his reversion of a repeatedly blocked editor above is uncivil, the fuck off, maybe but meh. Praxidicae (talk) 20:06, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
• So to be clear, a load of stuff happened around the 14th August which involved Davey reverting an editor and then apologising to them after you had posted on Davey2010's talk page. Five days later, on August 19, that editor was indefinitely blocked as a sock. You then didn't edit from 14 August until 10 September, when you posted an ANI report about an edit that Davey2010 had made on the 14 August. You then decided to lecture him on his talk page about civility for that edit from 27 days previously, which he was very unsurprisingly irritated by. And now, another three days later, you decide to bring it to ANI again? I think not. Black Kite (talk) 20:19, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
• Fish supper? The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 20:21, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

• Or perhaps dinner Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:12, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

• Black Kite has summed it up beautifully, In short:

I was OTT with the way I dealt with someone, I immediately apologised to that editor when it was pointed out the editor wasn't a vandal[97], R9tgokunks came to my talkpage lecturing me about CIVIL[98] to which I left a slightly snarky edit sum (Mistakes happen, and I would've apologised right here had you chosen not to be a dick about about it.)[99], A month or so later (this month) they file an ANI report[100] and then deleted it soon after[101] and again proceeded to lecture me[102] to which I replied "fuck off"[103],

This all started because like I say I treated an editor like a vandal when they wasn't and like I said I immediately apologised to them when it was pointed out I was wrong .... so why in gods name are we here? ....,

I will just add had R9 come to my talkpage in a non-lecturing way I would've happily admitted fault to them and apologised to them too,

R9 really has made a mountain out of a molehill imho. –Dave | Davey2010^Talk 20:31, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

• I agree with Praxidicae's "meh". @R9tgokunks: You say you "issued a friendly reminder" because of Davey2010's use of the word "dick" in an edit summary. It might could also be seen as a fussy reminder, especially since you posted it nearly a month after the offense. What was your reason for going back in history like that? I would have been pretty aggravated myself by such a delayed ambush. Please don't perpetuate this further. If I had been you, I would have just fucked off from Davey2010's page as requested, rather than going to ANI. Just sayin'. Bishonen | talk 20:37, 13 September 2019 (UTC).
• Not to pile on, R9tgokunks, but while the editor you were defending wasn't vandalizing, the fact they have been blocked for the past three weeks for sockpuppetry should have made you think twice about filing a report involving them today. Even if this had been filed in mid-August, I'm not sure this rises to the level of an ANI report since Davey2010 did apologize. Blocks for incivility are not common on Wikipedia and the behavior has to be much more egregious and extensive than one "dick" and one "fuck off" to cause an admin to lay a block on an editor for this reason.
• R9tgokunks, if it helps you at all to come to terms accepting this, please know that everyone who responded to you here has probably been called worse over their time editing on Wikipedia so it is not that we are unfamiliar with being cursed at. We've all been told to "fuck off" (or worse) so it is not just something you have experienced. It's just behavior that one usually shrugs off unless the personal attack is persistent or if the language is racist, sexist or anti-semitic. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
• Permit me to note the irony that the OP, the same person who rebuked Davey2010 in somewhat patronizing fashion for not being careful enough about what he was reverting, initially posted this a few days ago and then removed it because he realized that Davey2010 had already apologized. Lepricavark (talk) 23:56, 13 September 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.

Another never-ending dispute

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 edit war between an unregistered editor 4.53.195.98 and I has now become a 3RR dispute. Before I request or recommend a page block, I would like to get feedback on the issue in dispute and opinions on a page block request.

The article in question is List of battles fought in Ohio which includes the Kent State riot. The unregistered editor has repeatedly blanked the section and started the edit war by creating a section entitled "Block Spacini from this page" (please see Talk:List of battles fought in Ohio. I feel that I responded appropriately to this by pointing out that other riots are included in not only the List of battles fought in Ohio page, but on other pages entitled List of battles fought in X-state for example (noting specifically the Tulsa race riot (Oklahoma) and Columbine Mine massacre (Colorado). I even asked that the editor stop blanking until a discussion and then a dispute resolution discussion could be had. Today this was met with, "Kent state has been removed again pending its approval. Any content can be viewed in the history if needed to be seen during conflict resolution. Misleading and incorrect info does not need to remain on the page until then."

4.53.195.98 is taking a very narrow view of what constitutes armed conflict/battle and is, I believe, taking a political position that the student protestors at Kent State were unarmed. It is simply not true that they were unarmed, although it is true that they did not have firearms. That is, I feel, a discussion that needs to be had solely apart from this page block request as part of the 3RR discussion, although it is important to note here as 4.53.195.98 has accused me of perpetuating "false information", deliberately misinterpreting the definition of a "battle", and whether or not the "murder of protestors" falls within the definition of a battle by reverting his blanking of the topic from the list page.

4.53.195.98 is also unnecessarily repeating points that do not support his stance on this issue. Claims are being made that are ahistorical and even contradictory to points made in the Kent State shootings page. I simply cannot understand why this one riot/massacre is causing so much distress to 4.53.195.98 when other list pages, including the one for Ohio, has other examples of riots/massacres and they're not being reverted or requested to be reverted.

Finally, this edit war was started by 65.60.152.41 which is, I believe, a strawman sockpuppet account for 4.53.195.98. Thank you. Spacini (talk) 21:32, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

This is a content dispute. Go to Talk, provide reliable independent secondary sources that describe this as a battle and place it on lists of battles, and you're good. Otherwise, well, sometimes the anons are right. Guy (help!) 22:06, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. Without reliable sourcing, we can't call that a battle. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:11, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

See my comment on the article talk page. (Executive version: Kent State should not be included, Spacini should not be sanctioned.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:18, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, detailed discussion should take place on the article talk page, where I have commented. I find it somewhat disconcerting that Spacini chose to pipe Kent State shootings to Kent State riot, which looks like POV pushing to me. It was not the rioting of previous days (widespread in the aftermath of the invasion of Cambodia) that was notable. It was the massacre of four students, two of whom were not even protesters, that makes this event notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:27, 13 September 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:Anthony22

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.

---

Just recently, after a long discussion, a topic ban was levied on Anthony22 [104]. During that discussion, Anthony22 made an implied threat to sock if he was sanctioned:

"What good is it going to do to block me from editing? All I have to do is register a new account with a different username? Blocking me is the equivalent of putting a Medeco lock cylinder on the front door but leaving the back door open." [105]

Today, on their talk page, Anthony22 reiterated their implied threat to sock in greater detail:

"Topic bans and blocks can very easily be circumvented. A person can use the account of a family member, co-worker, friend, schoolmate, or another person to continue editing. If I were to continue editing in this fashion, you could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that I am the culprit." [106]

Anthony22 has not made an article edit since 6 September, [107] several days before the sanction was levied on him. [108] I am concerned that today's repeating of the implied threat to sock and his lack of editing adds up to the possibility that Anthony22 has actually been socking, either with an IP, a new account, or a borrowed account. Unfortunately, if that is true, there's no way to file an SPI, because while the master account is known, the sock is not.

I do not know how to resolve this dilemma. Do we just wait until someone comes across an obvious Anthony22 clone by happenstance, or do we take him at his word at how easy it is to get around his sanction and take steps to stop him from socking? And what does that mean? Should Anthony22 be indef blocked, or should a CheckUser take the available evidence as sufficient to take a look into things?

Just in case the latter is the case, Checkuser needed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:21, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

I've warned Anthony on his Talk page not to make any more threats.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:55, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Beyond My Ken. The probability that Anthony22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has made good on his repeated threats to sock combined with the wide-ranging and difficult-to-search-for nature of his disruption justifies a checkuser to find any socks and/or sleeper accounts. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:43, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

• So, let's get this right, you want to checkuser an account because he said he would sock, there is no evidence presented of any socking, if such a checkuser request under guidelines is allowed I would be very surprised.Govindaharihari (talk) 06:30, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

• Well, if anything would convince a checkuser to take a look, your objection here would be the thing that would do it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:36, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

• Ok. They would need evidence of Vandalism; Sock puppetry; Disruption (or potential disruption) of any Wikimedia project; and Legitimate concerns about bad-faith editing. - if they or you can show evidence of such then carry on. Anthony22 has made 35000 contributionns from this account, the last content contribution was a few days ago after thirteen years of contributions here. this request to indef him or checkuser him without any evidence is undue excessive imo.Govindaharihari (talk) 07:38, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

• Its already been shown than Anthony22 is disruptive, that's why he had a topic ban placed on him. And a threat to sock is pretty serious business. I'm not a CheckUser, so I cannot say exactly how serious such a threat is considered, but A22 has made it twice now, elaborating further on how it could be done in the second threat.
  Remember, Wikipedia is a private website, and no one has a right to free speech here, we have only the rights that the community and the WMF agrees to give us, and if those standards hold that threatening to sock is a sufficient condition to run a CheckUser, then I assume that one would be run.
  Of course, Anthony22 could just be blowing off steam, I don't know -- none of us know what going on in his mind, except that he's certainly thinking about how to go about socking, whether he's doing it or not. That we know. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:10, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

I just checked meta:CheckUser policy, and I don't find support for Govindaharihari's "They would need evidence" claim. That page says

"The tool is to be used to fight vandalism, spamming, to check for sockpuppet abuse, and to limit disruption of the project. It must be used only to prevent damage to any of the Wikimedia projects."

"The tool should not be used for political control; to apply pressure on editors; or as a threat against another editor in a content dispute. There must be a valid reason to check a user. Note that alternative accounts are not forbidden, so long as they are not used in violation of the policies (for example, to double-vote or to increase the apparent support for any given position)." (Emphasis added)

We know that Anthony22 disrupted the project. The topic ban prevents him from further disruption of that type -- any further edits of that nature would be a "violation of the policies". We know that he is of the opinion that his edits are good, not disruptive. We know that he is of the opinion that he could easily engage in sockpuppetry to make further "good" edits, that we would be unable to detect the socking, and thus that the topic ban is useless. And we know that, unlike the case with a WP:SPA who goes right back to making the same edits to the same page, the nature of his disruptive edits makes finding him engaging in sockpuppetry with a search unlikely. In the opinion of at least two editors (Guy Macon and Beyond My Ken) this is "a valid reason to check a user". So far one editor (Govindaharihari) disagrees. The final decision will be made by someone with the checkuser right, all of whom are very familiar with the rules saying when it may be used. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:35, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

• Bbb23, a CheckUser, has issued a warning to Anthony22 that if he threatens to sock again he risks being blocked. I think for the moment this is a sufficient response, the danger having been brought to the community's attention. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:00, 14 September 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 archived active 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.

---

User archived active discussion here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAndroid_10&type=revision&diff=914534633&oldid=914534622 This goes against wikipedia's policy of civility, dispute resolution, and to communicate. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 07:37, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

It may have been accidental, as OneClickArchiver lives up to its name. That, or since the discussion seemed to be going nowhere and hadn't been commented on in a week, it was an intentional archiving. That hardly breaks policy. If you feel the archiving was wrong, just open a new section on the talk page and keep talking it out. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 07:45, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

It wasn't a week since a reply to that thread as it was archived on the 8th immediately after the last comment was left which was only a few minutes after the comment before. And the editor involved said 'archiving' in their last comment suggesting it was not an accident. You may be confused because the whole thing happened 6 days ago. Which may be fine if attempts to discuss it have proven futile and there is need for administrative attention, unlikely as that would be. But that isn't the case. There has been no attempt to discuss this archiving anywhere before this ANI that I can see. So why on earth is this at ANI? If there's something that "goes against wikipedia's policy of ..... dispute resolution, and to communicate", it's bringing someone to ANI for something that isn't so egregious it requires instant action, without communicating with them about the alleged problem first. Nil Einne (talk) 08:57, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

There was a discussion and the user shut down the discussion. Are you suggesting to repeat that cycle so that user can again have his fun by one click archiving? An attempt was made here that went no where. Thank you for looking into this matter,   Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 13:15, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

The user needs to be reminded that if they want to participate in a discuss, then that is their purview, but eliminating a discussion is uncivil. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 13:53, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

• Walter Gorlitz cares little for the opinions of other editors. This is habitual behaviour. Not necessarily instant archiving like this, but certainly he has a long record of seeing himself as a gatekeeper on a number of pages and no other views will be accepted. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:33, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Can you show me the active discussion Daniel?

What I see is a request from me about whether bullet lists are necessary after you were reverted three times for inserting it. The three different editors all gave different reasons. I stated three different reasons why it wasn't a good idea: 1) a summary isn't necessary, 2) USEPROSE 3) references do not belong in a lede. You did not enter the conversation. A fourth editor stated that it was pointless and indicated that there were three other articles where you had done this. I did not recognize that you then entered the conversation and two days after your edit war ended and no one else discussed, you asked what the next steps were. I stated it was essentially a dead issue, you kept arguing that it was needed, but did so subjectively ("I find a list is the best way") and one of my reasons. I pointed that out, added that we were talking about "that new operating system" and stated the article should discuss the new features and the lede should summarize it and suggested that if you wanted a summary, that you should add one. You then missed the point entirely and wrote, "Are you saying the article isn't about what's new, but about the entire O.S.? There is a different article for that." I had clearly written that the article was about the new features in Android 10 but you seemed to think that only the Android Mobile OS was the operating system and I spent the next several edits trying to get you admit that it was indeed an operating system. You completely ignored the fact that I had asked to provide a prose summary. You were not, at that point, trying to discuss adding a summary to the lede, but instead you were trying to make a point about something immaterial. During that discussion, a fifth editor came in and wrote that "Having a bulleted list in the lead is ridiculous" and your response was to equate a bullet list with a summary. Meanwhile, the second-to-last thing I wrote in the discussion—trying to bring us back to a summary in the lede—was to make it clear that Android 10 was indeed an OS and that you're free to write a summary of the article, but to do so in prose. I then wrote, "Any further discussion that tries to be clever or obfuscate an actual discussion will result in prompt and merciless archival of this discussion." Your response to that was to stay on the "is Android 10 an OS or not" rabbit trail and not discuss how you'd create a summary, and then claimed that I disagreed with the article, which makes no sense at all.

Meanwhile, you were forum shopping (at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Lists#Is_there_something_in_this_guideline_that_prevents_use_of_a_clear_concise_list_of_features_when_talking_about_update_to_a_operating_system?) where you were being told essentially the same thing. Having seen that and seeing that the discussion on the actual article was not getting anywhere, I archived it. I could have closed it, but I didn't. Your next forum shop (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:The_Grid#What_do_you_think_about_archiving_active_discussion?) resulted in telling you it wasn't a bad thing.

I do not understand why you're getting bogged down in the minor issues. I also get the feeling that English is not your first language, and that may have something to do with why you're focusing on the wrong things in discussions. In short, I don't understand why you think bullets are most clear, and why you won't write in prose, but at least four editors do not want that on the Android 10 article and if I just sat back, you'd be told that same thing. I repeatedly said that if you wanted to write a summary of the new features in prose, you could, but—and I did not clearly state this on the talk page—referenced details about new features should be discussed in the body of the article and only a summary should appear in the lede.

So to summarize: summary in the lede is good; referenced details in the body; bullets should not be used in the summary. That's what the discussion on the talk page should have been about, not putting words into other editors' mouths, and not getting caught-up on points not germane to creating an article about Android 10. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:52, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Walter Gorlitz is trying to muddy the waters by making this discussion into something else. For active discussion it is first link in this section. You reverted minutes after my comment. There was no forum shopping. Users are encouraged to discuss. First was the Android 10 talk page. Claim was made that it violated MOS:USEPROSE . Best place to discuss if that is on Manual of Style/Lists. And a pointer was placed. After discussion was uncivilly shot down on Android 10, as encouraged by dispute resolution, another discussion was started about incivility. Very far from forum shopping. User is being condescending by suggesting that English is not my first language. User is taunting me with this edit after he shut down communication on article talk page.

Again this is not about content dispute. This is about incivility. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 15:10, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

This is not about civility though, it's about you not understanding the topic and staying on it. Talk about muddying the waters. There was no active discussion, there was you dancing around the fact that no one wanted bullet points and refusing to write a summary in the lede using prose and you refusing to acknowledge that. I probably should have walked away and the discussion would have gone stale, but this had the same effect. Feel free to open a new discussion but I'll not join unless you offer something salient. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:54, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Again the user is trying to change the topic. This discussion was brought up because of your incivility. You need to acknowledge your incivility and undo your uncivil action(s). Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 17:54, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

I acknowledged that I should have left it in-place and ignored it. It was unconventional. I don't know that it was uncivil. This discussion should not be at ANI though, but you're new around here, so I think that's why it's still open. As for undoing it, not possible. I did, however, state you could start a new discussion. I take it you read that and are ignoring that suggestion just like you ignored the suggestion to create a summary in the lede using prose (from five different editors and climbing). Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:26, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

• Captain Eek, perhaps you'd care to explain this one too, where you used OneClickArchiver to close an open discussion on this page: [109]?

There is never a reason to do this on a page with auto-archiving on it. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:32, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

@Andy Dingley:Oh goodness, my bad. I did not look close enough, as I believed the discussion had been closed. I did not see that a new section had been opened, just that Bbb23 had closed it as a content dispute. I'll take a trouting for that, and someone is absolutely free to undo the archiving. I'll abstain from this thread too in that case. I'll also be much more cautious with my use of OneClickArchiver in the future. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 17:13, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Walter Gorlitz has a long history of hiding issues on his talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Walter_G%C3%B6rlitz&curid=59539493&action=history Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 14:39, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

That talk page does not have auto-archiving. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:52, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

(ec w/ closure) Walter Gorlitz is under no obligation to keep comments on his talk page and can delete them at will per Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#User_talk_pages Buffs (talk) 22:16, 14 September 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.

Cast-iron cookware

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 - two editors, User:Roxy the dog and User:Andy Dingley are reverting my edits, claiming they are untrue. They removed sourced information, and I even provided a more detailed source on the talk page. They then refused my multiple attempts to figure out the answer and figure where they're coming from - they haven't even provided a single source to back up their claims, after four attempts just on the article talk alone. Instead they mock my inquiries because it's "basic eleven year old school science"; "you're going to look silly"; that they're "much more concerned with [my] own competence to edit here, in the light of [my] basic ignorance". ɱ (talk) 15:03, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

I have been correctly notified of this thread. Roxy, the dog. wooF 15:09, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

• The editor concerned here should revise their basic highschool thermodynamics. There is also no reason whatsoever, other than just to waste others' time, to move this discussion from the article talk: to ANI.

If you're one editor telling a number of others that black is white, or that reality doesn't work the way they all think it does, then it's time to look at your claims. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:23, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

"High-school [originally 11-y.o.] thermodynamics" is not the issue here. ANI is about user conduct. I have been simply trying to rationally discuss the issue, giving a credible source, and you have been continually mocking and insulting me. ɱ (talk) 15:25, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Here (p. 59-60) is another excellent source that disputes your 'basic knowledge' that cast-iron is excellent. In both conductivity and heat capacity, it is average at best. Mass of the pan is also important, a reason why cast-iron is often chosen, but a steel or aluminum pan of the same mass will retain heat better than cast-iron. ɱ (talk) 15:32, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

If "ANI is about user conduct" (and it is) why are you continuing the content dispute here? That source and the reasoning about the quality of pans should be discussed on the article talk page, not here. The Mirror Cracked (talk) 15:37, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Okay fine, I am just continuing the conversation, showing that I want to find the answers, unlike the other two here. ɱ (talk) 15:39, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

As well, I should note that these two editors have repeatedly reverted my and User:GliderMaven's unrelated edits, in apparently uncareful attempts to restore their preferred article versions. ɱ (talk) 15:40, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Ɱ's discussion with Roxy just popped up on my watchlist, so I may weigh in on the matter if you don't mind. Roxy's behaviour is clearly unhelpful, as he shows no intention to settle the issue and instead resorts to unnecessary personal attacks (yes, accusing someone of a lack of competence without providing evidence does constitute WP:PERSONAL - see WP:WIAPA). Furthermore, they did violate WP:3RR with these edits: 1, 2, 3, 4.

However, while Ɱ does show intention to settle the issue and is willing to discuss the issue, they have also violated WP:3RR and are editing back new information without consensus (furthermore, there are currently two editors, user:Roxy the dog and user:Andy Dingley opposing their changes and only user:Ɱ supporting the changes, so it doesn't seem like consensus for Ɱ's changes will be reached).

Both users have violated the WP:BRD cycle several times, and both should try and discuss the issue first before edit-warring. However, as that doesn't seem to be happening, I am proposing that user:Roxy the dog receive a short block for violating WP:3RR and that user:Ɱ receive a similar block as WP:BOOMERANG to stop the edit war, and we'll see whether further action should be taken if the edit war continues.^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅?} 16:01, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

UPDATE: user:Andy Dingley has now joined the edit war as well.^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅?} 16:35, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

I am restoring cited content, reverting bad-faith edits, during multiple fruitless attempts to talk rationally and exchange evidence. If you think I should be given a block for that, the system's clearly pretty messed up. ɱ (talk) 16:04, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

I do personally believe that the system does require some improvements, and I have fallen victim to it in the past, but, as it stands, you have violated WP:BRD and WP:3RR, which is punishable with a block. It is indeed unfortunate that one of the two users that don't agree with you isn't even willing to properly discuss your proposed changes, but that doesn't free you from abiding by Wikipedia's policies (WP:CONSENSUS) and not editing in any new information without having gained consensus for it first. If you don't like these policies, you might propose a change to them elsewhere, but WP:ANI is not that place.^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅?} 16:14, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Well you fail to understand consensus: it's not a vote based on number of bodies. Even in a deletion discussion, if 20 editors vote one way without providing any evidence or rationale, the 10 editors who do clearly state it rationally, clearly, logically, and truthfully will succeed. Andy's and Roxy's opinions based on "11 year old school curriculum" mean nothing here. ɱ (talk) 16:17, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

I understand that better than anyone. I was literally topic-banned chiefly for claiming consensus (where there was one), because some users, including administrators, could not understand than consensus is not a count of the number of votes, which forced me to edit-war, which eventually gained me my topic ban. However, here, you are trying to edit back new information without ANY consensus. As it stands, the only editor that supports your edits is you. Neither Andy nor Roxy need consensus to justify their reverts: you are the one proposing the edit, and so it is you who needs to convince the other editors that your change is worthy of being implemented. As of yet, you haven't done that, and so you should not be restoring your edits. It's really simple. Take a look at WP:BRD.^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅?} 16:45, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

As well, you're the first one to even mention edit-warring. Clearly Andy and Roxy don't care enough about rules and are continually doing that, and I won't let them simply get away with it. I am bringing them to ANI here for removing cited information, failing to provide sources, failing to discuss issues rationally and civilly, and insulting and mocking me repeatedly. What do you think of those issues? ɱ (talk) 16:08, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

I do agree that both Andy and Roxy are being disruptive, but so are you. Someone else's bad behaviour doesn't justify your own bad behaviour. Also, failing to provide sources and removing cited information are not behavioural issues if the user is editing from consensus or status quo (which they are). And the other two elements that you have included only apply to Roxy the dog and not Andy.^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅?} 16:22, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

They are breaking many more rules, I was mostly attempting to keep 'citation needed' tags in place, something that only vandals and bad-faith editors remove. Edit warring to keep maintenance and citation needed tags intact from irrational editors isn't problematic. Like I said - they have no consensus over this topic, and both were failing to talk rationally and were insulting me, actually. ɱ (talk) 16:37, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

"They are worse than me" isn't a good argument at all. You're still edit-warring, no matter for how good a cause, and edit-warring is always problematic. Also, please WP:Assume good faith; assumption of good faith is literally why Wikipedia exists. Finally, they don't need consensus over this topic - you do. You are the one proposing the change, and so you are the one who should gain consensus for your edits to be justified. Once again, see WP:BRD.^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅?} 16:59, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

One of them just caved in and started citing sources, though they're still edit warring, reverting my two good edits out of what appears to be WP:Ownership. ɱ (talk) 16:15, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

I haven't looked deeply into this discussion, but when you state that "temperature is a measure of heat", Ɱ, you've placed yourself squarely into WP:RANDY territory. Temperature is, loosely speaking, a measure of average molecular speed, and is measured in Kelvin; heat is a form of energy, and is measured in joules, an entirely different unit. Andy is correct: by equating the two, you've shown that you lack the subject matter grounding to usefully contribute to a rational discussion of this subject, regardless of whether you or anyone else is following the forms of rational discussion, civility, etc. I recommend you drop the point. Choess (talk) 16:16, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Oh, come on, don't be like that. Even if you believe they've made a mistake, that's just ONE mistake. One mistake doesn't suddenly make an editor incompetent. By calling Ɱ a Randy, you are essentially launching a personal attack. Furthermore, as Ɱ has rightly stated, WP:ANI is about discussing behaviour - not content. Please stay on topic and do not create conflict where it's not needed. Lastly, heat, loosely speaking, is the total random kinetic energy of the molecules, so temperature and heat really do measure very similar things. Calling someone who says that they measure the same thing (when they do actually measure similar things) incompetent is overreacting at best.^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅?} 16:32, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

You're just insulting me further, thanks for not addressing the issue at hand and actually continuing being awful - the issue being people mocking me for not knowing "middle school science" and then finally citing sources that are wrong. ɱ (talk) 16:21, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

It's an extremely rude response, I'm surprised you're an administrator. I am trying to figure this out rationally, people shouldn't expect me to have a master's degree in physics, but I have found that some of what Andy/Roxy were stating is factually inaccurate. So thank you for the boost of support. ɱ (talk) 16:24, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

I suggest you read WP:EXPERT: "No editor is exempt from fundamental Wikipedia policies; in particular, the policies of no original research and verifiability", "Experts, of course, can be wrong; and different experts can reasonably disagree on the same topic.", "Wikipedia does not grant additional powers or respect to subject-matter experts."

"Experts do not have any privileges in resolving conflicts in their favor: in a content dispute between a (supposed) expert and a non-expert, it is not permissible for the expert to "pull rank" and declare victory. "Because I say so" or "because I have a PhD from Harvard" or "I wrote the most-used textbook in this field" are never an acceptable justification for a claim in Wikipedia, regardless of expertise. All editors, whether they are expert editors or high school graduates must cite reliable sources for all claims. Likewise, expert contributions are not protected from subsequent revisions from non-experts. Ideally, if not always in practice, it is the quality of the edits and the reliable sources upon which they are based that counts." ɱ (talk) 16:27, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

With all due respect, Ɱ, not everyone saying you are wrong is being "extremely rude." Count me as another person urging you to drop this and go back to trying to persuade people to your point of view. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:33, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

You have to say, though, user:Choess did call Ɱ incompetent because of what they believed to be one mistake. That is quite rude, in my opinion. ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅?} 16:52, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

With all due respect, no, I don't have to say. Perhaps I come from a more contentious background, or am just a congenitally disagreeable sort. Either way, we'll have to agree to disagree on this! Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:54, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

I'll agree to disagree!^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅?} 17:03, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

RANDY based on one largely-true comment is obscene, I agree. ɱ (talk) 16:57, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Ɱ may find my essay at WP:1AM to be helpful. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:36, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

ANI does not issue rulings on content disputes. Close and send back to article talk page. Edit warring reports should be posted at WP:ANEW, not here. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:36, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Changed my mind. There is more than enough incivility to require administrator intervention if it doesn't stop. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:27, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

It's about user conduct, as stated many times. ɱ (talk) 16:57, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Again ANI fails to do anything except scrutinize the poster's behavior, with little to no analysis of the reported individuals' behaviors. Consider this another useless report to add to an already useless system (though it did spur Andy to finally begin finding refs and improving the article a little). ɱ (talk) 17:13, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

There's some incivility on the talk page and edit warring on the article. Both should stop. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:35, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry for edit wartring, I had not realised, and I was going to thank Oldstone for noting it until I realised why he was stirring the pot. He is the subject of a community imposed topic ban which I heartily endorsed at the time, and still do. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 22:56, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Disruption by Guy Macon

OK, this is just sheer disruption. Will someone uninvolved please revert it, and maybe griddle him a nice trout. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:07, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

WP:STATUSQUO says:

"Reverting is appropriate mostly for vandalism or other disruptive edits. The Wikipedia edit warring policy forbids repetitive reverting.

If you see a good-faith edit which you feel does not improve the article, make a good-faith effort to reword instead of reverting it. Similarly, if you make an edit which is good-faith reverted, do not simply reinstate your edit – leave the status quo up, or try an alternative way to make the change that includes feedback from the other editor.

If there is a dispute, editors should work towards consensus. Instead of engaging in an edit war, which is harmful, propose your reverted change on the article's talk page or pursue other dispute resolution alternatives. During a dispute discussion, until a consensus is established, you should not revert away from the status quo (except in cases where contentious material should be immediately removed, such as biographies of living people, or material about living people in other articles). Note that this process is meant for managing resolution of disputes while discussion is taking place." (Emphasis added)

--Guy Macon (talk) 18:17, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Two "thank you" notices in the first few minutes after making that edit. I'm just saying. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:22, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Neither from me, I might add!!;) -Roxy, the dog. wooF 18:28, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

• Were they for saying that heat and temperature are the same thing, that Harold McGee is "dubious" as a source, or just for breaking all the references in the lead? Andy Dingley (talk) 18:34, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

• Re: "breaking all of the references" (one reference, actually), see below. Re: heat/temperature and McGee, those are content disputes, and you have been around long enough to know that ANI only deals with behavior. You know, edit warring, incivility, bogus complaints against users who did the right thing at ANI -- that sort of thing. I'm just saying. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:53, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

I think there have been enough reverts already. I've fully protected the page for two days. Use {{Edit fully-protected}} when there's a consensus on the talk page. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:32, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate, I was in the middle of searching through the edits and restoring any that were uncontroversial and not part of the edit war. I am fine with it as protected, but would you be so kind as to fix the citation error in the lead? Just reverting my final edit would be fine. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 18:48, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

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

Editor creating a string of hoax articles

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

---

User:Homer Simpsons666 has been on Wikipedia since February 2018. During that time he has created a very large number of hoax articles about tramways and railway lines that he has made up. His talk page shows the many that have been deleted. I've just gone through and tagged the recent batch as WP:G3 hoaxes as well. On one of the very few occasions this editor has interacted with anyone, he admitted that the articles are indeed fake: [110]. It is clear that Homer Simpsons666 is not here to help build an encyclopedia, and no amount of deleted articles and talk page warnings will stop them. Could an admin review this, please? My suggestion (for what it's worth) is this user should be indefinitely blocked. Thanks, The Mirror Cracked (talk) 20:58, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Not sure if they are hoaxes - Rowntree's Halt existed, for example - but he has learned exactly nothing about how to write a Wikipedia article. Guy (help!) 21:10, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

He's playing games in the virtual world and mentioned Grand Theft Auto 5 as the source. Blocked as NOTHERE.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:23, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Berean Hunter. On the question of Rowntree's Halt, yes it was real, the hoax is "These years we will reopening the whole line from york railway station including new railway stations and new railway junction will be can be opened as electronic railway track too details will be available this week. Work Start 15th July 2024 GTM. Work finish: 27th December 2030. Cost: £51,000,000" That's obviously untrue, he's not spending £51M with his friends on re-opening that station! We already have an article on Rowntree Halt railway station. The Mirror Cracked (talk) 21:28, 14 September 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.

Dave Meltzer disruption

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.

---

For the past few months, basically every other edit to Dave Meltzer has been vandalism. Meltzer is notable for being perhaps the most prominent journalist to cover professional wrestling, which now falls under sanctions per Wikipedia:General sanctions/Professional wrestling. A discussion about this issue on WT:PW previously said that a request for page protection was declined. Can an admin here put something in place to make the page history more stable going forward? Thanks.LM2000 (talk) 21:52, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm not finding any discussion on WT:PW which references a RFPP for the Dave Meltzer article. I found this, but RFPP is mentioned, not (apparently) even applied for. Am I missing the pertinent discussion? KillerChihuahua 22:29, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

It's a BLP, it's getting persistently vandalised (particularly, it seems by a dynamic IP with a point to prove), so there's no problem with semi-protecting it, which I've done. Black Kite (talk) 22:52, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

In the linked thread, ★Trekker said on August 12 that a page protection request had been denied. Thank you, Black Kite.LM2000 (talk) 23:36, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

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

Unconstructive edits to get extended confirmed.

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

---

This user is doing unconstructive edits like removing redirect links, and adding again. He did all these edits to get included in extended confirmed users. Admin should look at his contributions to decide and block him for unconstructively vandalising the Wikipedia. — Harshil ^{want to talk?} 06:31, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

• How do you know that's why he's doing it? Reyk _YO! 06:39, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

• • Also, @Harshil169:, you are required to inform people you bring to ANI about the discussion. Why didn't you? Reyk _YO! 07:28, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

• • @Harshil169: you seem to be too eager to get credited on and in hurry to increase your points as a new editor on wikipedia cuz u seem to be Wikipedia:Edit warring since u added sentence 'removing redirect links, and adding again' can u please show me where i did that removing and adding unnecessarily? for further details please check my user page since i am a part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Red Link Recovery i am trying to do it as my duty.Jhummu ^Shiv-o-Hum! 07:48, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
• Editcountitis at best and gaming the system at worst. EC requires 30 days and 500 edits, so quite possibly there wasn't a need to rack up the edits so fast, but again, all of this is speculation. We should explain to the editor that removing red links is not helpful and splitting edits to increase count is not helpful either. --qedk (t 桜 c) 07:51, 15 September 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:Nanda sai karthik

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 someone block this editor? See Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan: Revision history. Thanks. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:38, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 06:40, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:50, 15 September 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.

Ceoil

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.

---

Ceoil (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), despite having a lengthy block log, is still engaging in personal attacks, including using "autistic" as an insult.[111][112][113][114][115][116][117][118][119]

Related:

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive239#Ceoil
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive983#Personal attack from User: Ceoil
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive954#User:Ceoil
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive918#The Cloisters
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive874#User:Ceoil

--Guy Macon (talk) 13:31, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm seeing this as a move towards indeff, rather than being actionable. This reads more as a grudge, and opening old woulds, some of which are very old. Also, why now & today? Reads more like an arbcom case rather than an an/i. I stand 100% over my comments at talk bus stop, where in I advised a fellow Visual arts editor to drop the stick and not be baited and was instead baited. To note the *The Cloisters* discussion ended with myself and Beyond my Ken reaching an amicable consensus and taking the page to FA. All in all, this all makes no sense, unless you consider the plaintiff had some of the very old diffs ready and waiting. Ceoil

This has no merit.....seems like a vendetta...Ceoil is an important and articulate content editor...Modernist (talk) 13:49, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Seriously? You are actually excusing persona attacks because the person doing the attacking is a content creator? WP:UNBLOCKABLES. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:45, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree that the original post looks like grudge mongering, which is forbidden by WP:BATTLE. However, calling somebody autistic is out of bounds. Ceoil, would you please redact that word. The rest of the comments are just colorful criticism. If you agree, we are done here. Jehochman ^Talk 13:54, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

I retract, Jehochman, yes it was unnecessary. I was being overly dramatic to convey a decade long approach, but that said stand over my argument in context. Ceoil

• Ceoil has doubled down by posting new personal attacks aimed at me.[120][121] --Guy Macon (talk) 14:45, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  • yea, you are going to upset contributors if you repeatedly go around creating unbeneficial reports like this . Govindaharihari (talk) 14:55, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

My 2c as the target: While there is plenty of NPA vio there, starting with "fool", I don't expect the community to suddenly start enforcing NPA now – and I've learned to ignore empty ad hominem insults, which say a lot more about the issuer than the target. Kudos to Guy Macon for taking ANI action where he doesn't have a dog in the immediate fight; we could use more of that; but this one isn't going anywhere. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:27, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

...which will never change, so long as those of us who believe in the fourth pillar continue to allow the sweep-it-under-the-rug crowd to carry the day.

The "autistic" insult was the worst, but not the only personal attack Ceoil made in that thread, or since that thread [122], or even since this report was filed. Immediately after removing "autistic", Ceoil's next two edits are to Jesus's Guy's talk page, calling him "dishonest" and "coward". Just as we would not allow an editor to continue editing if they routinely ignored WP:V, or WP:NPOV, or WP:NOR, so should we not allow editors to continue to edit while routinely ignoring WP:CIVIL. A change in behavior by Ceoil should be a prerequisite to their continuing to be a part of this community. – Levivich 15:51, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes Levivich, its commonly known as reacting to being poked by out numbering antagonists, aka baiting. I note you are taking this grudge from my wife's talk page...for shame[123]. Ceoil

Why should it change? It is only a small group of campaigners such as yourself who make such a big deal of it. Most of us have thicker skins and/or realise that tempers will flare from time to time. We can't even decide what is civil, so whinging about sporadic accusations of incivility by people who actually do most of the ground work here isn't particularly useful. If you want a social website, where you can make lots of friends, try Facebook - although even there you'll see lots of vitriol etc. - Sitush (talk) 15:58, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

[124] talk

This was not tempers flaring, nor a momentary lapse, nor an understandable loss of patience.

• The first insulting post directed at Mandruss took five edits to construct: each one more insulting than the last: [125] [126] [127] [128] [129]. "Fool" was added in the fifth edit. This shows a deliberate and careful effort at drafting a personal attack.
• The second insulting post directed at Mandruss took seven edits to construct, again, with the edits increasing the level of personal attack: [130] [131] [132] [133] [134] [135] [136]. "Autistic" was added in the sixth edit, and then Ceoil came back in a seventh edit to change "you autistic" to "your autistic".
• A third insulting post directed at Mandruss took five more edits to construct: [137] [138] [139] [140] [141]. That last one, complaining about "your bludgeoning superior approach", was the seventeenth personal-attack edit.

After all that, they made the other PAs against me and Guy that I referred to above. This is routine incivility, on multiple pages, towards multiple editors. – Levivich 16:12, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

I rather think you and Guy are inviting feedback. Lets be honest about what is happen ing here. Guy is punting, you are being dishonest and trying to get at Kafka Liz through me. Thats vindictive, and if you get called then maybe next time wear big boy pants. Its clear Guy's approach is entrapment. Ceoil

• I would have thought taking multiple edits to construct something, certainly to this degree, is the very definition of someone's temper flaring. It's the equivalent of spluttering. - Sitush (talk) 16:15, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

• And I'd say that's the exact reason we block editors: to stop them from continuing to make such spluttering edits, when they cannot stop themselves. – Levivich 16:19, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

This is not a case of an uninterested observer. Guy has been waiting for an opportunity to get Ceoil banned. If persistent, this behavior is called headhunting, and is itself sanctionable conduct when extreme. Guy, thank you for raising a valid concern about the word “autistic”. Ceoil has agreed to fix it, and hopefully we won’t be back here again. Please consider that our goal is to help every editor be their best self, not use their weaknesses to set up their downfall. Jehochman ^Talk 15:59, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Evidence, please. Please show where I have had any prior interactions[142] with Ceoil. I didn't know he/she existed until I noticed the WP:NPA violations above and searched for previous ANI reports. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:12, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps a review of WP:CIVIL is required, as it seems to be brought up often that it's being unevenly applied to editors. GoodDay (talk) 16:05, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Goddday's primary concern is about standardising image size, a trivial matter, but why he is posting here - he sees the opportunity to eliminate a perceived foe. It seems fantastically shallow, but that is obv why he is posting here. This is the easy picking baggage you carry if have a block log like mine (that even most the then involved admins is undeserved). Ceoil

...and right there is another personal attack by Ceoil. – Levivich 16:16, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Dude I'm just calling that all might not be as it seems and that some (including you) are using CIV to further unstated aims. Again, for shame. Ceoil

I've been around the topic of WP:CIVIL on many occasions. Have always been in favor allowing editors to 'express' themselves. Political correctness isn't something I would promote. GoodDay (talk) 16:26, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm unaware of any "grudges", and such allegations need to be substantiated or at least explained. The original post on Bus Stop's talk page seems innocuous and valid, and not remotely something that would prompt that subsequent, protracted campaign of egregious personal attacks. I'm inclined to block unless there's actual convincing proof that this is nothing but an existing conflict between these two or three users, but in that case, an IBAN is probably warranted if it's descended to such blatant name calling. Swarm (talk) 16:07, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

That has been tried umpteen times in the past and ArbCom have had words to say about it, too. We've also had noticeboards such as the Wikiquette (or whatever it was) that have come and gone. Uneven application is in the eye of the beholder and it just happens that we have a few very vocal, quite new contributors who are going ape shit about it. - Sitush (talk) 16:08, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Swarm is inclined to block, omg, go on then, do your worst. Govindaharihari (talk) 16:11, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

OMG, let's block the man who admittedly cannot spell (there's um, a word for that, but I don't want to shame anyone, unlike the rest of you), for ... um ... not being able to spell. So happy to see that Levivich can count the number of edits it took. Victoria (tk) 16:26, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Doubt anyone would really question a NPA block here. Fairly simple tl;dr, Ceoil repeatedly attacks editors and reasons their attacks to be the product of "baiting", AGF can only extend so much. If getting baited is an issue and you need to attack editors to make your point, it is impossible to be part of an online community like Wikipedia and work productively (WP:CIR). --qedk (t 桜 c) 16:39, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Like 70 featured articles and that's not productive?? Fuck this place and all you people. Victoria (tk) 16:42, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Agree with Victoria. QEDK, why not sort out the fucking baiters? You're putting the cart before the horse. - Sitush (talk) 16:44, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I admire the tenacity you put into your first interaction with me anywhere Victoria, but I can see the apparent issue so let's put it clearly here. And replying to you too Sitush, I will admit baiting is not okay, but nor are personal attacks because if you need to use personal attacks while interacting with a person, then maybe you should not be interacting at all. I think there is a definite issue with the fact that you think personal attacks are justified anytime in the first place, accidents are fine, but here, a pattern has been demonstrated and saying you got baited is well ...pointless. --qedk (t 桜 c) 17:00, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

The problem I have is there is an incredibly low blow (not from Ceoil) right here on this page, and I don't think an ANI report justifies crucifying someone. There are better ways to go about these things but generally bludgeoning, something along the lines of how many zombies can I kill in this video game, is the status quo in these threads. I don't like it. I don't like that just because Ceoil was rude everyone else gets to be rude too. Why? Aren't we better than that? Any of us? I'd like to think so, but it's been really really hard since June. The writing is on the wall in terms of detoxification and whatever it takes to pull the weeds, then fine. But in the end the product, the encylopedia itself, and the people who create it for free, suffer. Victoria (tk) 17:07, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Since you apparently don't have a problem with the use of "autistic" as an insult, which statement was the "low blow" with which you do have a problem? – Levivich 17:22, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

+1 with QEDK, I think a NPA block is quite reasonable and in line with our policies. It's greatly disheartening to me that there's a sizeable and vocal crowd of editors who will go to any length to justify retaining editors who do good work regardless of how many other editors they drive off in the process. Sam Walton (talk) 16:50, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Seems fairly open and shut doesn't it. Civility is something every editor is required follow regardless of the situation. PackMecEng (talk) 16:48, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

• Agree with Swarm. If I'd seen Ceoil's "autistic" comment (along with the multiple other attacks on other editors on Talk:Bus stop) I would have blocked them immediately. I note that they have not yet redacted it, either. Black Kite (talk) 17:02, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
• Agree with Swarm, unless he redacts the usage of autistic soon-enough with an apology. Minutes back, I misread an edit-summary that he had redacted it; such stuff is way beyond accepted boundaries in this century .... ∯WBG^converse 17:13, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Comment I suggest that these two folks disengage. If they are both on board, it would not require an interaction block.

Obviously, we need them to act on WP:Civil and to promise on their honor to keep the peace.

This is all old business, and much ado about nothing. Name calling is a waste of everyone's time, as is repeated trips to WP:ANI. Sincere mutual apologies for ill considered over reaction would go a long way toward putting oil on the waters.

I apologize for getting involved, and mean no aspersions to anyone. I am simply proposing a truce.

Good editors are hard to find. And keep. Both of them are important and consistent content creators. Good behavior is important, as is good content creation. Editor retention is an important value that cuts in all directions here. The least restrictive alternative that keeps them both on board is a win for them and the good of the project. That is my cherished hope. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:20, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

No. Which two editors? There are not two editors making personal attacks at each other here; there is just one editor in all of these diffs. Mandruss said nothing in that talk page thread that was uncivil, where as Ceoil made multiple attacks at Mandruss and others. (Guy Macon also has not said anything uncivil to cause Ceoil's attacks against him.) This kind of false equivalence and everyone's-at-fault thinking is part of the problem. Only one editor in that talk page thread was chasing away good editors–the one using "autistic" as an insult (among half a dozen others). – Levivich 17:27, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

You can fix the blame.

Or you can fix the problem. I proposed doing the latter for the good of the project. But I can't make anyone sheath their swords. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:34, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

I commend to you the analogy that one person has a sword, and you're arguing "arrest them both, for the good of the community". We can't fix a problem if we don't identify it correctly. – Levivich 17:40, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Sounds very nice, but you can't fix the problem without fixing some blame. The "Can't we all just get along?" approach has been tried for many years as an alternative to behavior policy enforcement, longer than I've been around, and the countless threads like that one are the very predictable result. I'd like to say that Wikipedia will be what a majority of its editors want – in which case editors like Levivich and me just lose and that's too bad – but the truth is that Wikipedia will be what a majority of editors who frequent this page want. And that subset is anything but representative of the community, as an enormous number of calmer, gentler, more reasonable editors avoid this page in droves because they can't stomach the persistent hostile tone here. That situation is what the behavior policy is designed to prevent. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:57, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

I would like to address Mandruss. Sorry man I personalised. We are perennially at odds on modern art images, and too often talk past each other. The conversation to date has been all (us) or nothing (you), lets try and find middle ground, maybe via a third part, and maybe an admin here could suggest. Ceoil

Perennially at odds? I recently had a brief content dispute with you about the use of |upright= with images in a single article, and I deferred to you. Now that you mention it, I vaguely recall one other similar interaction years ago, and I'm fairly certain I deferred to you there too. In what universe did that "history" remotely justify your calling me a fool, even if regretted after the fact? (That and more remain unstricken, so you don't regret them much.) Apology accepted through your second sentence, but please don't frame this as anything but a complete failure to AGF and moderate your own language – both of which are blockable especially if they are part of a long-term pattern. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:16, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

• I strongly oppose blocking any editor who has contributed to this thread. Instead, let’s try to help each other instead of grossly uncivil activities like block shopping, tag teaming and headhunting. Ceoil, please redact the remark we agreed you’d redact and then let’s all move on. Jehochman ^Talk 17:54, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Post-close discussion

• While I happen to agree with him that a block for Ceoil might not be helpful just now (it's been a hard few weeks for Eric's crew and I feel we should cut them some slack) I'm getting more than a bit tired of Jehochman declaring discussions suddenly over and imposing his supervote. Cut it out. EEng 18:15, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
• This one was a peach. Jehochman casts aspersions [143] [144] and then closes the thread. The target of the above ANI report went to an admin's talk page, who responds, "be careful...I’ve been trying to thwart any efforts...", and then promptly closes the ANI report. It's almost insulting in its obviousness. – Levivich 18:20, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
• lol at the description of the number of edits it took to mold the insults, with 'fool' not added until the fifth edit. Comic gold. Hey everyone, maybe realize that everyone here is editing and creating one of the finest human endeavors in the species' intellectual history. Assume good faith works, and luckily everyone involved is used to being insulted by this time in their Wikipedia career. I haven't followed the case, but it seems a recent indef of a popular editor who played a little with a couple of socks is causing some loud hurt. Someone please lessen that ban to a reasonable month or two, and cake all around. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:27, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
• Terrible close. Move to reopen. --qedk (t 桜 c) 18:30, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
• @Jehochman: I strongly suggest that you either substantiate your accusation against Guy Macon with diffs or apologize. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:42, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

I have discussed it with Guy. We are squared up and I struck some of the stuff above. Jehochman ^Talk 01:48, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

• This entire thing is a mess and probably needs to be shut down, but not with an involved close. Lepricavark (talk) 18:54, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

  shameless linkspam: Yes, by all means let's get one of our WP:UNIVALVED or WP:UNEVOLVED admins to make the close. EEng 19:04, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

• Given the autistic comment still hasn't been retracted IMHO this should've still remained open, The damage has been done and reopening this now would be pointless and would no doubt create more drama, Knock off the autistic comments and comments such as this and everyone will live a happier life. –Davey2010^Talk 19:00, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
• I think this is the second time I've reverted a premature close by Jehochman. I don't want to make a habit of it, but this one was clearly involved and inappropriate. Mackensen (talk) 19:01, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

I think it was retracted, if not redacted. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:03, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

User:7&6=thirteen "The very definition of a strawman, in fairness well done, but used to further a campaign of harassment and baiting based on shallow and ungentlemanly reasoning. Your autistic, single purpose career here is similar to anti-matter, adding nothing, disillusioning many; you are not respected. Ceoil (talk) 12:13, 15 September 2019 (UTC)" (emphasis mine). –Davey2010^Talk 19:17, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps you ought to read what you're linking to as he didn't even remove the word .... –Davey2010^Talk 19:19, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Now removed, I would suggest someone closes this so we can all get back to improving the project. –Davey2010^Talk 19:25, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Davey2010 Huh? I would be affronted if you had been understandable. But enough, already. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:23, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

"But enough, already." ... Enough of what ? ... Pointing out you didn't even bother to read the diff you were linking too ?, I believe I stopped typing here once Ceoil had removed his comment so therefore your "enough already" and "ping" are pointless and serves nothing other than to further fan the flames here. –Davey2010^Talk 21:31, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

FWIW, the retraction was contained in the edit summary, which you missed. Cheers. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:04, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

That's like me calling someone a prick and then saying in the editsum "I retract it" .... means sweet fuck all if I haven't actually removed it or struck it out so no I hadn't missed that at all.... –Davey2010^Talk 22:21, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

• Would you all please quit the grandstanding. We don’t do votes for blocking. I’m not involved in the underlying dispute in any way, contrary to Mack’s baseless, unconscionable, grievous calumny. 😁 Jehochman ^Talk 19:16, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

  Just stop, you're making it worse for yourself. --qedk (t 桜 c) 19:27, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, INVOLVED or not, blocking or not, it's clear this was not a cut-and-dry force-close with no action situation, and this routine in which old guard admins perpetually enable toxic behavior coming from power users is getting tired. If you don't wish to block users like Ceoil, don't, but don't cast aspersions against people who come here with complaints, and certainly don't attempt to unilaterally force-close complaints after doing so. I will defer to the apology here, but with a warning that continued personal attacks will result in a block. Swarm (talk) 21:53, 15 September 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:Music proekt

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 an admin take a look at User:Music proekt's edits (e.g. edit warring to repeatedly remove a deletion tag)? DexDor ^(talk) 19:53, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

• Music proekt (talk · contribs · logs) for ease of reference. Going to take a look myself right now. KillerChihuahua 20:06, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
• CU blocked. Confirmed to several globally locked accounts. I'll report to the stewards. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:13, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

  Lovely, that was my next question. Thanks, NRP. KillerChihuahua 20:15, 15 September 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.

Category:Belarusian music chart "LF Top Songs"

Wrong venue. Discussion is on deletion page and user talk page. KillerChihuahua 20:12, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This page is not related to Alex9777777, please do not delete the category!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Billboard_Hot_100_number-one_singles there is , then let it be and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Belarusian_music_chart_%22LF_Top_Songs%22 The world is equal for everyone, the category has the right to exist !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The chart has official pages -> https://posts.google.com/share/ZazhHI6x Please respect the work of other people and do not delete the category!!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Music proekt (talk • contribs) 16:38, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Potential BLPTALK issue on User talk:Ericacbarnett

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

---

It would be inappropriate for me to take action in respect of this matter as I had previously edited the article in question, however, in this [145] edit Ericacbarnett accuses (on their Talk page) a living person of "a long and public history of personal attacks ... against me". I believe this might warrant being deleted per WP:BLPTALK but, again, I'm involved and am not a good judge of the matter. If it is determined to be a BLPTALK violation, I'm certain this is an unintentional excess by a new editor and no further action beyond deletion of the offending passage is necessary. Chetsford (talk) 21:43, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

• I get where you're coming from, but this is a BLP subject complaining about a biased source. Pretty sure BLP would also mandate that we take such a complaint seriously and allow the user to fully articulate and substantiate it, so that it can be assessed and considered by the community. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 22:18, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks, Swarm. I think that's a good and valid point. With that, I have no objection if someone would like to close this thread. Chetsford (talk) 22:27, 15 September 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.

Abuse of admins privilages at Farsi Wikipedia

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 there, an admin with the name of

https://fa.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%DA%A9%D8%A7%D8%B1%D8%A8%D8%B1:Arash.pt

Blocked my account and removed my comments without any proved reason and he denyed to answer me. My account is darya2019

Please , consider this situation. He disuses his admis previlages. Regards Darya2019 Darya2019 (talk) 07:39, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

@Darya2019: We cannot help you as the English Wikipedia has no jurisdiction over the Farsi Wikipedia (or any other Wikimedia project). Your only option is to follow their local process for unblocking.--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:43, 16 September 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.

Spidey Sense Tingling

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 got a very odd message on my user talk page recently [146] - this user has never made any other edits and came to me with something... about copyright... at Ghengis Khan - a page I occasionally work on. I pointed them to help desk, but I can't help but feel like there was something off about the request I can't put my finger on. May be nothing. Simonm223 (talk) 15:51, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

It sounds like he's asking about licensing, but he doesn't know the term in English. I'm assuming English is not his first language. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ^Talk 17:32, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

I mean probably. But it was very odd they asked me in particular - or that they created a wikipedia account specifically to ask me a question then provided an off-wiki contact method for response. Like I said. Could be nothing. Or it could be some sort of phishing thing. Simonm223 (talk) 17:41, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't email anyone I don't trust completely, even via Wikipedia's email. I left a hopefully helpful message about reusing Wikipedia content on their talk.-- Deepfriedokra 17:50, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. I wasn't comfortable helping them with that as creative commons licensing is not a specialty of mine. Simonm223 (talk) 18:14, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Luckily, I have a permit that covers all licensing issues. A copy can be found here: [[147]] May His Shadow Fall Upon You ^Talk 19:26, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

We'll see how far that gets you on Wikimedia Commons. ;) Simonm223 (talk) 19:39, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Offered help on user's talk page. Buffs (talk) 19:13, 13 September 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.

Smells like undisclosed paidediting

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 Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. Uncle G (talk) 11:17, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

• Excuse me? Does the whole noticeboard smell? Did you leave something out, Uncle G? Bishonen | talk 19:38, 12 September 2019 (UTC).
  • @Bishonen: whatever was posted here originally has been relocated there as a result of this edit. --JBL (talk) 02:05, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
    • Thank you, @Uncle G and Joel B. Lewis: I have blocked the emitter of the smell. Bishonen | talk 07:40, 13 September 2019 (UTC).

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

Request Ban of Reddragon7 per 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.

---

Reddragon7 is a disclosed paid editor who has created and submitted many drafts through AfC which I have come across while reviewing submissions. They disclose being a freelancer and accepted jobs through the website "WikiPresence" which not only offers to create Wikipedia pages, but also offers to create press for such. I asked them previously about using references that don't mention the subject they are writing about as well as unreliable sources such as Medium. The response I feel was canned and normal of a paid editor who is WP:NOTHERE. To be clear, there are paid editors who can follow the rules, but I don't feel Reddragon7 can do that. The reason being is that the majority of their submission through AfC are being rejected for things like advertising, notability, and referencing (the last one I rejected was for WP:REFBOMBING which included sources that didn't even discuss the subject of the draft title). Submissions which constantly don't meet Wikipedia guidelines causes extra work for those of us reviewing drafts at AfC and would request a ban of this user since they can't seem to get that we are here to build an encyclopedia, not review and correct submissions that are paid for and don't comply with guidelines. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:01, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

I've looked at their paid work. There are two problems: First, they accept commissions from subjects that are extremely unlikely to be notable (such as this one and thisone, and about 2/3 of his attempted articles. Second, whether or not the subject is likely to be notable, most of the references used are straight PR, from obvious PR sites, such as this and this, or at best clearly promotional pieces on magazine and web sites that let promotional interviews be published. Almost all the references used besides such obvious promotion, are notices about funding or the subjects own site. Only one of their paid articles has been accepted, MGC Pharmaceuticals , and, in my opinion it should not have been, and I have listed it for afd.

This editor is doing harm to Wikipedia,--and also to his unsuspecting clients. Any of them who might actually merit articles will find it much harder to eventually get them afte the spam that this editor is writing with their money are removed from WP.

Unless there are objections, I intend to block. The ordinary processes of G11 and G13 will deal with the article drafts.

The editor has written some acceptable articles for WiR, andhas done acceptable editing in other areas. Butthe harm that is being done outweighs this. I don't think a topic block would be sufficient, for it would encourage sockpuppettry. DGG ( talk ) 03:15, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry is likely to happen with blocked paid editors I agree. Is there a way to do a global ban on the editor and the company they work for so we can simply delete their creations if found to be socks or meat? If these are through a company, they will likely give it to another employee if this one is banned. --CNMall41 (talk) 15:17, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

No objection here; I would support a block, for precisely the reasons outlined above. Getting this user to make the correct disclosures has been an uphill struggle, and at the time of writing they still had yet to disclose their affiliations via Upwork. Improving Wikipedia is very clearly a secondary concern to Reddragon7, falling in far behind their primary motivator of "making bank". Yunshui ^雲_水 07:18, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

I think a block is the correct action in this situation. Our editors' time is valuable, and maybe even more so with AFC, where article creators should be attempting to create acceptable articles in good faith - so as not to waste others' valuable efforts. The standards cannot be ignored while crossing fingers and hoping for a pass - rather than choosing to not submit and waste other people's time out of consideration. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 14:55, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

• It makes me very uncomfortable to mandate a person disclose accounts from other sites to avoid blocking. Even in the case of a paid editor. That said, an editor offering to create paid articles (as opposed to an employee whose job it is to monitor an existing article) needs to have a good grasp of notability. It is indeed disruptive to the project if a disclosed paid editor repeatedly fails at getting articles through AfC. That might be in the letter of the rules, but not the spirit. I see a litany of AfC rejections and no indications that these rejections were unfair or contra to policy. I would support a topic ban from paid editing or some sort of non-trivial block (one month?), in order to give us time to clean-up AfC submissions with the next block being an indef (or community ban). There's enough rule following and promise to make me rather have him in the tent than out but that's a pretty fine line. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:02, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
• I would like to add to what's already been said the fact that some drafts they have created (such as Draft:British Herald and Draft:Realtor.ca) have previously been created by editors who were blocked for undisclosed paid editing (prolific sockmaster Amvivek and Jbertho88, respectively). I'm not implying that Reddragon7 is a sock of either of those, but it shows that they are more concrned with what their clients want to add to Wikipedia, than what is appropriate content here. Another red flag is the way Reddragon7 has created new drafts with "alternative" titles rather than work on existing declined drafts: Draft:Voximplant1, cf Draft:Voximplant ; Draft:Techrock1, cf Draft:Techrock ; Draft:Jared Canon about a person called Jared Cannon, cf Draft:Jared Cannon which was recently speedy deleted as spam ; and Draft:Greg Fleishman which was created after Reddragon7 had edited and reverted their own edit to Draft:Greg Fleishman (entrepreneur). They haven't been explicitly asked not to do that, but it's an underhanded tactic that also indicates WP:NOTHERE. I'd support a block. --bonadea contributions talk 12:32, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

That sums up why I think the company as a whole should receive a community block. The company was likely hired by these individuals and they are just using freelancers to shotgun these drafts into AfC, hoping they will be carelessly approved or cleaned up by an unsuspecting volunteer. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:21, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Is it feasible to block the company as a whole? If so, that might be a good solution. RedDragon7’s contributions so far don’t seem malicious or dishonest, just inept, but I agree that it’s a lot of work to clean up these articles continuously and I’m worried that he might cause an otherwise worthy article subject to be banned. Michepman (talk) 20:31, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

It might be a good idea to block the company, because then it will be simpler to deal with puppetry. But I would not necessarily assume that if two paid editors worked on an article for the same subject, they're certain to be puppets. I've seen cases where the long interval shows that after the subject failed with one editing firm, they tried another. When they're closely related in time, as with these examples, it indicates an attempt to defy our policies. That makes this not only inept editing, but NOT HERE. DGG ( talk ) 18:51, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely. I'll just trot out my usual motto: the time and patience of constructive editors is Wikipedia's most precious resource, and is not to be squandered, as has been happening for too long with Reddragon7. As for blocking the company, I'm not sure how we'd do that, but if it's feasible, I'm for it. Bishonen | talk 16:55, 14 September 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 I'm coming in late, but from a practical standpoint you would want to community-ban the company and/or all its present and future employees. We've de facto done this before with Wiki-PR (WP:Long-term abuse/Morning277) and Leo Burnett Tailor Made/The North Face (WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1011#Community ban for Gmortaia and any other employees or subcontractors of Leo Burnett Tailor Made (and the North Face)). —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Fram was railroaded!} 04:09, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

WP:AIV

May we get some administrative attention over at AVI? Thank you. Lupin VII (talk) 18:30, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

I fixed the header, I assume this is what you meant? Praxidicae (talk) 18:34, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Praxidicae Er, no. More so the page being backlogged. Thanks for doing so anyways. Lupin VII (talk) 18:50, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Lmatt and Disruptive Editing

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

---

Recently Lmatt, an old user that was more dormant until this year, has been making many disruptive edits to controversial pages TERF and Transgender as follows:

Edits to TERF (note: active RfC for LEAD wording active since prior to Lmatt's edits)

• [148] WP:LEAD Rewriting (1)
• [149] WP:LEAD Rewriting (2)
• [150] WP:LEAD Rewriting (3)
• (User Paused Edits For Few Days After Twinkle and Manual Warnings)
• [151] WP:LEAD Rewriting (3)
• [152] Remove Well-Sourced Paragraph (Claiming WP:FRINGE)
• [153] WP:LEAD Rewriting (4) - Incorrectly redefine "TERF" as term instead of acronym
• [154] Remove Sourced Paragraph (Claiming WP:UNDUE

TERF edits added after initial report

• [155] Rewriting Coinage Section (1) (After WP:UNDUE claimed removals above reverted)
• [156] Rewriting Coinage Section (2) (After Reversion of 1)

Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 22:53, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Edits to Transgender

• [157] WP:LEAD Rewriting (1)
• [158] WP:LEAD Rewriting (2)
• [159] Removed link to Transgender_rights
• [160] WP:LEAD Rewriting (3)
• [161] WP:LEAD Rewriting (4)
• [162] WP:LEAD Rewriting (5)
• [163] WP:LEAD Rewriting (6)
• (RfC Created About Lead On Talk Page Talk:Transgender#rfc_AF8C87A)
• [164] WP:LEAD Rewriting (7)
• [165] WP:LEAD Rewriting (8)

Mathglot and I have warned the user on their talk page many times about disruptive editing and tried to influence them toward the consensus-building processes (Talk/RfC). However the user appears to have ignored most of the discussion methods and continues to disruptively edit.

I decided to list the incident(s) here because of multiple issues. Not only has Lmatt's behavior disregarded consensus standards, some edit wars have occurred, and considering both pages are controversial gender-related articles, the behavior likely violate current ArbCom sanctions regarding gender-related disputes. In addition, Lmatt's ECU status precludes easy page-protection limits or reversions. As such, I request admin intervention for the foregoing reasons. Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 14:46, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

@Gwenhope: Unfortunately I did not know about the RfC before I saved my edit to the lead section on Transgender. Flyer22 Reborn reverted the edit and warned me on the talk page about making any further edits to the Transgender lead section. After Mathglot gave me some helpful guidance on my talk page I have tried to bear WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY in mind and explain my edits to TERF on the talk page. Lmatt (talk) 15:38, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

It is best on controversial articles to gain consensus or explain before you edit. Regardless you have even continued to edit more today even after all the edit warring warnings and RfC establishments. This morning you deleted first and discussed later. Regardless, I would like an admin to weigh in. Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 16:20, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Since this edit on Transgender [166], which I would have self-reverted had you notified me of the RfC, I have avoided making any reverts on controversial gender-related articles and I have not edited any wording being discussed in an RfC. Lmatt (talk) 17:01, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

@Lmatt: Um, except for this one and this one, you mean. Right? Mathglot (talk) 20:42, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

@Mathglot: Thank you for pointing that. My comment used the wrong diff. This doesn't affect the point I was making which was the edit was 7 minutes after the RfC was created (which I did not know about). Lmatt (talk) 21:04, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Since this edit on Transgender [167], which I would have self-reverted had you notified me of the RfC, I have avoided making any reverts on controversial gender-related articles and I have not edited any wording being discussed in an RfC. Lmatt (talk) 17:01, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

You just reverted me here on TERF, albeit on a relatively minor issue. It looks like you were blocked less than a week ago for edit warring on 8chan, and you started editing on TERF almost immediately after that block expired. That's not a great look, and it seems like you should have a pretty firm grasp of the rules around edit warring before you start templating other users for edit warring. Nblund ^talk 21:42, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

I have made some comments on this revert on your talk page. Even though this was a good-faith contribution, it was technically 1R and I will self-revert if you post a unconstructive user warning to my talk page. Lmatt (talk) 00:24, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you think the purpose of a template is, but as I explained on my talk page: I already explained the problem, I shouldn't need to template your talk page to get you to follow WP:BRD, especially when you're already here claiming to have stopped making reverts. Nblund ^talk 01:13, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Could someone explain ECU status is? Lmatt (talk) 15:46, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

It means Extended Confirmed User, see: Wikipedia:User access levels#Extended confirmed users. The Mirror Cracked (talk) 15:49, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

@Gwenhope: You have accused me of disruptive editing but you do not appear to have provided any evidence other then a list of my contributions to the articles Transgender and TERF and your personal opinions some of them. Lmatt (talk) 02:58, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

@Lmatt: (to word this civilly) Evidence of your disruptive editing literally surrounds us. Ranging from a smattering of articles to user's personal talk pages. It's not just me. Look at what users Mathglot, Nblund, Flyer22 Reborn and Beyond My Ken have said here. Look at those who've reverted your edits this past week. Look at those who've tried to warn you in article and user talk pages. Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 04:54, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Lmatt, good faith is assumed to begin with, but at some point, people might wonder if it's starting to look like WP:GAMING the system. It kinda feels like you're edging, purposefully or not, towards a tipping point, or perhaps already at it, beyond which lies WP:DUCK. This is a good time not to quack. Mathglot (talk) 21:51, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

See, Lmatt, here's where it gets challenging for me. You get called here about disruption on some controversial pages, and you're engaging here, and seem to have tapered off or stopped at the two articles mentioned. Fine. But in the meanwhile, you've been edit warring today at User:Flyer22 Reborn's Talk page in violation of WP:OWNTALK, at 15:41 Sep 15, at 16:27, and at 19:45, with three different editors reverting you (including me, once). This just doesn't look good, especially since you were notified about this here, responded that you were aware of OWNTALK here, at 17:12, but doubled down twice anyway at Flyer's talk page afterward. It just reinforces the impression of brinkmanship and gaming. Mathglot (talk) 22:21, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

• There's also the matter of the spate of dodgy edits Lmatt made in regard to anti-Semitism, including removing "Template:Antisemitism" from the article Ernst Zundel, when Zundel is a Holocaust denier. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:26, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

• @Beyond My Ken: I would suggest that you avoid the appearance of WP:HOUNDING and do not comment on this further unless you have any concerns relating to my edits on gender-related issues. I have responded to your concern about removal of the template titled "Part of series on Antisemitism" from the article Ernst Zundel here Lmatt (talk) 00:52, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

• I'm not terribly interested in your suggestions, so please keep them to yourself in the future.
  Once a AN/I report is open, all of the the behavior of the editor reported is open to investigation. The antisemitism-related editing is a subject I expressed concern about on my talk page earlier this week, [168] just after you were blocked for 31 hours by@Bbb23:. It's just as relevant to this report as are edits which attempted to format columns in multiple articles using non-standard units, and to change {{reflist}} to <references /> in multiple articles. All of these -- the transgender edits, the antisemitism edits, and the MoS edits -- have been disruptive in one way or another, and are therefore appropriate to discuss here in a report about your disruptive editing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:32, 16 September 2019 (UTC) Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:23, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

• Please note, Beyond My Ken has placed a unilateral ban on comments from myself to his talk page. Lmatt (talk) 02:02, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

• Yeah, you were being a nuisance. And...?
  If you're trying to show that I think you're a disruptive editor, and therefore that I am not unbiased in regard to your behavior, I'll cop to that. I've thought that you were disruptive since you first popped up on my radar about 5 days ago with this edit to an article on my watchlist. Further investigation confirmed that you were making a lot of disruptive edits. So, yes, I think you're a disruptive editor -- does that make my report of your disruption any less informative to other editors? Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:39, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

• @Beyond My Ken: You banned me from your talk page after I made two comments warning you about edit warring. I would not have taken the time to warn you had you not had this notice on your talk page: BMK is attempting to hold himself to a 2RR limit. Please contact him if you see him going past that. These warnings were not unwarranted as you had made 2R on a 1RR page and 3R on another page. I am not trying to show that you biased, but that you are behaving in an uncivil manner. In regard to the diff you posted, if you wish to discuss it please do so on the talk page. Lmatt (talk) 04:12, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

• So, let me get this straight, your answer to the complaint made by a number of editors that you are editing Wikipedia disruptively is ... wait for it ... that I banned you from my talk page? Since that is not relevant to this complaint initiated by Gwen Hope and joined by Mathglot and Nblund -- which it most certainly isn't -- I suggest you address yourself to the complaint instead of wasting everyone's time with irrelevancies. Why I banned you is my concern, but your WP:TENDITIOUS behavior in this very thread gives everyone a pretty good idea of why I did it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:23, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

@Lmatt:, BMK is well within his rights to ask you not to post on his talk page. Buffs (talk) 04:31, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

@Buffs: Thanks for the clariifcation, but I have already been given guidance of this at Wikipedia:Teahouse § Talk page ban by Beyond My Ken. Lmatt (talk) 05:05, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

As a result of this conversation and a review of their recent edits, I have blocked Lmatt for disruptive editing for 72 hours. If this behavioral pattern resumes, their editing career may well come to an end quite soon. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:20, 16 September 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:Swakutty - ongoing problems, especially WP:CIR and likely sockpuppetry

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.

---

• Swakutty (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Other editors involved: AussieLegend, Begoon, Ravensfire

Swakutty is an ongoing problem with severe competency issues, disruptive editing and now, apparently, some sockpuppetry involvement. Begoon, Ravensfire and I have been attempting to get Swakutty on the straight and narrow but we've been unsuccessful and it's clear that it's time to solve the problem once and for all. Swakutty's edits have been problematic since he started editing in June 2019. He has been blocked for a week for copyright problems as the result of uploading images. An example of the issues that we've seen was when he uploaded File:Neelima Rani.jpg here as a non-free image. He then uploaded the same file at commons as a free file.[169] IIRC, a number of files were uploaded without source or licensing information and most files that he uploaded were oversize and had to be reduced to comply with WP:NFCC. This continued for quite some time, even after multiple warnings, most of which Swakutty has removed from his talk page.[170] In some cases he restored oversize images after they had been reduced. He has improved in this but, because he has been told that oversize files are not appropriate, he has now progressed to unnecessarily reducing the sizes of images that are already WP:NFCC compliant. Today's examples are File:Azhagu serial.jpg, File:Minnale serial.jpg and File:Naayagi tv serial.jpg. Of course, he doesn't bother tagging the files with {{Orphaned non-free revisions}}; somebody else has to do that.

Swakutty's major issue though is that of article creation. He typically creates unsourced articles with little or no content. See, for example, this revision of Pandavar Illam (TV series), which consists only of an infobox. After these are moved to draft space, he usually asks that they be reviewed without any attempt to improve them. Such was the case with Draft:Tamil Selvi. This was not actually created by Swakutty, it was created by LoggoL. I moved this to draft shortly after it was created and after some fixes it languished in draft for over a month until Swakutty decided to submit it for review without any attempt to improve the article. I reverted the request as it would clearly be a waste of reviewers' time and the draft sat there for another month until Swakutty submitted it again, still without any attempt to improve it. The first time he submitted it for review I left a note on his talk page explaining the futility of submitting it for review,[171] but this was obviously ignored. The second time that he submitted the article I revisited the issue.[172] He had also submitted Draft:Mr. and Mrs. Chinnathirai for review on both occasions,[173] The second time that he submitted Draft:Mr. and Mrs. Chinnathirai, he had added added a single url thinking this would resolve the problems with the article.[174] This is the current situation, where he thinks that adding urls, whether or not they are used as references, will fix referencing problems. As I wote in this edit summary, he's just not getting the hint. He doesn't seem to comprehend what he is being told, even when told multiple times. Just prior to that the draft was reviewed and rejected so he decided to copy and paste the draft to Mr. and Mrs. Chinnathirai, ignoring the reviewer's comments, both at the draft and on his talk page.[175][176] I then had to address that on his talk page.[177] This continues to be a problem to this day. It is now at the point where consensus between Begoon, Ravensfire and me is that something needs to be done. Ravensfire has suggested I think asking for a topic ban on creating new pages in main space (only in draft) and not allowing moves from Draft to Main space (must go through approval process) would be appropriate and a far better option than a block.[178] I was willing to go along with this until Begoon noted that there has been evidence of sockpuppetry after he had just reverted a whole bunch of IP sock edits making links from mainspace articles to Swakutty's drafts and removing the AFC tags from the top of the draft pages to try to make them look more like articles.[179] I won't speak for Begoon or Ravensfire but, given the continuing problems with Swakutty that don't seem to be any closer to resolution than they were in June, I believe that an indef block is the best option for Wikipedia at this point. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:12, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Quick response as work vpn is blocked. Completely concur with the above. Swakutty edits generally Indian TV shows and actors which is a pretty lamentable mess of unsourced material and pure puffery. When concerns are raised enough times, they will sometimes adjust their behavior - see images, where they finally started to upload smaller images and not edit-war against bots reducing the file size. They don't communicate when concerns are raised, which is very troubling - their talk page has a rather long history of warnings, notes and advice. The unsourced and poorly sourced articles continuing is a significant concern for me, and the basis for my suggestion that they be limited to creating articles in Draft space only and not moving pages. Repeatedly resubmitting draft articles without making any improvements. Questionable sources, and frankly inadequate sourcing when they do add them. Ignoring specific feedback from reviewers. However, the recent obvious IP edits to copy/paste move reinforces a view I've had for a while on this editor - they don't care about Wikipedia policies, just getting their material in their preferred format in main space. I can't tell if this is undeclared paid editing or a huge fan, but leaning towards the former. Having additional eyes review their behavior and suggest options for handling will be very helpful. If Swakutty works within Wikipedia policies, they can be a net benefit. Right now, they are a time-waste. Ravensfire (talk) 14:40, 17 September 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.

Wikihounding, false accusations

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

---

BigDwiki (talk · contribs)

BigDWiki's edits came to my attention after I added University of South Alabama to my Watchlist in May. This editor created a rather large "Criticisms" section, which few other articles about universities have.

While attempting to mediate an edit war BigDWiki was involved in with a dynamic IP editor, I noticed that most (if not all) of BigDWiki's criticism edits were in violation of WP:NOTNEWS, WP:WEIGHT, and WP:SYNTH, and began to prune them. For example, the "Publicizing Student Arrests" in the linked criticism section used phrases such as "The university was widely criticized for the arrests," while the only source was a single opinion piece criticizing the way in which the university published the arrest. Another section was listing crime statistics from over six years ago.

BigDWiki took the dynamic IP editor to the edit warring noticeboard, and weighed in saying that BigDWiki was in fact edit warring against two other editors, myself included. BigDWiki has been cautioned by User:Ponyo [180] and User:Bradv [181] for edit-warring.

Yesterday, BigDWiki began hounding me, !voting in the only two AFD's I'd created in the last week [182],[183]. I cautioned BigDWiki regarding the Wikihounding with a link to the policy, and added notes for the closer identifying those !votes as clear hounding. Following that, BigDWiki doubled-down and accused me of "evading blocks" and "improper AFD nominations" without providing evidence for either silly accusation.

I'm an admin, but per WP:INVOLVED I'd prefer others to weigh in. I've formally notified BigDWiki of this report. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:35, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I'll take a look. KillerChihuahua 13:36, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

• Puppy's View: BigDwIki is definitely in need of more careful reading and application of WP:NotNews and WP:NPOV. There's been a good bit of edit warring on the University of South Alabama article, mostly involving the contested information (rape, arson, assault articles from the news). BigDWiki isn't regularly involved on AFD, so his appearance there on the two articles Ohnoitsjamie placed there does show evidence of stalking, albeit that may have been fairly innocent in intent. However, that BigDwiki has ALSO attempted to character assassinate ONIJ there is hounding and battle; I will note that ONIJ may have aggravated things a bit by accusing BigDwiki of stalking on the AFD entries. BigDwiki, the correct response would have been to deny stalking with ill intent if such was the case, not to try to undermine ONIJ's allegations with counter accusations and bringing up irrelevant old blocks. I have warned BigDwiki on the afd; I will await his response here. KillerChihuahua 13:55, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

There's not really a reason to respond. User:Ohnoitsjamie is only trying to get his/her colleague admins to pile on support. He/she was engaged in an edit war, as was I. I have stopped editing the page in question. Voting on two AfD's this month is not uncommon as I have made two nominations to AfD in the past month as well.

Further, Killer if you "warned on the AfD", why would it be improper for me to respond to your warning there when that is where the warning was made? BigDwiki (talk) 14:11, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Because I said in plain English, "Take your arguments to WP:ANI. BigDwiki, if I see you arguing this anywhere else, I WILL block for hounding." Except now you've turned your argumentative attitude towards me, and have made THREE posts there continuing to argue, on EACH AFD (total of 6 edits after being told to keep your discussion here on ANI). Are you TRYING to get blocked? Do you think AFD is the correct venue for a discussion or argument about ANYTHING except the articles in question? Allow me to clue you in; it's for AFD discussion. THIS is where you should put all your vitriol and disagreement with both ONIJ and with myself. You're scattering your hostility and arguments on pages which are for other purposes. KillerChihuahua 14:18, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Then WHY didn't you make the SAME comments towards User:Ohnoitsjamie? You allowed his/her attacks to remain unopposed, but specifically told me to take mine elsewhere.BigDwiki (talk) 14:22, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Stay here BigDwiki. Don't go posting about this conflict anywhere else. Now, tell me, what do you need in order to settle down and no longer feel the need to fight? Jehochman ^Talk 14:24, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree, the discussion should be kept here. But as long as these attacks keep coming, I'm going to respond. My contributions were reverted and exactly what I am being told to do/not do is being done by the other editor without any admonishment...probably because he/she holds a mop.BigDwiki (talk) 14:30, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

No. If an administrator tells you NOT to respond, do not respond. The correct action is to bring a dif of the attack against you here. Responding there is a very poor idea, and adds evidence that you have a battleground mentality. KillerChihuahua 14:46, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Because ONIJ had made one post, which was relevant, and had ALREADY brought the issue here. He's experienced enough to know not to continue there. He didn't need the instructions. You not only clearly needed them; you've ignored them repeatedly. It's like a small child versus an adult. You tell a child not to touch the hot stove. You assume the adult already knows. You not only didn't know (as evidenced by your post there attacking ONIJ with irrelevant block data and unsupported accusations), you are still not listening. Six more edits after I told you to stop. Does that seem intelligent to you? Do you think you're making a case for you being a level headed, helpful editor, or a case for you needing to be hit with a bigger stick before you'll behave? KillerChihuahua 14:29, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

• After being told to cease arguing on the afds, BigDwiki thought it was better to make snide comments rather than come here with his accusations, as I instructed. I am not impressed with his understanding of BATTLE, or indeed his ability to restrain himself from attacking ONIJ even when directly and clearly told not to by an administrator (me). [184] and [185] both occurred after I stated "do not continue this here, but post on ANI" (paraphrased and shortened). KillerChihuahua 14:11, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

  Wow, he's still at it. KillerChihuahua 14:13, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) BigDwiki is refusing to discuss their edits on the talk page of the article, instead commenting on other editors and following them around to other pages. This is disruptive editing, and will result in a block. – bradv🍁 14:15, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Ohnoitsjamie made many rerversions of my well-sourced contributions and refused to discuss his/her edits on the talk page. This is disruptive editing, and will result in a block.BigDwiki (talk) 14:26, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

@BigDwiki: Please provide specific diffs of the edits so we can evaluate them. —C.Fred (talk) 14:29, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Sure. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. BigDwiki (talk) 14:33, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

@BigDwiki: Other than the last one, all of those edits are very clearly following Wikipedia policy and are in no way disruptive. The last one, while it appears to involve editorial discretion, is still not disruptive. —C.Fred (talk) 14:37, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm not seeing a problem with the last one - the edit summary correctly advises BDW to take the desired edits to the talk page and gain consensus. KillerChihuahua 14:43, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) How about you take that page off your watch list for 48 hours. If you want to go back and continue working on it, post your proposed changes to the talk page first and ask for feedback. Let's see who answers. Feel free to ping me with {{ping|Jehochman}} (just in case you didn't know how to use that, maybe you do), and I will try to mediate the discussion so that your views get heard. Be patient. Sometimes the working here is slow, but that's necessary when its a team effort. Jehochman ^Talk 14:31, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

BigDwiki, this is not the same thing at all. The WP:ONUS is on you to seek consensus for the material you want to add. – bradv🍁 14:32, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

The edit history of University of South Alabama is pretty straightforward. The "Criticisms" section was created solely by BigDWiki; several IP editors have objected to parts of it (hard to say how many IP editors, as at least one appears to be dynamic). I stepped in and sided with the IP editors on the grounds that much of the "Criticism" content violated the policies I enumerated above (NOTNEWS, WEIGHT, SYNTH). Here I suggested that BigDWiki seek consensus on the talk page, and here I suggested an RfC. A good argument could be made the none of the "Criticisms" section is appropriate, as I haven't been able to find any other precedents on articles about universities where we list crime incidents and lawsuits that haven't garnered national attention. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:41, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

To assume good faith, these are more advanced Wikipedia content standards that many users don't yet understand. The first step is finding content that can be verified. If the user has done that, it's a good start. Jehochman ^Talk 14:54, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

• Questions for User:BigDwiki ; You made several accusations at AFD. Please provide difs of the following:

1. (User:OhNoItsJamie) has a history of … evading blocks and

   Replace with your difs here

2. (User:OhNoItsJamie) continues to make false allegations against editors

   Replace with your difs here

3. (User:OhNoItsJamie) also has a history of improper AfD nominations

   Replace with your difs here

Thanks much - KillerChihuahua 15:57, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

• NOTE: BigDwiki is now warring with me on the afd page. I had hatted the inappropriate argumentation there, with a link to here. See this and this. Really strongly leaning towards blocking now. He's doubling down on the warring on Afd, and ignoring the requests for information and explanation here. KillerChihuahua 16:26, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Absolute nonsense. You purposefully hatted only my rebuttle to the attack made against me. You specifically left the attack against me unhatted. When I edited to hat the entire thread, including both attacks, you started warring. Either leave the entire discussion hatted or unhatted, don't pick and choose what to hide. BigDwiki (talk) 16:30, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Now, Killer has edited the two AfDs to hide my comments and leave the attack against me visaible. I edited this to hide ALL comments, including the attack against me and the subsequent accusations I made, and he is reverting it. BigDwiki (talk) 16:27, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I think a block would've been appropriate prior to the AfD warring, but it seems pretty slam-dunk appropriate now. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:30, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. And the AfD votes should be removed as done in bad faith, rather than just hatted. – bradv🍁 16:31, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I didn't hat his !vote, I only hatted his unsubstantiated and irrelevant accusations - and he moved ONIJ's relevant note to be also inside the hatted area - and then when I reverted, he reverted again, which I of course am ignoring. Another editor can take action on the Afds if they wish; I've seen enough to know that BDW is here to EW, argue, and wage war against any who disagree. He's failed also to provide requested difs of his several allegations against ONIJ, as well. KillerChihuahua 16:56, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I have blocked BigDwiki; I will copy the requests for difs to his page and give him an opportunity to justify his accusations. KillerChihuahua 17:04, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

My mistake, we're NOT done. He's removed my block notice, which he has every right to do, but has ALSO removed my request to substantiate his accusations with difs. See this. I welcome input from others as to how to handle that. Is he effectively withdrawing his accusations? Is he flouting legitimate requests to support serious allegations he's made against another editor? Ignore? Indef until he decides to be reasonable? Something else? Please place your thoughts below, thank you! KillerChihuahua 17:14, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

KillerChihuahua, I think closing this was the right call. BigDwiki does not need to answer questions while they're blocked, except in the context of an appeal. – bradv🍁 17:20, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

If no one has a differing view, then, I'll reclose this in a few minutes - or if anyone else wants to just close as is, I have no objection. KillerChihuahua 17:25, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I have no objections to closing. Hopefully the disruption will not resume in 48 hours. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:57, 16 September 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.

• rebuttle – I’m offering a prize for the best definition of this word. EEng 18:20, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

• Rebuttle: to smoke using a discarded cigarette butt. What's the prize? Jeb³_{Talk at me here} 18:23, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

  This, obviously, and I'm surprised no one's offered that as an answer to my original challenge. EEng 03:29, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

• Rebuttle: To repeatedly provide services as a butler. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:52, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
• A written refutation so rife with misspellings that it serves as its own rebuttal. —Cryptic 03:19, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
• To rebuttal and belittle at the same time. 50.35.82.234 (talk) 06:02, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

User:KMeyer

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.

---

KMeyer (talk · contribs)'s block expired at 05:20 and just 34 minutes later the user is making a WP:POINTy report of David Gerard at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Blockchain and cryptocurrencies despite the notice "Editors who log a notification here are also considered to be aware of the sanctions.". Despite TonyBallioni's offer/request KMeyer is clearly unwilling to "drop whatever fight you think you’re in and move on". Cabayi (talk) 09:34, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

• KMeyer's edit should be reverted per WP:POINT. Were it being discussed at ANI, I would do so myself. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:48, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Just noting that I went ahead and notified TonyBallioni and David Gerard about this discussion. OhKayeSierra (talk) 09:50, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • On what grounds, Andy? - KMeyer 10:34, 17 September 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by KMeyer (talk • contribs) 11:34, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
• Is this related to Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 148#David Gerard's contributions and 23.241.127.109 (talk · contribs) which is contemporary and intersects on the same articles and talk pages? It seems to be related to Wikipedia talk:General sanctions/Blockchain and cryptocurrencies#Please remove me from this list, certainly. Uncle G (talk) 10:00, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • He's similarly claiming a COI on my part which he won't substantiate when asked. Is also repeatedly POINTily removing wikiproject listing from Talk:InterPlanetary File System. I have suggested trying to work with others - David Gerard (talk) 10:05, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
    • David, I said potential conflict of interest; that’s not asserting conflicting interest. And the potential there is the same angle everyone knows about— your self published blockchain book. I’m not making up anything; you wrote it on your own user page. I’m not sure what obligation you think I have to substantiate a claim that I haven’t made? -KMeyer — Preceding unsigned comment added by KMeyer (talk • contribs) 11:29, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
• Trying to work with others here but not as familiar with Wikipedia bureaucracy as the rest of y’all. No idea what most of these various WP:FOO jargon you keep bringing up are. Really not sure what needs (re-)litigating here. David’s arguments for categorizing a distributed file system as a cryptocurrency, to paraphrase, are not especially substantive and mostly just unsourced assertions. I’m not the only editor to find categorizing a file system as a cryptocurrency odd. Apologies for brevity, I’m on a mobile device. -KMeyer 10:29, 17 September 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by KMeyer (talk • contribs)
• @Cabayi, timing is pure coincidence. I missed the notice you describe. -KMeyer 10:34, 17 September 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by KMeyer (talk • contribs) 11:34, 17 September 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.

Revision Deletion

[186] Could someone revision delete this edit? Thanks. (RD3) James-the-Charizard (talk) 12:34, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Why? It is basic vandalism, which has been reverted. It's not RD3, it's

Silly vandalism

Adding profanity, graffiti, or patent nonsense to pages; creating nonsensical and obviously unencyclopedic pages, etc. It is one of the most common forms of vandalism. -- KillerChihuahua 12:38, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Well ok RD3 probably doesn’t apply that revision happens to contain my actual personal name... James-the-Charizard (talk) 12:45, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

 Done. You might have a word or two with your father.-- Deepfriedokra 12:48, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Oh crapola, sorry. Agree that you might want to talk to Dad about this. So sorry. KillerChihuahua 13:31, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Also, James-the-Charizard, as noted in the gigantic pink edit notice for this page, this is one of the worst places on the entire project to ask for privacy-related deletion. —DoRD (talk)​ 13:47, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

KillerChihuahua Thanks for the concern. DoRD Yeah I rushed to here when I realized the help desk was a bad place to ask... I didn't consider the pink notice (I had been on mobile) because I wanted it revdeleted fast. Thankfully with that I think i'm ok now, since privacy is now... private. I will talk to my Dad off-wiki later today. James-the-Charizard (talk) 14:30, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

EEng agression

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.

---

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

Here experienced user EEng makes a violent threat to an (unknown) editor. I suggested some reduction on their talkpage [187], but no effect happened [[188]]. I propose the offending edit be removed per WP:REVDEL, or the editor be blocked. -DePiep (talk) 22:36, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Let me add that this edit is completely irrelevant. Not helpful. Useless. -DePiep (talk) 22:56, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Pardon me while I jump off a bridge. – Levivich 22:38, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

??? -DePiep (talk) 22:56, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

I just don't think we should hang someone because they used an extremely common expression, even if it does invoke violent imagery. – Levivich 23:00, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

It was merely a figure of speech. I highly doubt that EEng favors gun violence towards anyone. GoodDay (talk) 22:40, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

How do you know? -DePiep (talk) 22:56, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Maybe it's an overly American figure of speech, what with the level of violence :) , but it's clearly a figure of speech. (Note also that there's a disclaimer in the edit summary.) —C.Fred (talk) 22:44, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Maybe, sure. Then why did EEng not correct/refine their post when asked to do so? -DePiep (talk) 22:56, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Because they didn't want to? Because they already made a note that they weren't at all serious? Because this isn't actually a big deal? Beeblebrox (talk) 23:06, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Because they didn't want to? -- Then redact or withdraw, but EEng did not do so. Why do you speculate this 'help' for what EEng themselves could but does not write? Because they already made a note -- Their note said they didn't bother. this isn't actually a big deal? -- Then EEng could have said so. So far, their agression stands. -DePiep (talk) 23:31, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

"EEng agression" is oxymoronic. And misspelled! --A D Monroe III^(talk) 23:14, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

• There is no problem here. Its a figure of speech, and EEng made it clear that it was not an actual threat; it echoed a common sentiment that the WP/MOS namespace difference is confusing and poorly designed. Lets close this before it becomes a general referendum on EEng or place to air general grudges. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 23:21, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

• (ec) re all: it is an agressive expression, and EEng did not care to retract one syllable. Those who defend EEng (why so btw?): claiming "fig of speech" etc is gross. Even EEng themselves did not claim so -- instead, the opposite. -DePiep (talk) 23:24, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
• No. DePiep, it's a figure of speech. I do not think you should pursue this any further. Drmies (talk) 23:26, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
• DePiep, your history of being incapable of dropping the stick is not going to work in your favour here. EEng is under no requirement to kowtow to you in any way. It's a common figure of speech and EEng made reference that it was intended as such in their edit summary. Go focus on something else.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:30, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
• I had a friend once (we've long since lost touch) who was literally incapable of understanding hyperbole, jokes, or other non-literal forms of speech. It was very amusing telling him things that we all understood were not literally true but he didn't, watching him react, and then letting him know that it was not true so that he'd be in on the joke as well (as he was a friend and we wanted to laugh with him, not at him). This somehow reminds me of that, except for the part about being in on the joke once informed that it was a joke, and also the part about ending on ANI instead of in laughter. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:33, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
• Let's have EEng beaten with a wet noodle and call it a day. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 23:34, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
• Looks like EEng has more friends than I have. Over here. -DePiep (talk) 23:35, 17 September 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.

Zenodo and copyright

This is not a user conduct issue, so not pinging the editors tangentially involved, it's a copyright and links policy question.

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive996 § Nemo bis discusses Zenodo
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive968 § Possible copyright violating links issue seems to have been ignored but includes evidence of large-scale copyright violation
• This diff [189] links to a Zenodo scrape of a ResearchGate upload of an Elsevier journal article, with absolutely no evidence of release by the rights owners

The problem I am seeing is that Zenodo is on the OABot list, so people using OABot to add free to read links are very often including links to Zenodo, which applies, as far as I can tell, no checks at all for copyright status. It's not quite sci-hub, but it'as a problem per WP:C because what you get on Zenodo may be a pre-review copy (which may not be the same as the final published article) or it may be an upload of a published article in a paywalled journal, either by an author or by someone else. Neither the authors nor third parties have rights to upload copyright material to repositories like this.

As far as I can tell, an article that identifies as being http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2015.04.040 cannot, per policy, be linked here from a third-party site that does not have a clear statement of right to host. I am not even sure we can make an exception for uploads in authors' own institutional web pages, because the copyright status there is also dodgy, but that's another question I guess.

As far as I can recall, we have always applied a bright line rule: if the person linking a document cannot show clearly that the site on which it is hosted, is either the rights owner or is hosting it by permission, it has to be excluded. This was always the rule for, for example, scans of newspaper articles and the like.

I need to check if my understanding of copyright policy is correct here, because if it is, we have to get the OABot folks to remove Zenodo from their source list, and then either roll back all OABot additions of Zenodo or review every single one by hand, and that is an absolute mountain of work. Guy (help!) 20:52, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I'm also concerned by this. WP:COPYLINK states our policy that we may not link to copyright violations (but we can, of course, link to copyright material). So that is a bright line so far as copyright ever is. The policy also states that we may link to internet archives such as Wayback because archives are not, of themselves, copyright violations. However, undoubtedly some of these archived pages will actually be of copyright violations but we hope they are sufficiently few that we do not ban all linking to Wayback "even if there are possible copyright violations somewhere on the site". Where does Zenodo fit in? Quite a few pages on my watchlist have had Zenodo added to them recently and some seem to be of documents that have fallen out of copyright but where the DOI link only gives obstructed access. However, a recent link was added to a Zenodo copy of this DOI which hence looks to me to be a copyright violation. Am I right? I think I found other such dubious links but I have lost track of them. Thincat (talk) 18:16, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Jytdog's analysis of one editor's additions for a day showed 40% were copyright violations. I think the problem is significant enough that we should not be including Zenodo in OABot's list. Anything more than a minimal chance of being either a copyright violation or not the actual published paper should be disqualifying for an automated process, right? Guy (help!) 10:47, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

I raised the use of Zenodo via OABot in the thread at User_talk:PedjaNbg#Adding_redundant_links_to_articles_with_existing_DOI_links. Slightly different concern as the specific examples I was referring to are definitely out of copyright in the US but we seem to be encouraging a breach of JSTOR's terms and conditions nonetheless. - Sitush (talk) 11:38, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Specifically on the issue of copyright, I was always told by Moonriddengirl that we do not allow links to scribd.com because of the copyright issues. Zenodo seems to raise the same concern. - Sitush (talk) 11:50, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Harshil169 is wikihounding me

User:Harshil169 is continuing to add deletion tags on every page that I am creating for no rhyme or reason like he did to List of Jain Empires and Dynasties and see my talk page he wants to delete my every page and is continuously wikihounding me — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rishabh.rsd (talk • contribs) 06:55, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Please follow the instruction at the top of this noticeboard and inform Harshil169 that you have filed this report. El_C 06:59, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

done.... Rishabh.rsd (talk) 07:24, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I am accused and explaining my side here. I contest speedy deletion of the many pages in a single day, I also revert edits those are vandalism and not good for Wikipedia. It is regular practice for me and User:Rishabh.rsd is no more exemption in this practice. I had already gave warnings on talk page and explained my all edits in my summary. Administrators can check it.

Now, comes to the topic. This user is adding honorific suffix and prefix like Acharya, Lord, Bhagwan, Swami, Ji (like sir) and Shri; after I explained that this is not practice of Wikipedia. Such things can be find 1,2, 3, 4, and 5. These are just example of WP:BIAS and violation of WP:NPOV. Most of his edits are like these. He also added same type of edits in the highly used template of Jainism by adding word Suri and Swami behind it without gaining consensus. It can be find here.

Not only this, he is removing the deletion template from the pages like he did twice at Anti-Jain Sentiments (now deleted) and once at here.

Complain regarding WP:Civility. This user complained that I am wikihounding him but he hid the fact that he called me as hypocrite Talk:Anti-Jain Sentiments. Now, it is deleted but old revisions may be available to admin side. He also told that whether I am in my sense or not at here.-- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 07:51, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

And this User:Harshil169 didn't mentioned unessecery deletion tags placed on List of Jain Empires and Dynasties and Sanat Kumara Chakravarti. See that page's history... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rishabh.rsd (talk • contribs) 08:07, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Come on Rishabh.rsd. I already explained why I put deletion templates on the pages you made. Rationale has been explained well in the AfD. And one page Jagathitkarani has already been deleted by admin. So, don't be personal here. Stay on policies. -- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 16:39, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

• My initial impression is that whilst Rishabh.rsd might have reasons to feel harassed, Harshil's continued scrutiny were for entirely legitimate reasons and for the betterment of encyclopedia. ∯WBG^converse 13:56, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Winged Blades of Godric Thanks for understanding. I learnt lots of things from you. -- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 16:34, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Harshil169 has again started wikihounding me see history of pages Trishala and King Sagara I am manually undoing vandalism of anonymous users on articles by seeing history and this user is again and again undoing it for no rhyme or reason. Rishabh.rsd (talk) 09:30, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Also see Doxography pages history Rishabh.rsd (talk) 09:34, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

• I consider these type of complaints without proper sources as personal attack on me. Hence, I am reporting to Administrators about personal attack. -- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 05:03, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Repetitive personal attack on me.

I am Harshil Mehta and User:Rishabh.rsd is assuming good faith on my edits and he did personal attacks on me which harmed my online presence on Wikipedia. I reverted some of his edits, with summary, which were not constructive and gave warnings about it on his talk page too. Still, he didn't improve his edits and started adding honorific suffixes and prefixes on articles. And lastly, he attacked personally. Not once, he repeated this behavior many times and this is violation of WP:Civility, and WP:PA, and hence, I am complaining to the Wikipedia administrators about his behavior.

1. See, Talk:Anti-Jain Sentiments. User was started Whataboutery in deletion discuss and when I stopped him to do so then he labelled me as hypocrite.
2. Not only this, he complained that I am harassing him (without any proof) to two editors [same message though, which is also called as disruptive editing]. They can be found here and here. Calling someone as harasser and not assuming good faith in their edits is violation of WP:Civility.
3. He went on to saying that I lost my all sense at here when he made article of one line and I contested it for deletion.
4. He even complained on administrator board and wrote with my username that I am wikihounding him and that too without any evidences and details. My defence on this can be found here. This behavior is WP:Uncivil.

Here is my complaint to the Administrators about this user which harmed my online presence and discouraged me. Wikipedia is not battleground and I am already cool till now. I request administrators to block him on this type of serial offence towards an individual. Regards, -- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 05:35, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi I am getting a feeling of harrasment and I don't think I have to give a proof for it, also I said u are wikihounding me see page King Sagara and other pages also how u r undoing my edits for no reason.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rishabh.rsd (talk • contribs) 07:51, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Your feeling to get harassment is not proof that I harassed you. Provide evidences. If you want to report WP:Harassment then it’s necessary to provide evidences, otherwise, unnecessary accusations are violation of WP:Civility.— Harshil ^{want to talk?} 11:56, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

First of all I didn't use the word harass and never accuse u of harassment in any of my complaints so it's not a matter to be proved and I just asked that r u in ur senses and never said that u have lost ur senses please don't fill words in my mouth Rishabh.rsd (talk) 10:11, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Note: an existing thread "#User:Harshil169 is wikihounding me" above, is related to the same users.--DBigXrayᗙ 06:39, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Combined. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:00, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Persistent personal attacks by Jackgrimm1504

• Jackgrimm1504 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

@Jackgrimm1504: is a newly-created single-purpose account. He has 36 edits total, and 6 of those I would count as personal attacks directed toward me and @Xx236:

1. [190]
2. [191]
3. [192]
4. [193]
5. [194]
6. [195]

• he has decided that I am "marked" as a "level 5 vandal". Elizium23 (talk) 21:45, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Just a quick marginally-useful note that addressed one tiny aspect of this: I suspect Jackgrimm1504 is misunderstanding {{Vandalism_information}}, which is transcluded on Elizium23's talk page. Jack, that is showing the level of vandalism on Wikipedia as a whole, not characterizing vandalism from Elizium. Elizium is not a vandal.

I'll leave it to others to wade thru the diffs and decide what to do about everything else. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:16, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

In which case, everything's cool, because WikiDefCon 5 is the lowest level of vandalism overall :-) Elizium23 (talk) 22:21, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

I mean, it's kinda cool, but it's not that cool. His harassing behavior towards Elizum23 (talk · contribs) is pretty unacceptable. He seems to be on some kind of crusade to right great wrongs on the topic of Poland. If this passion can be channeled towards productive editing, that would be great, but either way he can't go around taking such a battleground mentality towards other users. Michepman (talk) 03:29, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't like Piotr Rybak (a Polish anti-Semitic activist). But either we support total freedom of speach or we define limits of the freedom for all participants. Xx236 (talk) 06:41, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

This is deeply stupid. All of WP:CIVILITY, WP:BLP, WP:FRINGE, WP:NLT, etc. are restrictions on some kinds of speech, and they are all essential to the proper functioning of this project. --JBL (talk) 14:41, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

These comments by Xx236, in regards to LGBT and reliable sources in Poland, are very concerning:

1. [196] - British culture has been anti-Catholic since ages. The reader should be informed about the bias. Burning of Catholic Guy Fawkes effigy is a part of British culture.Xx236 (talk) 07:04, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
2. [197] - If Elżbiet Podleśna is a civil right activist, Piotr Rybak is one too. And the anti-LGBT ideology protesters are ones. Who decides which rights are better? The Daily Telegraph?Xx236 (talk) 07:07, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Comparing civil rights activist Elżbieta Podleśna (described as such by - BBC for instance) with Piotr Rybak - who is covered in the context of "The 50 protestors from the Polish Independence Movement were led by Piotr Rybak, who was once jailed for burning an effigy of a Jew." in the context of: "Far-right Polish nationalists organised an anti-Semitic protest during a Holocaust Memorial Day ceremony at Auschwitz. per Independent. Other commentary challenging mainstream RSes has been made on those pages. Jackgrimm1504, who is a new account, definitely had some cause for concern here.Icewhiz (talk) 07:44, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm also very concerned regarding the future of this Wikipedia. I expect a Wikiprison for not-enough-progressive editors.Xx236 (talk) 08:49, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

@François Robere: has joined in and rehashed Jackgrimm1504's canard, alleging that I have a "conflict of interest", and therefore should not be editing an LGBT-related topic. This was brought up in article talk space and not on my user talk page or on WP:COIN. I have disclosed that I am a member of an organization, and therefore I will not be making edits related to that organization, but I fail to see how the article in question is related to my affiliations. Elizium23 (talk) 20:54, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

No idea who Jackgrimm1504 is. The concern is that someone affiliated with an organization that has been politically active on the subject (in this case LGBTQ rights) may have a COI when approaching it. François Robere (talk) 00:18, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Terminology concern: I believe this is more "potential bias" than "COI." Given that Elizium23 is associated with a Roman Catholic diocese and the Knights of Columbus, there's a good chance they're Catholic, which means that they may hold certain beliefs independently of their affiliation with those organizations. That does not cross the line into COI in my opinion. Per WP:COINOTBIAS: Beliefs and desires may lead to biased editing, but they do not constitute a COI. It's also unclear exactly what "affiliation" means in this case - member of? employed by? If the former, then (for example) anyone religious would automatically have a COI with anything their religion has an opinion on. If the latter, it's a bit of a gray area since the line between "personal belief" and "affiliation" is very fine in this situation, but I'm inclined to say that this isn't COI. creffett (talk) 00:35, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

I feel that it is a foregone conclusion that I have inherent biases because of my beliefs and identity. I also felt that justice requires me to disclose my affiliations, and yes, in the past I have edited articles on the topics with which I am directly affiliated; I have resolved to stop doing that, and disclosure was a good way to keep me honest. I do not feel that this article talk page is the right forum for having a discussion about my biases or anyone else's, because the article talk page is for building consensus and improving the article. If anyone feels that I have a COI, there is a noticeboard for raising concerns and I am happy to address good-faith questions placed on my user talk page. But I won't apologize or refrain from editing in contentious subject areas, and I wish to be open to constructive criticism from people who say things like: "hey, aren't your beliefs and prejudices beginning to get in the way of objectively participating as an editor and amicably working out disputes with people different from you?" Yes, I think that our personal circumstances can lead to bad decisions here, and if I were in a better mood or having a better life, I probably wouldn't be here in the first place. Frankly I regret that my bias has been so arch-conservative and unyieldingly unforgiving of anyone on the other side of the fence. That's why I will never be an admin here, and that's why I've been taking significant wikibreaks, because it's not fair to innocent bystanders like you that I get a catharsis from arguing about trifles all day. Elizium23 (talk) 00:49, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

You may refrain from those arguments yourselves. The day LGBT-free zones were chosen for the DYK you began to erase a lot of information from that article, including my edit. I may be new to Wiki and misunderstood the "vandalism scale". But your began a "crusade" against me, as if asking if you're not biased is a capital crime. You can sort that yourself really, or well for instance - don't care, if your truly believe in what you're doing. I hereby apologize you if my "accusations" were wrong, and can we put this to an end? It feels really silly to be hopping around whole Wikipedia about an editiorial argue in one single topic. Everyone can read the whole story at Talk:LGBT-free zone themselves Jackgrimm1504 (talk) 08:28, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

• I note that this is a very new editor who may not have realized they were stepping into a drama situation. I think this person is likely well-intentioned and just needs to get some experience. I don't think they even realized that bringing up suspicions about other people's motives was something they shouldn't be doing. I think a warning and advice to read our policies about civility, personal attacks, and assuming good faith is probably sufficient. --valereee (talk) 12:58, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

He seems to misunderstand more than that; he hasn't grasped salient aspects of WP:N, WP:SPS, and so forth, and he's using his misunderstandings to advance his side of the content dispute. If he's gonna argue for inclusion of stuff, it's gonna need to be based in a sound understanding of consensus, policy, what's acceptable on the project. But it is not really my job to hold his hand, and no matter how accurately I present facts, it won't get through anyway. (I am not sure how he wouldn't guess that the topic is contentious: he identifies as gay and Polish), but perhaps he underestimates the interest of English-speaking editors in what he considers a "niche" and insignificant event (and yes, for perspective, this is a niche and insignificant event; Icewhiz's efforts to push DYKs of this sort are the only reason they've come to our attention.) Elizium23 (talk) 20:02, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Niche doesn't mean that something is insigificant. Niche means "having specific appeal". The LGBT related topics are Niche in themselves, because LGBT community is a whole is only a fraction of society and therefore topics regarding them are usually not interesting to the rest of the society, not for any other reason than that they simply do not concern them. I still do not understand why do you so presistently bash that petition, but it has been removed, end of discussion, what else do you expect? Elizium I did apologize, but now you're acting as if you believe that I'm not doing something in good faith. So do those policies work both ways or do they not? And you don't have problem with me alone back in LGBT-free zone article, but with several other editors too. I too feel that you're doing a personal attack one me just because I'm new and I'm an easy target. Jackgrimm1504 (talk) 22:15, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Well, I'm sorry that I have made it personal, but truly there's nothing personal about my feelings on this topic or your behavior. In my years at Wikipedia I've seen all sorts of editors come and go (mostly go) and so I really have no dog in the fight if you wanna stick around awhile and try to collaborate with you. I admit that I need to keep WP:BITE in mind: you are new and not well-versed in policy, so it's tempting for me (and others) to play "gotcha!" rather than just patiently laying out the situation and guiding you toward a productive career here. So, yes, mea culpa. I think you have a good heart, and good intentions, and you registered here because you feel passionate about this one topic, and you should feel welcome and safe here to use your talents to build the article. Regarding the article topic, I simply cannot object to content that's properly sourced and meets policies. No matter my bias or yours, we're not allowed to put personal bias ahead of what's good for Wikipedia. So, unbeknownst to many, I spend quite a bit of time here reviewing material that I really don't like seeing but I decline to challenge it, because points of view other than my own are equally important and equally valuable to readers. The unfortunate reality is that many editors (even me) try to insert information that has no business being there, and being a habitual deletionist, I've appointed myself as the guy who, like Michelangelo, "chips away anything that doesn't look like David." I often regret being incapable/unwilling to write tons of original content and build up articles rather than tearing 'em down, but we need both kinds of people here, for balance. Elizium23 (talk) 23:46, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

user pretending to be an admin, threatening

I edited a the Carnival Row page to include viewer reviews with the critics reviews because of a stark difference in critics and viewers.   I posted I disagreed, as the rule has a hypocritical double standard on opinions.  But also made a dyslexic post "can you be more hypocritical when I meant can IT be more hypocritical.  Another poster User talk:The Mirror Cracked/Archives/ 2#message jumps in with a personal message and a threat on my IP user page pretending to be an admin twice (User_talk:96.31.177.52).  This user is pretending to be an admin to bully others to force agreement with their opinion. Threatened me, deleted the threat when called on it. And followed me to the rules discussion page to bully more when I tried to civilly discuss what I felt was a problem with critics as reliable sources. 96.31.177.52 (talk) 03:34, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

I twice warned the IP for making personal attacks. Once for this edit where they accused @Alex 21: of hypocrisy, which I believe falls under WP:NPA. The second warning was for this edit on my talk page, which is clearly intended to be a personal attack. At no point did I pretend to be an admin. The warnings I left on their talk page are two of the standard user warnings. I dispute 96.31.177.52's characterisation of my interactions with them as bullying, and I did not "follow" them to Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, I was the editor who alerted them about that page. I also dispute that the IP's edits were civil and encourage interested parties to read their Contributions (and mine, of course) The Mirror Cracked (talk) 03:41, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

96.31.17.52: The Mirror Cracked is not an admin, but I am. Mirror has not pretended to be an admin, nor have they violated any norms. They quickly admitted their own mistake in the matter. You, on the other hand, are needlessly personalizing and escalating what should be a simple content dispute. I highly recommend you simply drop it right now and move on, or you are likely to wind up blocked from editing. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:08, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @96.31.177.52: When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page. TMC never pretended to be an admin. They never threatened you. They're not harassing you. They told you about the rules, and the possible consequences for breaking them. Never did they say "I'm an admin and I'm going to block you" or anything like that. I think it'd be best for you to take a walk to cool down a bit before you dig yourself deeper into a hole. - Frood (talk!) 04:31, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Behavioral problem on Right-wing politics

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.

---

Sourced material was added to Right-wing politics on August 11 (not by me). [198] Three weeks later, there was a dispute about whether to keep it, so a discussion ensued [199]. The discussion did not reach a consensus, so I started an RfC about whether it should be kept or not. [200] Now, the editors who want to delete the material User:Springee and User:Victor Salvini are removing it, despite the fact that the RfC is still running. [201], [202], [203].

I would appreciate an admin informing Springee and Victor Salvini not to remove the material in question until the RfC has run its course. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:33, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Both editors notified. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:36, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

(ec) The material was originally added by @Michael E Nolan: on 11 August [[204] and deleted by Victor Salvini (new editor, account started 22 June, 92 edits to date) on 3 September [205], 23 days later. The deletion was reverted by @Acroterion: that same day, about 3 1/2 hours later. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:51, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

The restoration was part of a bulk restoration and appears to have been restored not to rescue this text but rather to revert this edit [[206]]. See the talk comment here [[207]]. Springee (talk) 05:01, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

BMK needs to review both WP:BRD and WP:CON. Simple version. Material was added. Four edits to the article later, that material was rejected. I have not been involved with the editing of the article in question but noted the back and forth edits on Sept 3rd. I opened a talk discussion and pinged the involved editors (BMK was not involved at that point)[[208]]. Contrary to BMK's claim, the talk page rather quickly reached a local consensus with both of the original editors favoring removing the paragraph and myself favoring removal[Edit: It's probably more accurate to say one favored removal and the other didn't seem to object]. BMK favored inclusion, thus 3:1 against inclusion.[[209]]. Since this was new material a non-consensus is sufficient for removal. BMK opened a RfC. That's fine. The current RfC is 4:1 against.[[210]] If the RfC finds for inclusion in the end, it will be included. In the mean time BMK is attempting to use the existence of the RfC as a block to prevent the removal of the material that clearly has no support from other editors. My read is this was new content that was rejected and no local consensus has ever existed for inclusion thus BRD and the flowchart shown in WP:CON apply here. The material was removed and should not have been restored until consensus for inclusion was reached. The WP:CON policy does not support keeping recently added, disputed content in place until a RfC is completed. Springee (talk) 04:45, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

• WP:Tag team is also pertinent here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:01, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence of meatpuppetry or coordination? If not this seems like a bad faith accusation. Springee (talk) 05:03, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

I think there is sufficient implicit evidence on the talk page to bring it up. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:26, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

I disagree...as it seems do others. Buffs (talk) 20:50, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

remark by blocked user commented out by Buffs (talk)

• Comment: A CU may want to look at Buff Sanass; specifically their contributions, and read the article names vertical. Clever, but clearly not here.--Jorm (talk) 01:21, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

• At any case, indeffed. El_C 01:28, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

• El_C, thank you for blocking that NOTHERE vandal. There's absolutely no need for that kind of thing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:53, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
• Also, perhaps a checkuser might take a look at 199.247.43.138, which looks very much a logged-out editor avoiding scrutiny in their edits to Right-wing populism [211], [212], [213].
  These reverts were made after I completely re-shaped the material in order to move it to a specific section of the article, to answer the complaints that it wasn't pertinent in the section it was in. It looks more and more like this is a deliberate campaign of whitewashing. Neither of the two articles that are concerned here has a consensus for the removal of this material, but it is being kept out of both articles by brute force. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:12, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

---

Should WP:ONUS not apply here, with the contested edit that is being introduced only included once there is consensus for inclusion? El_C 05:05, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, El_C, I'm not understanding your point clearly. There is an RfC running to determine consensus. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:24, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Inclusion should happen after there is consensus to include. It seems like the cart is being put before the horse. El_C 05:28, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Umm.. I don't think so. :The material was in the article for over three weeks, plenty of time for WP:SILENCE to make it part of the status quo version, in which case the BOLD edit is not the inclusion of the material on 11 August, but the first removal by Victor Salvini on 3 September. At that point, the issue becomes not whether it should be included -- because it already is included -- but whether it should be deleted, which the RfC will determine, if it weren't being usurped by two editos who want it removed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:08, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't know whether three weeks counts as longstanding text. Maybe. At the very least, it's borderline. El_C 06:11, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

On Wikipedia? Three weeks is an eternity. <g> Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:14, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Three weeks is an eternity at Donald Trump. Not quite an eternity at an irregularly edited article like Right-wing politics. Bishonen | talk 08:54, 8 September 2019 (UTC).

Have to at least partially agree with Bishonen etc. Three weeks is far from an eternity. IMO even 2 months can be reasonable on a barely edited article. Disputes over article content are perhaps not the best examples to look at since most of the time people don't really care as we can usually achieve consensus on something. So really it's just a pointless dispute over interim content. But in case where no consensus is a realistic outcome, you can probably find a lot of examples. E.g. undiscussed page moves. Or undiscussed era or language changes. Nil Einne (talk) 10:24, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Since there were just 4 edits between the addition and removal I don’t think the 3 weeks could be considered stable. I would ask that someone look at SquisherDa restoration of the content in the past few hours. It seems like an unwise restoration. Springee (talk) 11:00, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

I concur with Bishonen and El_C... I think that's the first time I've done that... Buffs (talk) 17:50, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

I’ve been notified about this discussion and I’m here to give my testimony. On August 11th a user included a quote in right wing politics by Steve bannon. The quote was thrown in without context and presented no information. I removed the quote one September 3rd only for it to be added back again. The issue went to talk where’s there’s now a huge message history regarding it. Ken started a vote on whether it should be removed or kept. After a few days a supermajority of users who had voted were against the inclusion on the quote. Since the discussion was dying down and no one else was getting involved I removed the quote again, this time ken re-added the quote telling me that we had to wait 30 days before removing (because an “RfC” or something was running, I don’t know what he was on about). Springee, a user who’s been a strong supporter of removing the quote, said in the talk page that the quote could be removed because of the time since it was originally added, and removed the quote again, only for it to get added back again by another user and now we’re here. Victor Salvini —Preceding undated comment added 15:46, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

• Per WP:STATUSQUO, I have restored restoring the 00:32, 6 August 2019 version (stable version from before the recent edit war, unchallenged for nearly two months). I then re-added a minor grammar correction and short description template as being uncontroversial changes that are unlikely to be challenged.

Please discuss your preferred version on the article talk page rather than through back-and-forth edits. If you cannot reach a consensus, I suggest settling the dispute through the ongoing RfC. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:37, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! It feels like BMK is pushing a political agenda with this filing. Buffs (talk) 17:49, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

I would say exactly the opposite, actually, that Springee, in particular, is going of their way to remove pertinent material because they simply do not want to see an accurate assessment of right-wing populism in a Wikipedia article. Case in point: when I added the same material to Right-wing populism, and supported it with material from two undoubtedly reliable academic sources, they removed it from that article as well, and the academic sources with it.

My only agenda (as always) is that our articles accurately present prtinent and sourced information on their subject matters, as opposed to attempting to WP:CENSOR information that I don't like. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:05, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

And Springee continues their attempt to whitewash Right-wing populism of material they apparently disagree with. Once again, this is a behavioral issue resulting from a content dispute, not a content dispute per se. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:09, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Please do not cast aspersions by accusing others of "whitewashing". Springee (talk) 00:24, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Since you're following me from article to article with the only obvious reason the deletion of this material, I think that a violation of WP:CENSOR (i.e. "whitewashing") is a reasonable conclusion. WP:Casting aspersions is about making claims without evidence. In this case, the evidence appears to be sufficient to raise the issue. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:58, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

I'll side with Springee on this one. BMK, this is a WP:POINTy edit and I think you know it. You want this quote included, but you don't seem to have any third party analysis of it. An analogous situation would be someone of prominence standing up and saying "The White House is White because it is a symbol of racism in France, where the architect came from" and including it in the White House article at the end of the paragraph about it's design. It simply doesn't belong. While it's verifiable, within context it isn't notable. Someone from the left or right saying "stay the course!" isn't notable by any stretch. Buffs (talk) 16:20, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Re: "POINTy" I know no such thing. I often add pertinent material to multiple articles that it is appropriate for. The notability is clear and obvious to anyone (or, at least, almost anyone) who isn't hellbent on making sure the information doesn't appear on Wikipedia, as seems to be the case here. Besides, this is not a discussion about whether the information should be added, that is not appropriate for AN/I, this is a discussion about the behavior of the people attempting to whitewash it, and the various policies and norms they have violated, which at this point include WP:Harassment (following me from article to article), WP:NPOV, WP:Sockpuppetry (editing while logged out to avoid scrutiny), possibly WP:Tag team, WP:Casting aspersions (the unfounded claims that I am editing with a political agenda), WP:CENSOR (throughout), and possibly creating a "Joe Job" account. These are not aspersions, evidence is present to support each and every one of these claims. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:04, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken:, I would think the above discussion would make it clear that if consensus isn't established and edits are challenged then the matter is resolved on the talk page before the material is restored. You have instead decided to go full bull in the China shop on both the Right Wing Politics article as well as the Right-wing populism article where you have ignored objections from myself and The Four Deuces while suggesting that consensus was needed to reject new edits. Springee (talk) 00:15, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

There are discussions on two different article talk pages about whether the material is appropriate for including in that article. Some of the arguments made on Talk:Right-wing politics may be applicable to Right-wing populism but not all of them, both because they are two different, but related ,subjects, and because the material in question is presented differently (i.e in a much more integrated manner, with supporting citations from reliable academic sources) on Right-wing populism, while it was added rather baldly (not by me, remember) on Right-wing politics.

In any event, since we're waiting for the culmination of an RfC on Right-wing politics, there is currently no consensus which can be applied to Right-wing populism, and even when the RfC is concluded, whether its decision whould be pertinent to Right-wing populism would depend on why it was excluded from the latter. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:51, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't see any activity that requires consideration here. TFD (talk) 02:48, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

That's not surprising. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:58, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

I give up

If the Wikipedia editing community doesn't give a shit hill of beans that a handful of like-minded editors are block voting and tag teaming attempting to keep pertinent, sourced information out of some of our controversial, but extremely relevant to the times, articles, so that material they don't agree with is never seen by our readers, why the fuck heck should I care?

It's really a sad day for WP:NPOV when stuff like this happens, especially when it's so blatantly obvious, and the evidence of it is presented, and very few even bother to stir themselves to take action.

Close this, or block me, or whatever anyone wants to do, since we're abandoning our principles there appears to be little interest in enforcing an extremely important policy. The whitewash attempt to prevent pertinent information from appearing in a relevant article will succeed, and Right-wing populism and Right-wing politics will be cleansed of not include anything the self-appointed CENSORS people who oppose the material disapprove of. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:00, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

This was a heartfelt cri de coeur born out of frustration, but it has engendered objections because of the language used. I have endeavored to correct that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:34, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Toys and the pram. Block voting does not decide RfC outcomes, if you make a convincing argument then the RfC closer will side with you. If not then most likely the problem lies in your position not being strong enough. You, of course, know this.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 10:32, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

BMK, your comment is dripping with irony. Just a few discussions down you lecture an editor about the need for following consensus and what isn’t harassment etc. [[214]]. Yet here we are with you insisting that the 9:3 and 5:2 discussions against inclusion are just whitewashing and that editors must get a consensus to remove your recent edits vs you needed a consensus for inclusion. Finally, rather than seeking the consensus via discussion you try to bully the process via continuous changes to the basic content with declarations that there is no consensus to remove your latest version of the text. If only you were following the sound advice you were espousing. Springee (talk) 11:33, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Well, I don't know about that. Iwas the one who had to clean up after it (it took three rolls of paper towels), and that sure wasn't irony I was mopping off the floor. (I'll leave the answer as an exercise for the reader.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:28, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Propose a block of BMK for uncivil behavior

Profanity-laden remarks like this are not helpful, demeaning toward others, and he's been warned repeatedly. Requesting a block. Buffs (talk) 17:41, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Additional instance from today: [215]

Add quote from WP:IUC:

"The following behaviours can contribute to an uncivil environment:

1. Direct rudeness

(a) rudeness, insults, name-calling, gross profanity or indecent suggestions

(b) <N/A>

(c) ill-considered accusations of impropriety

(d) belittling a fellow editor, including the use of judgemental edit summaries or talk-page posts (e.g. "that is the stupidest thing I have ever seen", "snipped crap")

He hits 3 of the first 4. Buffs (talk) 18:09, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous. --JBL (talk) 17:49, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm not being ridiculous. Remarks like his are making this situation more and more uncivil (see definitions added above) Buffs (talk) 18:09, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, no. Expletives as an expression of frustration are not cause for block. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:00, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

See above addition Buffs (talk) 18:09, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't agree with the addition of that material, yes it's sourced but I don't think it's pertinent to the rest of the paragraph. So on the content dispute side of things I'm not with him, but I'm not seeing the edit for which you want him blocked in the same light. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:19, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Appreciate the collegial disagreement! Have a good day! Buffs (talk) 19:04, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

FYI blocks are not WP:PUNITIVE and that is what is being proposed here. MarnetteD|Talk 18:23, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm well aware of what blocks are for. Perpetually failing to follow WP:CIVIL and preventing further problems should be on the table. Buffs (talk) 19:02, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

You've been making a lot of non-constructive edits to ANI in the last few days; I think you should take a break from it. --JBL (talk) 19:05, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

I disagree. YMMV. Buffs (talk) 20:33, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

This is a terrible idea and OP should be trouted for suggesting it.--Jorm (talk) 18:24, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

I'll take a fish, but let's WP:AGF here, shall we? Buffs (talk) 19:02, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

• Frustration is allowed. Buffs, when the (to you) offensive comment is actually at ANI itself, it's pretty redundant to "helpfully" list what's wrong with it in your opinion. Do you seriously think admins haven't seen it? Remarks like your proposal lower the tone of ANI worse than the odd heartfelt profanity. Bishonen | talk 19:12, 11 September 2019 (UTC).

  I don't care about the profanity, per se. It's a symptom, not the root problem. It's the uncivil remarks. From the last set of remarks alone...

  "the Wikipedia editing community doesn't give a shit" WP:IUC 1a, 1c, 1d

  "a handful of like-minded editors are block voting" WP:IUC 1a, 1c, 1d

  "[a handful of like-minded editors are] tag teaming" WP:IUC 1a, 1c, 1d

  "so that material they don't agree with is never seen by our readers" WP:IUC 1c

  "evidence of it is presented, and very few even bother to stir themselves to take action" WP:IUC 1a, 1c, 1d

  "we're abandoning our principles" WP:IUC 1c

  "The whitewash will succeed" WP:IUC 1c

  "Right-wing populism and Right-wing politics will be cleansed of anything the self-appointed CENSORS disapprove of" WP:IUC 1a, 1c, 1d

  Until we crack down on civility problems, we're going to continue to drive away inexperienced editors. There's no time like the present... Buffs (talk) 19:25, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

And you know that notion just crossed my mind.-- Deepfriedokra 20:21, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose proposal to Block or otherwise sanction BMK. BMK is reminded that sometimes frustration and hyperbole are a bad mix. BMK's passion sometimes results in over exuberance that comes out badly during discussions.-- Deepfriedokra 19:39, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
• Not at this time I do think BMK's recent editing and talk page behavior has left much to be desired. They have ignored CONSENSUS and ONUS and their accusations directed at me and others are certainly not CIVIL. However, I don't think they have risen to the point of needed a block. A simple reminder should be sufficient. Disclaimer - I was cited by BMK in the opening of this wreck of an ANI. Springee (talk) 20:03, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

  Indeed. BMK. Do have a care, and please be mindfull of AGF and ASPERSIONS. Such hurtfulness is not helpful. One's opinions should stand/fall on their merits/demerits.-- Deepfriedokra 20:12, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

  If it gets the job done, a simple admonishment is fine. I'm only looking for the behavior to stop. Buffs (talk) 20:33, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

  @Deepfriedokra: still ongoing. Your thoughts?

• Oppose - I don't really agree with BMK's behavior in this specific instance but I don't think it rises to the level of warranting a block. Sure, he shouldn't have used profanity but I think that we should just try and hash this out here first and reserve a block for a last resort only if that's the only way to prevent major disruption or incivility. Michepman (talk) 01:13, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

• Comment Incivility is continuing: [216] Buffs (talk) 22:31, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

• ???? Imploring an editor to properly indent their comments is "incivility"? Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:09, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

• You appear to have a highly optimistic opinion of a condescending remarks like that. Buffs (talk) 02:22, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

• "Optimistic"? Are you sure you weren't thinking of another word? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:57, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

• I meant what I said. Perhaps you shouldn't be so critical of others. Buffs (talk) 02:39, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

• BMK, please refactor your comments after you have a chance to reflect upon them. Editing conflicts can be upsetting, but you will be best served by removing or striking comments that are unproductive. Please use dispute resolution instead, if there are problems yet to be addressed. Obviously, no block of BMK is needed here. Buffs, please avoid requesting a block. Simply point out the problem and ask for help resolving it without assuming what the correct solution might be. Jehochman ^Talk 02:36, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

• @Jehochman: What, exactly, in this comment, addressed to Springee:

"Are you ever going to learn how to properly indent your comments, or are other editors going to have to continue to clean up after you for the rest of your Wikipedia career?"

do you consider uncivil and wish me to refactor, considering that Springee's talk page comments were consistently wrongly indented, making it difficult to follow the discussion (although Springee has gotten a lot better since I made that remark)? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:57, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I was not clear. I'm speaking about the initial diff complained about in this thread.[217] Jehochman ^Talk 12:55, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

OK, I understand now. I have struck out any parts that I think may have been found objectionable, and replaced them with more suitablle language. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:37, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

@Jehochman:, I respectfully disagree. IMHO, this sort of incivility is rampant in WP and needs to be addressed, but YMMV. I've placed my concerns here and above and elsewhere. I also suggested a remedy. If the community disagrees, I can accept that and even revel in it. Buffs (talk) 04:25, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughts. Take a look at XY problem for an explanation of why it's better to focus on the problem at first, rather than a proposed solution. Jehochman ^Talk 12:55, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

@Jehochman: Ah, I think you're misreading my intent here. My call for a block is only tangentially related to this dispute (of which I'm not a part); it's only related in that this is one venue where such issues from BMK exist (and continue here at ANI and elsewhere). I recognize this doesn't solve the problem at the various pages mentioned at the beginning. Buffs (talk) 15:16, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

• AN/I topic ban instead – A block would seem unnecessarily punitive. A better idea would be a topic ban against BMK at AN/I. He is in the top 2 most prolific contributors here, and his contributions come in two main flavors, both a net negative to the project: (1) stirring up trouble, calling for blocks, etc., instead of taking a more productive approach to discussing problems (e.g. like what he did to me); and (2) using AN/I as his own personal way to solicit help in his content disputes, as in the case that brought us here. Both of these should just stop, and a temporary block is unlikely to accomplish that. Ban him from AN/I (and AN, where he's the #1 contributor), except in cases brought by others that involve him. Dicklyon (talk) 16:57, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - While his behavior in this one area hasn’t been stellar, it’s important to remember that Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs) edits in highly contentious and sensitive areas that are more likely than others to require admin attention. That doesn’t excuse bad behavior, but the fact that he edits here often or gets involved with tough disputes shouldn’t be held against him in and of itself. I have seen him contribute productively to discussions so banning him seems like an overreach. Michepman (talk) 14:05, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
    • Comment - as another person who regularly edits on the topic of political conflict, I have to say that the subject is, by its nature, often incendiary. BMK may occasionally be blunt or abrasive, but compared to some of the behaviour we see in this article set, blunt and abrasive does not rise to the level of disciplinary action. Simonm223 (talk) 14:07, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Propose to inflict Paine upon BMK

I didn't think that was a profanity-laced rant, so much as a profanity-sprinkled rant. This is a profanity-laced rant.

Anyway, Bannon's quote, "Let them call you racist...", is a riff on an old American saying, "Let them call me rebel", which comes from what are, according to legendary scholar Levivich, some of the greatest words ever written in the English language, Thomas Paine's The Crisis (text): "Let them call me rebel, and welcome, I feel no concern from it; but I should suffer the misery of devils, were I to make a whore of my soul by swearing allegiance to one, whose character is that of a stupid, stubborn, worthless, brutish man." Now that is a PA against King George III. BMK, by contrast, hasn't made any PAs against any specific editors from what I've seen. Rather, he's made hand-wavy general comments about a vast right-wing conspiracy, which hasn't worked out any better for BMK than it did for a certain American politician, but is no reason to block.

So, BMK, in the words of Paine: "I dwell not upon the vapors of imagination; I bring reason to your ears, and, in language as plain as A, B, C, hold up truth to your eyes." Bannon said "Let them call you racist...", and you added that quote to Steve Bannon, National Rally (France), Right-wing populism and Right-wing politics. You got some pushback at the latter two, but no one's disturbed it at the former two. This tends to disprove your theory that there is a concerted effort to keep this quote out of Wikipedia; rather it's just crowd-sourced editing, i.e., consensus working as normal. This is no reason to give up. To partially quote another writer who is not quite as good as Paine, but still pretty damn good: "something something fighting tooth and nail against multiple editors something something almost entirely based on their personal view of things something something Wikipedia's consensus-based model." 'nuff said.

Therefore, I propose we bring BMK a ladder and a change of clothes, help him down from the Reichstag, let those RfCs run, and call it a day. Because, as Paine wrote in Common Sense (text): "It is not in numbers, but in unity, that our great strength lies". – Levivich 00:17, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Makes (common) sense to me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:40, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

The push to put this quote in so many places doesn't due BMK any credit. It's clear they want it in because, when taken out of context, it's inflammatory. It's very notable that BMK didn't add the context of the speech. Yes, they added the audience but not how the quote was used in the delivered speech. It appears that when the editor couldn't "win" at the other two articles they went off to "win" other places. Perhaps self reflection is the best answer here. Springee (talk) 03:45, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

The context that was provided for the Bannon quote, to show that it was not "taken out of context".

All the necessary context was provided, such as this, which was in the "Definition" section of Right-wing populism until it was removed by Springee (first removal, of entire section; second removal, of Bannon quote only): Erik Berggren and Andres Neergard in "Populism: Protest, democratic challenge and right wing sxtremism" write "Most researchers agree ... that xenophobia, anti-immigration sentiments, nativism, ethno-nationalism and racism are, in different ways, central elements in the ideologies, politics, and practices of right-wing populism and Extreme Right Wing Parties."[34] Cas Mudde and Cristóbal Rovira Kaltwasser, in their Populism: A Very Short Introduction, note that in European right-wing populism there is a "marriage of convenience" of populism based on an "ethnic and chauvinistic definition of the people", authoritarianism, and nativism. This results in right-wing populism having a "xenophobic nature." Mudde and Kaltwasser cite the French National Front as the "prototypical populist radical right-wing party".[35] In March 2018, in what has been described as a "populist pep talk"[36] at a National Front party congress, Steve Bannon, former advisor to Donald Trump before and after his election, advised those present to "Let them call you racist, let them call you xenophobes, let them call you nativists. Wear it like a badge of honor."[37] [218] or this version, from the Steve Bannon article: At a party congress in March 2018, Bannon gave members of the French right-wing populist National Front (NF) what has been described as a "populist pep talk".[150] Bannon advised the party members to "Let them call you racist, let them call you xenophobes, let them call you nativists. Wear it like a badge of honor. Because every day, we get stronger and they get weaker. ... Hstory is on our side and will bring us victory." Bannon's remarks brought the members to their feet.[250][251][252][253] Critics expressed concern that Bannon was "normalizing racism."[254] Bannon generally considers charges of racism made against the right to be the result of a biased media.[255] What more context could be required? Each version is specifically geared to the article it appeared in, so that the "Definition" version has academic sources to support it, while the others are straight-forward reporting with no interpretation, and multiple sources to confirm the content and context of the speech. I fail to see any way in which I took the quote out of context. Reading any of the various articles about the speech -- such as this one from the NYTimes --will confirm that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:52, 12 September 2019 (UTC) Yet in both cases consensus was against including. Not "Springee alone opposed". In both cases you tried to push inclusion when other editors objected and thus violated CONSENSUS. If so many editors say no, then you really need to ask why. The way that helps the most is to go to the talk page and discuss rather than make POINTy edits. Springee (talk) 10:21, 12 September 2019 (UTC) That is incorrect there was no consensus. You have consistently misrepresented the situation, just as in this discussion you misrepresented that the quote was "taken out of context". Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:31, 12 September 2019 (UTC) And you circle back. First, per policy (NOCON) if there isn't consensus the edits revert. I say there was consensus for removal, you say there was no consensus. Either way, policy says we do the same thing, revert to the earlier version of the text. You claim the quotes weren't out of context but other editors disagree. Springee (talk) 16:23, 12 September 2019 (UTC) Are you ever going to learn how to properly indent your comments, or are other editors going to have to continue to clean up after you for the rest of your Wikipedia career? Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:49, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

OK but it's in unity that our great :strength lies–just as true for building a nation as for building an encyclopedia. We make a shitty encyclopedia when we fight all the time. That's how we end up with articles like "Levivich is an American^{[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14]} ...".

A notable guy said a notable thing; the world took note of it. Do we document it? Where do we document it? How do we document it? We should be able to have that conversation (WP:BRD) and it should look something like this:

Editor A: I think we should document it here, like this.

Editor B: I think we should document it there, like that.

Editor C: I think we should document it here, like that.

discussion proceeds...

...but instead, it too often looks like this:

Editor A: I think we should document it here, like this.

Editor B: I think we should document it there, like that.

Editor A: I think you're a Nazi.

Editor B: I think you're an asshole.

Editor C: Both of you fuck off.

I think it stems from favoring simple binary presentations that we can "!vote" on, rather than open-ended discussions. It's bold/revert, support/oppose, keep/delete–that's how we like to break things down, but it divides us. So we have binary edit wars and RfCs with binary choices on multiple articles, satisfying nobody, and yet rarely have just a brainstorming session about "where do we put this Bannon thing?" Brainstorming, open-ended (rather than adversarial) source analysis, and pre-RfC discussions are too rare, especially in DS areas like AP2, because charged topic areas lead to a lack of AGF, and it's hard to have a conversation with a Nazi and an asshole. Heck, just try talking to – Levivich 04:31, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, but also consider Arrow's impossibility theorem, which holds that when a group is presented with more than two choices, there is no voting system that will ensure that the outcome reflect's the group's actual preferences. Given this, RfC's are more likely to represent the views of the group voting on them when the choice provided is binary. (And, of course, the group that is !voting only has a chance of representing the views of the larger community when impediments such as block voting and canvassing, which skew the vote in a particular direction, are eliminated, a condition difficult to get to when strong POVs -- especially political POVs -- are a motivating factor in the !voting, as is the case here.)

And to circle back to the beginning of this section for a moment, sure, Bannon's "populist pep talk" to the National Front that brought the party members to their feet is the rhetorical equivalent of Paine's "Let them call me rebel...", but the difference comes in what lies behind the words. Paine was rebelling against a polity that was preventing his people from (in the words of another dude) achieving "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness", while Bannon is admitting that right-wing populists are called xenophobes, nativists, and racists, and, rather than rejecting these labels, they should own them, because "history is on our side" and victory will be theirs. There is a substantive qualitative difference between the morality of Paine's words and that of Bannon's.

And given that, one has to wonder why some Wikipedia editors are working overtime and pulling out every trick in the book to prevent Bannon's words from appearing in an article that they are obviously pertinent to. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:20, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

And it more and more obvious that it not just Bannon's words, Springee just doesn't want it explicitly said that right-wing populism is about xenophobia, racism, and authoritarianism, among other delightful things. She just removed a quote I added from a historian who said basically that. This is quite clearly POV editing in blatant violation of WP:NPOV.

If experts on a subject say "X", then we report "X", and it's irrelevant whether they say it in a journal article, a book published by a university press, a book published by a commercial publisher, a media outlet, or their own personal blog. The reliable source involved is the expert, and there is absolutely no excuse for Springee to remove it from the article, as they did here. This behavior needs to stop. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:45, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

It's clear, BMK, that you think this quote is illuminating and revealing. But why does it need to appear in 4 different articles? Because that's what it seems like you are fighting so hard for. Not for its mere inclusion in an article where it is relevant, but your insistence that it appears in 4 different articles which might be, well, a little repetitive considering the overlap in the subjects. Can't you see the inclusion of this article in two articles as a "win"? Because, at the end of the day, even the most successful editors don't get their way 100% of the time. Surely, a 50% success rate on this one quote shouldn't be enough to cause you to walk away from editing Wikipedia. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:59, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Obviously, because it's pertinent to three articles. (I've given up on Right-wing politics): Steve Bannon, who said it and because it reveals the nature of his thoughts, the National Front, who he said it to and whose members accepted it with their acclamation, and Right-wing populism which is what the quote is about. As I said above, I frequently add the same information to multiple articles if it is pertinent to more than one. And, really, the only strong overlap between these three articles is between the "National Front", a right-wing populist party, and "Right-wing populism", an overview article. Bannon is much, much more than simply a right-wing populist, and he had no real connection to the National Front until that particular appearance.

To answer your questions - no ,I never expect 100% success - I've been around here too long and have edited too much to hold such an unreasonable expectation -- and, as I said, I've already given up on it appearing in Right-wing politics, having de facto accepted the argument that it didn't represent the full range of that subject. But as for the others - well, the Bannon article is an obvious place for it to be, the NF article is an obvious place for it to be, but the nature of the quote, and the insight it offers into the nature of right-wing populism, means that it's really not a "win" if it's not in that article, and, really, it should be in the "Definition" section, not stuck down in the "France" section.

Bannon's uncensored acceptance of the xenophobic, nativist and racist nature of right-wing populism, the idea that brought the crowd to its feet, is an extraordinary admission for someone to have made. These are things that Marine le Pen, in her attempts to "de-demonize" the party and take it mainstream, has sought to avoid having the public identify with the NF. She would never have made the candid admission that Bannon did and told her people to own those attributes as a badge of honor. That is why it's so important that it's not dry academics saying these things, it's someone who says "Be proud of being a xenophobe! Wear your racism as a badge of honor. When people call you a nativist, say 'Yes I am a nativist, and proud of it!'" Those thoughts, expressed in the way that Bannon expressed them, are powerful, which is why Springee and company don't want them in the article. Because they're true and they're enlightening and they're powerful. They need to be in Right-wing populism for all the reasons that Springee so desperately wants them not to be. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:05, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

@Liz: BTW, when you say "this quote", I assume you're talking about the Bannon quote. I just want to note that in the comment just above yours, I pointed out that I added a quote from a different person, and Springee and company are now trying to prevent it from appearing in the article [219], revealing once again the POV nature of their editing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:12, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

BMK, remember that CONSENSUS is policy. If you make a change and other editors object then POLICY says try to get consensus for the change. If consensus doesn't exist, the change is reverted. Note it doesn't say consensus to revert, it says consensus is required to keep the change. You can make your case on the talk page. Thus far I've objected on several grounds. Other editors can weight in. If they disagree with me then I think you will have your consensus. If they don't then you don't have consensus. Springee (talk) 04:16, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Hey, the argument you made that the Shenkman quote "failed varification" just fell to pieces. See my note on the article talk page, where I explain that you can download Rosenberg's paper and in it there is absolutely no sign of the language that Shenkman used, because that was Shenkman's gloss on what right-wing populism has to offer the common man after the failure of the elites, and not Rosenberg's, as you insisted it was.

I suggest, that with the high visibility of this discussion, and the number of people now watching Right-wing populism, you would be best advised not to go around deleting properly sourced pertinent information simply because you disagree with it. Such very public blatant violations of WP:NPOV can lead to problems. And, remember, your behavior - among others - is what this report is about, not the content dispute, which you keep dragging into it. It's your attempt to use every trick you can come up with to keep information you object to out of articles, because your personal POV opposes it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:27, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't comment here often, & I don't usually even read long discussions here about things like US politics, but the cleverness of Levich's replies attracted me to read this. Looking also at the articles, I think it's very clear that the quote (in full context) is appropriate in the articles on Bannon and the National Front: it shows his views, and it shows theirs. Right wing populism is a more general matter than the views of either, & it is not as clear that it sufficient encapsulates the entire movement--personally I think it pretty much does, but it's not as obvious. DGG ( talk ) 18:44, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

+1 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:16, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

@DGG: Thank you for that considered opinion. I would remind you that the Definition section of the article cites numerous reliable sources which confirm that the attributes cited by Shenkman and used by Bannon are intrinsically part of right-wing populism, hence the use of both of these quotes is both justified and supported.

Do you have any thoughts on the question of whether Springee and other editors attempting to block the use of the Bannon and Shenkman quotes are doing so out of a personal political POV, in violation of WP:NPOV? Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:33, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

@DGG: Fixing ping. Please see previous comment. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:38, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Reading the definition section, this particular set of three is nowhere given as the essential characteristics. (There's even an explicit denial of "racism", xenophobia is mentioned but not emphasised , and there's discussion of carious meanings of nativism.) The part I think makes most sense is "a cluster of categories since the parties differ in ideology, organization and leadership rhetoric". Attempts at exact definition of political movements usually cause confusion. The key point of what Bannon said is not the terms he used, but the defiant challenge to conventional political morality.

Much more important, I refuse to assume that the personal political POV of any of the editors here is the motivation for the arguments. You need to think more about the meaning of NPA. DGG ( talk ) 00:13, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Actually, I "assumed" nothing - I don't recall knowing Springee's edits from any earlier time. I have , however, observed editing from a strong political POV, in the articles mentioned here. I'm sorry you disagree with that, but that is what it is.

Your gloss on the definition of right-wing populism is, I think somewhat off, but that is (again) not for discussion here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:23, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

At a bare minimum, from past interactions, Springee seems to have a problem confusing policy with WP:IDONTLIKEIT and advocating for (yes I'll agree with Beyond My Ken) WP:CENSORing things that they don't like. Bannon is notable. Bannon is, particularly, notable as a populist leader [220]. Bannon said notable things to a particular group the National Front that is described and sourced in the Right-wing populism article as "prototypical populist radical right-wing party". That there is even a question here does not appear to me due to policy. It certainly looks like Springee is filibustering and misrepresenting both wording and policies in service of a WP:IDONTLIKEIT point of view.

Also, an edit like this[221] by Springee, after Beyond My Ken wrote several paragraphs and checked both the article and sources to make sure that it was Shenkman's own words and not something he was quoting or summarizing, I believe is an attempt to goad Beyond My Ken. It appears similar to Sealioning. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 18:08, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

6Years, by posting here you open your self up for review. You are a new account as of less than 2 months back[[222]]. Your first edit wasn't a typical grammar fix or adding a fact to an article. No, it was the creation of an AFD page! [[223]] Yes, new editors always open with an AfD discussion. Slatersteven was rightly suspicious and asked you about your history here, did you have a prior account [[224]]. You gave an evasive answer. Based on comments from another editor I repeated Slaterseven's question. After that you pinged Doug Weller [[225]] then started following me to other articles [[226]]. HOUND may not have been your intent but it was hardly the advice Doug Weller gave you. So are you here because you have a legitimate complaint or because you are hoping to pile onto someone who suggested that your behavior certainly looks like you had a prior account? Perhaps we shouldn't answer and just let someone kill this train wreck.Springee (talk) 18:28, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

I believe I have a right to comment on your behavior and how it is coming across (whether you intend it that way or not), and I note that you started targeting me with your accusations in apparent retaliation for Bishonen's topic ban of JWeiss11 very shortly after you commented there. I don't think I need to answer any of your insinuations further.[227] 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 19:09, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Is this the topic ban you are talking about? I'm not sure what I said that bothered you [[228]]. Springee (talk) 19:35, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

It's the fact that you began running around accusing me of being a sockpuppet very shortly after your post there, showing that you were trying to continue Jweiss11's attack [229]. First at my talk page, then you ran off to another person's talk page, now you're doing it here. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 16:33, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

WP:DUCK applies here... Buffs (talk) 19:38, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Then file an SPI report if you believe it's so obvious, and stop WP:Casting aspersions without specific evidence to support your opinion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:27, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Not only is Buffs wrong (and seems to be deliberately doing this trying to get an angry response from me), I have proof. [230] 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 22:33, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

My evidence is based on 6Years' edit history. He's clearly not new to WP and seems to have a sudden, inordinate attention solely focused on this article. As such, both WP:SPA and WP:SOCK apply. I base this on behavior. The "evidence" provided doesn't "prove" anything. It's one editor's opinion on a narrow subject line, not the current issue. Furthermore, the account assessed was not 6Years' latest account, so it was made prior to comments here. My point's been made and can be actioned here if an admin deems it necessary; this will be my last comment on the subject. Buffs (talk) 15:22, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Propose closing this thread

This is nothing more that an open sewer of an ANI. Would an admin please close it. Springee (talk) 19:50, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

The nature of the mess at AN/I and AN is driven by the most prolific contributors there. At AN, BMK is #1, and at AN/I he's #2, last I checked. A good step toward making it less of a "sewer" would be to remove his effluent at its source. This thread he started is an example of the problem, and a chance to address it. Dicklyon (talk) 17:34, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Returning to the purpose of this report

Another data point in the nominal topic of this (overall) thread, which is behavioral problems. Consider this edit by Springee on Talk:Right-wing populism in which they reject xenophobia, racism, authoritarianism etc. as "alarmist" terms, this despite the fact that the Definition section offers numerous scholarly analyses which say that these things are intrinsic to right-wing populism. "Most researchers agree [...] that xenophobia, anti-immigration sentiments, nativism, ethno-nationalism are, in different ways, central elements in the ideologies, politics, and practices of right-wing populism and Extreme Right Wing Parties" is how one puts it. Despite this, Spingee views these attributes as merely "alarmist" terms, used to scare people about the bogeyman of right-wing populism. This is a very strong indication that Springee is editing not for neutrality or accuracy, but from a personal political point of view. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:33, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

TWO people said that "most researchers agree" and are "practices of right-wing populism and Extreme Right Wing Parties". You're stretching here. At this point, you are trying to equate via WP:SYN that popular right wing people are inherently racist, et al. That's absurd on its face. Buffs (talk) 22:40, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Not "two people", two reliable sources, one of which summarized what "most researchers agree" on - and if you look at the paragraphs above that one, you'll see other academics (like Cas Mudde) who agree. If you think that they are all incorrect, then please come up with neutral reliable sources that say that right-wing populism is not xenophobic, racist, authoritarian, nativist, enthno-nationalist etc. I don't think you'll be able to, because -- as the rest of the Definition section shows -- these attributes are commonly cited by academics.

But, I do note that you're talking about the content dispute, when this report and this section are about behavior, specifically whether Springee and other editors are editing from a personal political point of view, and are not editing neutrally. Do you have anything to add to that, as opposed to attempting to litigate what belongs on the article talk page? Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:08, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

I have to agree that there is problem conduct by Springee. This [231] was way over the line on the part of Springee. Particularly vexatious is comments like [232] that show WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behavior when Beyond My Ken had already written quite a thoughtful response on why Shenkman's comment was not simply a paraphrasing or summation of Rosenberg's. The reply "No you haven't"[233] which is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes level behavior. When Springee did finally provide a quote (after first insisting they had when they hadn't [234]), the quote did not satisfy the wording nor back up what Springee said [235]. In that discussion Springee has also continuously ignored Drmies' admonition that "There is no such thing as a "scholarly section"" and keeps on insisting that Shenkman, despite being the author of the piece, cannot be quoted because despite being in a WP:RS and Shenkman undeniably being a repeatedly published, recognized topic expert on the grounds that it isn't a scholarly journal. I can't decide fully whether that's a Moving the goalposts issue or WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, but it's part of an overall WP:IDONTLIKEIT problem that's manifesting as a combination of WP:BATTLEGROUND and Sealioning-looking behavior. Regardless, the net effect seems to be that Springee is hoping to provoke someone into crossing a line, and when others aren't biting on their bait, Springee themselves are getting flustered and then crossing the line. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 22:22, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Color me a little skeptical on your edit history, but this looks like a WP:SPA. Buffs (talk) 22:30, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Do you have an actual comment on the specific links I provided to illustrate the pattern, or are you just trying to attack me personally hoping you'll get a reaction? 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 22:42, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

You know, Buffs, that being a SPA isn't actually against any policies. Most editors start editing a specific topic area and later, some (but not all) became generalists. But there are many editors who persist in focusing on specific interests like politics, football, anime, music or wrestling. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:33, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Look at editor's history...WP:DUCK applies in spades. I'm not against WP:SPAs per se, but the focus of this one appears to be harassment. Buffs (talk) 19:41, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

@Buffs:You're wrong, you're out of line, and you seem to just be hoping that you can get me to respond in an angry way. I'm no sockpuppet.[236] 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 22:30, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

So...a link to comments of another user that don't pertain to you or this situation? I'll stand by my assessment. Buffs (talk) 02:35, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Quoth Drmies, regarding me: "plus the editor who initiated it is, as far as we can tell, not a sock, and I happen to know this was already investigated.". Now stop it. All you're doing is proving you can't be civil. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 13:54, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

(ec) You are alleging editors pushing a POV. I think, to the contrary, that you are pushing POV and it's quite obvious. It's impossible to state that without explaining the points which support such an opinion. Likewise, you (and the RS author) are conflating "right wing" with "extremists"/"extreme right wing" as if there is no difference; there most certainly is. I disagree with 6Years' assessment. Buffs (talk) 22:28, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm pushing a POV? Nope. I am reporting the opinions of subject experts that right-wing populism is xenophobic, authoritarian, and racist, among other things. The POV editor is the one attempting to move heaven and earth to prevent those assessments from appearing in the article on right-wing populism. That's really the bottom line here: a POV editor does not want the views of subject experts to be included in an article on the subject because they disagree with them, calling them "alarmist". Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:03, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

The opinions espoused here are literally saying that half of the US (for example) is racist, alarmist, authoritarian. Those creating these papers are either highly partisan or attempting to conflate analysis. Those citing these sources here are (intentionally) conflating extreme views with the mainstream conservatism. Buffs (talk) 19:44, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Your statement is ridiculous on its face. "Half of the US" are not right-wing populists, even if something under half of the electorate voted for a right-wing populist presidential candidate (which was hardly obvious at the time of the election) -- but in any case, we report what reliable sources say, regardless of what your personal assessment is of what they say. If you think they're incorrect, find reliable sources that say otherwise, don't make arguments based on your personal beliefs or analysis, which would clearly be WP:OR.

Again, to return to the proper subject of this report, what we see in the comment above is that the objection to the disputed material isn't based on anything but the personal political POVs of the editors attempting to prevent the material from being used. They disagree with what is being said because it contradicts their own ideologies, not because the material isn't properly sourced or is irrelevant to the subject matter. They think it's "alarmist", for instance, and come up with other silly unsupported arguments. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:13, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

I was considering a reply to Buffs but the entirety of Buffs' last statement has nothing to do with this report and seems to just constitute WP:IDONTLIKEIT with respect to content. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 22:29, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

I think there are several purposes to many of the posts here. One is to attempt to show that I am a bad actor by pointing out what is obvious to them, which is that the information from reliable sources I'm attempting to add is just plain flat out wrong, and also dangerous, and shouldn't be added because of that. They do this because that's what their ideological stances tell them is the case, and they cannot see beyond those POVs.

The other is to muddy the waters as much as possible, by returning again and again to the content dispute -- which is not the subject of this report, and which do not get handled at AN/I -- in order to deflect from the charges I am reporting here, of editing in a POV manner without regard for neutrality, which is the actual subject at hand. By referencing the content dispute over and over again, they hope to create the impression that this is all about content, and not about their behavior, and thereby get the report closed or ignored. It's an effective tactic, because the report gets lengthier and lengthier, with more and more sidebars and ancilliary discussions, so they can then pop up to say that the whole thing is an "open sewer" and ask for the report to be closed without action. [237].

Attacking you is simply a continuation by other means of the earlier incidents in this case: the IP reverting my article edit who was a signed-out editor, and the blatantly obvious Joe job account which showed up with a name that attacked Buffs and conspicuously agreed with me, with the intent of getting people to think that I might be behind the imposter (which I wasn't). Same same. Deflection and muddying-the-water. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:14, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

You cannot just say "<Content X> is from a reliable source and should therefore be included". Context is everything. WP:SYN needs to be considered. etc, etc, etc. That you keep adding this nonsense IS the problem. That isn't a content dispute, but a behavioral problem. That you choose to do so in the condescending manner you've done is also indicative of other issues such as a lack of civility. Buffs (talk) 02:33, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

The Bannon quote material, as it currently exists in the "France" section of Right-wing populism:

When the party was at a low point because of Le Pen's disappointing result in the presidential election and concerns about her ability to govern the party[106] Steve Bannon, former advisor to Donald Trump before and after his election, gave NF members at a party congress in March 2018 what has been described as a "populist pep talk".[106] Bannon advised the party members to "Let them call you racist, let them call you xenophobes, let them call you nativists. Wear it like a badge of honor. Because every day, we get stronger and they get weaker. ... History is on our side and will bring us victory." Bannon's remarks brought the members to their feet.[107][108][109]

All necessary context is provided, and there is not a lick of SYNTH, just a bunch of reliable sources to support every single fact reported.

But here you are again, bringing up CONTENT here, when this report is about BEHAVIOR, such as -- come to think of it --the attempts by you and Springee to deflect the focus of this discussion away from behavior by constantly bringing up content. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:10, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

And yet his analysis remains spot-on, Buffs. You and Springee have continually tried to argue the content here, rather than participate in the discussion of content in the appropriate place, all the while insultingly casting aspersions yourself. You even started tag-teaming me, accusing me of being a sockpuppet after I provided the linked evidence showing Springee I'm not and casting aspersions on me, I can only assume in hopes of getting an angry reaction so that you could cry for "civility". And when you make statements like "The opinions espoused here are literally saying that half of the US (for example) is racist, alarmist, authoritarian" and "Those creating these papers are either highly partisan or attempting to conflate analysis", all you do is show us that your objection is not based in policy but rather in WP:IDONTLIKEIT. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 02:51, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for being dragged into this. I have issues with both users involved here. Both seem to be warriors for truth. Atr this time I think an IBAN is in order, and hopefully they will leave each other alone.Slatersteven (talk) 09:16, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I am not here as a warrior for truth, I am here to provide accurate, relevant, and reliably sourced information to our readers. Others are attempting to prevent such material from appearing in one of our articles, based only on the fact that they disagree with it, or don't like it, or find it "alarmist". That's not editing neutrally, that editing from a POV.

For myself, although they will almost certainly not believe this, if the material in question had said exactly the opposite, I would still be trying to add it to the article, because it would still be relevant and reliably sourced, and our readers deserve to know it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:35, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I do not care about the rights or wrongs of the content dispute, only the twoing and throwing here. This drama is not helping and it may be that an IBAN will mean others can have a look and fix any issues without (as I was) being dragged into this dispute.Slatersteven (talk) 15:59, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Elephant in the room

Why isn't this matter at WP:AE under the American potitics 2, standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people at WP:General sanctions? Buffs has said The opinions espoused here are literally saying tha t half of the US (for example) is racist, alarmist, authoritarian. [238] At least the portions of this article that deal with American right wing populism are covered, are they not? If this article is not covered by the general sanction, perhaps it should be and an arbitration clarification or modification is needed. I don't see WP:ANI resolving this type of dispute because it's just going to flare up repeatedly without stronger measures and controls. Jehochman ^Talk 13:15, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

As this is about Steve Bannon, who is most certainly an AP2 covered figure, I can't see how AP2 wouldn't apply. Simonm223 (talk) 13:22, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

This thread is so long and hairy that it probably won't generate a clear consensus here. Why don't we check if the users have received the required notifications, and give any that are needed. If notice has been given, the participants are welcome to file reports at WP:AE if they wish, but keep in mind the behavior of all involved in a report may be scrutinized. Jehochman ^Talk 13:26, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I mean, yeah. That'd be a good start. Simonm223 (talk) 13:30, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Well, I think Beyond My Ken was correct in analysis then @Jehochman:, "By referencing the content dispute over and over again, they hope to create the impression that this is all about content, and not about their behavior, and thereby get the report closed or ignored. It's an effective tactic, because the report gets lengthier and lengthier, with more and more sidebars and ancilliary discussions, so they can then pop up to say that the whole thing is an "open sewer" and ask for the report to be closed without action. [61]." And here we are, with "this thread is so long and hairy..." because of two editors (Springee and Buffs) who consistently and constantly tried to bring up content while their conduct (such as [239], or claiming to have answered questions they haven't [240], or vexatiously accusing people of being sockpuppets) is the issue. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 13:55, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

They are both being noticed about discretionary sanctions. Should they proceed to violate the notice, the next report should go to WP:AE. Let's hope that won't be necessary. Jehochman ^Talk 14:01, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Also, feel free to report anybody here at WP:AE if disruption is ongoing. If they have ceased, wait to see if the behavior resumes. I am not making a judgment one way or the other about any editor at this time. Jehochman ^Talk 14:11, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I second this motion. I appreciate the notice on my talk page and, to be blunt, don't know why it hasn't been enforced sooner. Send this to AE should any of it continue and let's move on. Buffs (talk) 15:07, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I guess I have to place the note here that Buffs just called me a troll[241] in addition to all the false insinuations trying to "obliquely" call me a sockpuppet. Conduct, again. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 19:01, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

No, you don't. Buffs (talk) 19:06, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

• @Jehochman: I did consider whether this would fall under AP2 or not. Obviously, Bannon is (or was) a major current AP2 figure, but the articles under discussion -- originally Right-wing politics and now Right-wing populism -- have a world-wide focus, and in fact are much more European- and Latin American-centric than they are about US poltics, even though US politics are certainly part of both. For this reason I thought that AN/I was a better venue for discussion of behavioral problems in these articles, despite Bannon being American.
  An additional consideration is that the campaign to prevent certain material from appearing in right-wing populism has spread beyond the Bannon quote to a quote by writer-historian Rick Shenkman (founder of the History News Network, now part of Georgetown University), who, wile he is American, is not a AP2 figure by any definition, and whose quote was not about American politics, but about right-wing populism world wide. The article the Shenkman quote came from discusses a paper that American political psychologist Shawn Rosenberg delivered at a conference in Lisbon, the scope of which, while again discussing American politics, was right-wing populism in general.
  Despite my initial decision to come here, if the collective community wisdom is that this issue is best dealt with at AE under the AP2 umbrella, I accept that, and will file an AE report if the attempts to keep out this properly sourced and relevant material continue. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:26, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

If the material in dispute relates to American politics, regardless of the article having a broader scope, I think AE is a good venue. If the content is strictly non-US, then you are right that this is the venue. You may still consider one of the more specialized noticeboards. I would come here only as a last resort when you can't find another other place to go. As you can see, the heavy traffic of comments by whoever is watching this page can produce a noise to signal ratio that's not ideal. Jehochman ^Talk 21:30, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I have certainly noticed that. Thanks for the advice about the specialized noticeboards, which, frankly, I hadn't considered, but probably should have, NPOVN in particular. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:49, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Bannon is an influential figure in US politics, he's not some irrelevant fringe figure with no real influence whatsoever. What he says is then picked up by major news organizations and Wikipedia should cover that in an appropriate way. There is always going to be resistance of believers in a political ideology to cover statements by influential figures that are seen to be politically incorrect and cast that political ideology in a bad light. E.g., when the fascist movement started in the 1920s it was not what it later became when the fascist allied themselves with the Nazis. Count Iblis (talk) 16:00, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Canvassing by User:Beyond My Ken

I've just noticed that BMK has canvassed at least one user with a non-neutral post.1 Mr rnddude (talk) 21:54, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

I was not soliciting new !votes in a non-neutral manner, I was providing information to @Count Iblis: -- who had already expressed an opinion in this AN/I discussion about the Bannon quote -- about where their comment should be placed, i.e the RfC at Talk:Right-wing populism rather then the behavioral discussion on AN/I. I might be wrong, but I don't see this as canvassing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:57, 18 September 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:Sk8erPrince removing redlinks against the guidelines

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:Sk8erPrince has been removing redlinks in articles because they don't like them. On their userpage they say:

"I don't like red links. They are utterly pointless; if you want to write an article for a subject, then go ahead and just do it. My knee-jerk reaction is to simply remove red links whenever I see them. You can always bluelink the subjects when your well-sourced article is finally done. Here's a discussion where I expressed my thoughts on the matter."

All attempts to suggest that the WP:REDLINK guideline not only allows redlinks but positively encourages them are met with refusal to accept that this is the case. In all cases this editor demands that anyone adding a redlink should prove the notability of the topic by at least creating a draft article, which rather removes the point of redlinking in the first place.

Diffs of redlink removal and my reverts (there are more, but it gives the flavour)

[242]

[243]

[244]

[245]

[246]

this last was following my attempt to discuss the matter User_talk:Sk8erPrince#Redlinks, where I provided a link to a Google Scholar search to demonstrate notability.

I know that WP:REDLINK is a guideline rather than a policy, but either Sk8erPrince's understanding of it is wrong or mine is. Currently his approach to me seems unconstructive and disruptive. I have no wish to engage in some sort of slow motion edit war, which is why I've come here. Mikenorton (talk) 23:12, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

This doesn't require admin attention. Please go talk to Sk8erPrince and if necessary work out an RfC between you to settle the content question. Guy (help!) 23:45, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

That particular dispute was resolved by me creating Cotabato Trench. However, I included a redlink to another oceanic trench, which is missing an article, and this redlink has now been removed by this editor on the grounds that I haven't proven its notability. Mikenorton (talk) 00:05, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

If this is persistent behavior, it can be disruptive because it can result in unnecessary edit wars since there is nothing wrong with red links and this is just a personal preference. It also looks like Mikenorton has already attempted to resolve with with Sk8erPrince on his talk page. I'd like to see what Sk8erPrince has to say and he hasn't edited in a few hours. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:16, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Have reviewed List of earthquakes in the Philippines and, subsequently, Cotabato Trench. Sk8terprince's edits appear disruptive. Three of the six redlinks removed could have been replaced with bluelinks, because articles for them existed. The other three, all Cotabato Trench, are now blue because Mikenorton created an article for the subject. For that matter, there were only six redlinks in the entire article to begin with, and they are all now blue. Sk8terprince also followed Mikenorton to the newly created Cotabato Trench page to remove redlinks from there, insistent that the subject is not notable. Given their complete failure to identify that the subjects were notable on the first page, they should not have shown up on the second page to repeat the same behaviour. There's also Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anime_and_manga#Red_links_in_articles to take into consideration. Mr rnddude (talk) 00:46, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

• Formally warned. User obviously is being disruptive, removing valid redlinks simply because they "don't like them", for some odd reason. The nonsensical arguments on their talk page makes it clear that they're on a personal crusade to delete redlinks, and not respecting the actual policy guidance. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 01:22, 19 September 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 personal attacks from 6YearsTillRetirement and Simonm223 on the Andy Ngo talk page

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

---

• 6YearsTillRetirement (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Simonm223 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

There is a discussion on the Andy Ngo talk page about the use of Jacobin as a source. I provided RS (namely, CJR) discussing Jacobin, which in my opinion indicated that Jacobin is on the radical left. I provided links to the source and attributed the quotes I pulled from CJR accurately. I remained civil. These users disagreed with either the source or my interpretation of it, and began to lodge personal attacks, claiming that I was being deliberately dishonest, that I was "cherry picking" quotes, and that I have poor reading comprehension. When asked to strike these personal attacks, they doubled down. These attacks have become disruptive to the ability of editors on the page to discuss how to use Jacobin as a source.

Here are the diffs containing the personal attacks:

[247] [248] [249] [250]

I will notify them upon posting this. Shinealittlelight (talk) 18:40, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

You'd have to squint really, really hard to find a personal attack in there, I think.--Jorm (talk) 18:44, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Claiming that I'm deliberately dishonest is not a clear PA? Shinealittlelight (talk) 18:47, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Shinealittlelight was trying to claim a source was calling Jacobin radical. I pointed out, after reading the article, that they didn't seem to have grasped the thesis of it well, as the article they linked to was suggesting that Jacobin was instrumental in bringing socialist thought into mainstream discourse in the United States. Cherry-picking quotes from a source in order to argue for the exclusion of another source is silly and I recommended they move on from that line of debate [251] that's what should be done here too. Let's just move on. Simonm223 (talk) 18:52, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned this is a vexatious posting by Shinealittlelight. The underlying issue is a continuation of bad behavior by Springee as well documented above in the current top section here [252]. As I documented when I finally noticed the section, Springee has a habit of trying to goad people, such as this edit [253] which followed Beyond My Ken writing several paragraphs to address WP:ONUS. The bigger issue is that when Springee or editors Springee is allying with behave in problem ways, they refuse to address the problem behavior, demanding that any discussion of their bad behavior be deemed a "personal attack" or lack of "assumption of good faith". 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 18:57, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Saying that someone is deliberately dishonest and needs to work on reading comprehension skills is a clear PA to my way of seeing things. Shinealittlelight (talk) 19:01, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Frankly everyone there needs to dial it back some. The heat to light ratio is steadily moving towards the former, and I don't want anyone to have to get blocked over it; not there yet, but sure seems headed that way. Already there are attacks on the article subject and rapidly progressing invective, and not much in the way of actually useful discussion. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:06, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to stick my neck out for Simonm223. They have been very critical of my reasons etc but I think they are fundamentally acting in good faith and I don't think they have engaged in disruptive personal attacks etc. 6Years has crossed the line. Accusing others of a "misogynist attack against a female journalist" without evidence [[254]] doesn't help civility. A number of 6years's edit summaries also make bad faith accusations [[255]], [[256]], [[257]]. 6Years has been here less than 2 months so perhaps this is just new editor not understanding WP:FOC. Springee (talk) 19:18, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

• I'm going to go out on a limb here and AGF. I don't see this being personal attacks; I think perhaps closing this and moving on is the best course of action at this juncture. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua 19:21, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

• I agree. Shineallittlelight is WP:SYNTHing the publication into a position that there isn't a reliable source to say it holds. And regardless, we don't disallow sources on their political position, only their reliability. There's a reason we've deprecated Breitbart and the Daily Mail, and that's not because they hold right-wing positions, it's because they've got a reliably sourced record of printing falsehoods. There is no suggestion that is the case here. Black Kite (talk) 19:25, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

The issue is not the substantive question of how to treat Jacobin, or even the question whether my understanding of the CJR article is correct. Rather, the question is whether it is a personal attack to say that I am intentionally dishonest or need to work on my reading comprehension skills. And of course those are personal attacks. Shinealittlelight (talk) 19:33, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Ok. Are you saying you want to make an issue of this? Or are you good with moving forward at this time, without looking to escalate this? I'm asking what you want to see happen. KillerChihuahua 19:39, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

I would absolutely be happy to move forward if an administrator would state that these were personal attacks and that there should be no further personal attacks from these users. I would then be happy to drop it, unless of course the attacks continue. Shinealittlelight (talk) 19:41, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Well, you're not going to get that from me, sorry. I find the verbiage used to be pointed but not without merit - the only borderline case is the "dishonest" one, and as that dealt with their argument that you misrepresented a source, that's a valid criticism, if terribly bluntly phrased. Your best bet is to either defend that source and your representation of it as accurate, or drop the subject. KillerChihuahua 19:54, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

I think it is a personal attack to call someone dishonest on an article talk page. It does not help to improve the article to say this, all that is important is whether what another editor is saying is true or false. If you think an editor is lying, then take it to ANI. Personal attacks, in addition to making the victim feel bad, also distract from improving articles and discourage other editors from participating. But 6YearsTillRetirement has to learn to drop the stick when discussions go against them. In this case it's clear that the other editors will not change their minds no matter what new arguments you present, so it's pointless to continue argue with them. TFD (talk) 20:00, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Yep. The personal attacks are disruptive and are stopping progress on the article at this point. Shinealittlelight (talk) 20:18, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

I've ran into 6YearsTillRetirement disruptive behavior as well, first on the Ngo talk page. He seems to me rather focused to insult, provoke, misrepresent others and their edits/comments, and escalate. What I find more disruptive is when such users, after arguments on the Ngo page, go after other talks I've contributed to and try to disrupt them (e.g.: voting on an Rfc though they are not familiar with the topic and have not read the materials being discussed). Mcrt007 (talk) 20:35, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

That comes under hounding. While it's very likely that 6YearsTillRetirement made an informed vote, rather than merely voting against you, "Even if the individual edits themselves are not disruptive per se, "following another user around", if done to cause distress, or if accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, may become a very serious matter and could result in blocks and other editing restrictions."

Given that 6YearsTillRetirement has a very short edting history with a lot of conflict, I would suggest an indefinite block. I note they opened their account with the user name Imadethisstupidaccount and their first edit was an AfD, so there is a possibility it is the account of a blocked editor. In that case they should request their original account be unblocked.

TFD (talk) 21:23, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Quoth @Drmies:, regarding me, "plus the editor who initiated it is, as far as we can tell, not a sock, and I happen to know this was already investigated."[258] Now stop it. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 21:26, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

I mean, it's quite clear you are a returning user, so sock or not, you are playing coy. That, combined with the hostility underlying your comments, probably means you could do with more scrutiny. Arkon (talk) 21:29, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

You millennials probably don't understand the idea of lurking first and reading and learning before posting. That used to be standard advice for Usenet. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 21:34, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for making the point RE: playing coy, hostility. Arkon (talk) 21:39, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm supposed to not be perturbed when someone is making baseless accusations like that, even after I show proof they're false? 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 21:44, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Sorry pops, any 'proof' you've shown (just your contribs) shows exactly what I said. I'm well aware of how the checkuser tool works, and I think you do too. Arkon (talk) 21:47, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Also, I didn't "follow" Mcrt007 to that page, I was looking at the topic of campus sexual assault hoping to find articles that my niece should read as she looks at colleges to apply to. I was hoping that something newer or up to date of this[259] might be on the page or in the discussion. But I'm reasonably sure that Mcrt007 followed me to Harry Anslinger previously [260] since they went after an edit of mine from nine days ago[261]. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 21:33, 18 September 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.

Anthony22

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

---

On 13:36, 9 September 2019 Anthony22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was "indefinitely topic banned by the community from making stylistic and grammatical changes, broadly construed, to any article on English Wikipedia."[262]

On 18:16, 17 September 2019 he violated his topic ban.[263] ("consensus first-team All-American" to "consensus First Team All-American").

On 14:14, 18 September 2019 he did it again[264] ("Born" to "born").

--Guy Macon (talk) 17:55, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the first edit, whether "First Team" should be hyphenated or capitalized (the source does not use the term at all), but the second is obviously correct as the word was capitalized mid-sentence. I'm not going to block for edits that are clearly constructive, WP:NOTCOURT and WP:IAR for example. Besides, the terms of the ban are vague, what is a "stylistic change" exactly? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:09, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: I was involved in the original argument that led to the topic ban and I agree. Drmies (talk · contribs) and NinjaRobotPirate (talk · contribs) among others warned the rest of us that the vague wording of the ban would cause problems and they were right to do so. I actually don’t believe that the edits in question violate the ban, since punctuation and case (capital vs lowercase) changes are actually not grammatical in nature. I regret not raising this issue before, but I think it’s worth hashing out now so that Anthony doesn’t get threatened with blocks each day for making good and constructive edits. Michepman (talk) 18:22, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

That's NinjaRobotPirate (talk · contribs) ;) -- a ^{they/them | argue | contribs} 19:11, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

thanks, fixed! Sorry for the mixup NinjaRobotPirate Michepman (talk) 20:18, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Time for (1) something close to my simpler, easier-to-understand TBAN suggestion: "no direct addition, removal, or alteration of article prose", or (2) community ban. I would support either. I would not support toleration of "correct" TBAN violations. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:19, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Michepman: indeed, capitalization and punctuation are not grammatical matters--but don't tell my kids' English teachers. Drmies (talk)

• As the person who wrote the proposal, I made it quite clear that I intended it to utilize the colloquial usage of "grammar" -- as understood, for instance, by the English teachers of Drmies' children -- and not the technical definition. From that vantage point, I would say that these were definiitely violations of the topic ban, at least as I intended it. At the very least, this is boundary-probing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:12, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
• The people who voted in support of the topic ban seemed to believe that Anthony22 is too disruptive to be allowed to make uncontroversial or obvious copy edits. Nyttend, who opposed over enforceability issues, said fixing "an computer mouse" would result in a block under the proposal. Supporters didn't seem to care. Anthony22 should let other people fix these errors. The restriction, as proposed, allows him to discuss problems on an article talk page. So, maybe that's what he should be doing. If nobody agrees with him that it's a problem, they can ignore him. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:09, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

I actually don’t agree that the topic ban is “impossible” to enforce. If anything, it’s pretty easy to keep track of it since you can just go through his edits and see what he’s done. My issue, which I raised then, is more that it’s too restrictive and doesn’t hit on the core issue. It’s not that grammar and orthography changes are inherently bad but that the user had an issue with just ignoring suggestions and refused to engage with editors who objected to his changes. If he was willing to talk through his changes and discuss any problems that come up, I would have opposed every suggested sanction. Michepman (talk) 20:18, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

I've rarely seen him object to being reverted. He lets the reverter have their way and just moves on to make more bad edits. How would it make sense to require him to discuss edits where he is willing to be reverted? Such a requirement would have the following effect: none.

The problem has always been the high number of bad edits that have to be reverted, requiring good editors to spend their time examining every one of his many edits, and that the numerous complaints yielded no improvement, strongly suggesting that no improvement is likely to be realized. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:16, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

• Having read all of the comments here, I find that the ban is more disruptive than the behaviour it was intended to resolve. We're going to be here every time Anthony22 edits, discussing whether or not their edit was a "stylistic or grammatical change". I'm not even going to try to enforce it, but there are a few hundred active admins so YMMV. I suggest revisiting the ban and clarifying specifically what is allowed and what is not. Some people here are suggesting that the ban was intended to prevent Anthony22 from editing articles at all, and if so, if you mean to go for a site ban, just say so. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:10, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

  There is a very large difference between not editing article prose and site ban, a point I made several times in the previous discussion. You might read it for background.

  I have no objection to clarifying the language of the ban, but the solution to an overly complicated ban is not to make it more complicated. It would be impossible to anticipate every one of the dozen or two specific types of edits for which Anthony22 is not well suited. If we continue down that path we will be back here on a weekly basis for some time, repeatedly revising the ban until it reads like a legal contract. Just keep the damn thing short and simple, even if it means denying him a few types of prose edits where he has a higher level of competence. There are other ways to contribute to the project, if it's in fact the project that interests him. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:15, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

The issue is not one of ambiguity. 'Anthony22 is indefinitely topic banned by the community from making stylistic and grammatical changes, broadly construed, to any article on English Wikipedia.' The issue is that Anthony22 is totally ignoring the decision, following their threat to do exactly that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tiger_Woods&diff=916360034&oldid=914781378

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:JFKBronxvilleshrine.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=916409259

NEDOCHAN (talk) 22:08, 18 September 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.

Agree with close. Good call. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:23, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Lo meiin violating DS

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.

---

Lo meiin is a new user who took interest in the I/P area, particularly [State of Palestine] and [List of Asian States' entry on Palestine].

They opened multiple garbled RFCs (1, 2, 3), two of them on the same article at the same time. Personally attacked a user expressing an opinion they didn't like in the RfC ([265]) and expressed bad faith ([266]).

The user doesn't meet the WP:30/500 criteria and was warned about ([267]) civility, editing against consensus and general prohibition, in addition to being given the DS alert.

The user has been given notice: [268].

“WarKosign” 17:35, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Someone might handle this here, but WP:AE is the most appropriate forum. ST47 (talk) 17:42, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, haven't submitted one of these in a while. Will move the case there. “WarKosign” 17:54, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Copied the case to WP:AE. Do I need to do something to close it here? “WarKosign” 18:59, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

None of this is true because unlike all other sockpuppets I have used appropriate formats for dispute resolution (RFCs, 3Os, etc) and have denounced deragatory remarks against users like auh2O and have even admitted my mistakes in order to learn and grow from them, and have apologized for them. Furthermore, I am combining generally and substantially recognized states in order to satisfy all editors and to present info in the most NPOV way to end the dispute (this was after myriad discussions in the talk page). By reverting this edit, you are pushing a pro Israeli POV and have too reverted multiple times

Lo meiin (talk) 19:13, 18 September 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 would like to refute these allegations against me, as I have requested RFCs, dispute resolution noticeboards, and 3Os before getting to editing. When I edited, I only combined substantially and generally recognized states so as to satisfy everyone’s view. Furthermore, I have on several occasions denounced derogatory remarks against AuH20republican and others, and have learned from my mistakes and apologized for such behaviour. Due to cultural bias, you are trying to enforce pro Israeli POVs, and I am not trying to advocate for any side, I only strive to be objective.

Lo meiin (talk) 19:09, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

unlike all other sockpuppets, I have...

Sorry, had to point out the beauty of that line. Hydromania (talk) 04:42, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Putting topic ban on the user

This is off to WP:COIN, best to not have multiple threads about the same thing. --qedk (t 桜 c) 19:20, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

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

---

Here is the User:Ruth vanita who is continuously editing articles about Ruth Vanita, Saleem Khidwai and others even after issuing warnings to her about WP:COI. In this revision she tried to put details about her upcoming book and used Wiki as soapbox. Same she did here. Saleem Khidwai is the person with whom she co-authored a book and she added these details about him.
Wikipedia should not be use as soapbox and many of her edits related to herself, her colleague and homosexuality are promotion of her work which is not acceptable. Hence, I think topic ban on LGBT writers in India should be imposed on her so that she can't further edit about pages related to herself, her colleague and her work. Or atleast topic ban on Ruth Vanita will be also enough. -- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 04:42, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: Harshil169, normally this sort of issue should be reported at WP:COIN. The editor should obviously not be editing the article about herself, and should instead make edit requests on the talkpage of the article. Softlavender (talk) 06:44, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
•  Done-- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 11:16, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

---

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

Strange legal header added to Talk:Brexit

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 editor added a template to the article talk page I have never seen before (User:Theprussian). [269] Can someone review this template and let other editors know if it actually belongs there. The template makes legal threats, which from what I understand are not allowed on wikipedia. Thanks. Octoberwoodland (talk) 20:41, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Octoberwoodland, it isn't a legal threat (since it's not somebody threatening action), it's more a warning that because the article topic is connected to an ongoing case, edits to the page could have real-life legal repercussions (presumably administered by the court). As to whether it's correct, no idea, I'll leave that to someone more familiar with Brexit and British law than I. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 20:45, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Also worth noting the thread at the refdesk. I'm one of those who think this template does sometimes have some good uses, but Brexit is not one of those - especially the current Supreme Court case which is being broadcase on the Beeb ... unless there's been some injunction or court order that I haven't heard about, just being up in court is not a good reason for the template. I'm minded to remove both templates, but I'm willing to first hear if there's any good reason for the template to be used. (also @This is Paul:) -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:59, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the explanation. The Brexit article is already contentious and difficult to edit due to the nature of the situation in the UK, with near constant edit warring by various groups of editors who have a hard time agreeing and getting consensus on just about every edit made to it. This tag just makes it that much harder or more difficult to edit that article. I have refrained from editing the article for a variety of reasons, and this notice just makes it clear that most editors should just stay clear of it. I have watched the youtube online debates in the House of Commons trying to understand all the views regarding Brexit, and it is very difficult to edit that article due to the wide spectrum of views editors have. The conflict in the house of commons seems to spillover onto wikipedia. Best to stay away from that article until the dust settles. :-) Octoberwoodland (talk) 21:06, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

• I saw that too, and dug a little, and found that this template was AfD'd in April and kept. I am tempted to re-nominated it. It is the provision of bad legal advice. The notion that a UK court is going to charge someone unrelated to a case with contempt for something they've written on Wikipedia about a pending case seems like a joke. Has any such thing ever happened? And even if it does, why are we so commonwealth-centric: are we going to warn about images of Muhammed? Or warn people about writing negative things about the governments of Russia, North Korea, Iran, or Venezuela, which may get them into legal trouble in those countries? Saying someone may be liable for something is giving legal advice; we shouldn't do it. Plus, chilling effect. Plus, freedom of speech is a value we should uphold, even if not every government does. – Levivich 22:33, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

  As I mentioned above, I believe there are some times where this template can be appropriate (this not being one of them). Be in no doubt that people editing Wikipedia can be held in contempt of court, just as they definitely have been for editing Facetwitter or whatever. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:40, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

  Man, I just can't keep up with these new social media sites ever since MeerXangaGramTalk launched... creffett (talk) 22:54, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

  I doubt that very much, and until it actually happens, I will continue to doubt it. The point (in my view) isn't whether it's Facebook or Wikipedia or that hot new site MeerXangaGramTalk–the point is whether the editor is connected to the case or not. I do not believe that a UK court (or any other non-kangaroo court) would hold in contempt someone entirely unrelated to a case (like random Joe Q. Public), because they wrote something about a case on the internet, even though the court technically may have the power to do so. It would be a gross miscarriage of justice to hold someone in contempt for violating a "gag order" without that person having intent to interfere with the case. For example, in one Facebook sub judice case, the person who commented on Facebook was a party to the case. A party can certainly get into trouble. Perhaps it would be different for a professional journalist. But a volunteer Wikipedia editor, unconnected to the case? No way. – Levivich 22:59, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

  Levivich, I'm confused. You linked a story about a case in the Philippines, which is completely unrelated to UK law; it's a civil law jurisdiction (based on Spanish law, apparently), not common law. Is there any similarity between that situation and the one envisioned for Brexit? Nyttend (talk) 00:51, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

  @Nyttend: I'm making a global argument, but let's talk UK. UK has both statutory and common law sub judice laws, which either require intent or have an innocent-publication/good-faith-publication defense: [270] [271]. The statute was written after a sub judice contempt case was overturned by the European human rights court (case summary, text). This is why I think it's inconceivable that a Wikipedia editor (acting in good faith, with no intent to interfere with a court proceeding) could be held in contempt (in the UK or any other respectable jurisdiction). – Levivich 01:57, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

  I do like those laws (not) where it says, "it is an offence to do x ..." and you might get arrested, charged, kept in a cell, fingerprinted and DNA'd, put on a database forever, named in the media, and get to pay heavily for a lawyer, "but it is a defence if you can prove y... ". User:Levivich and I might not end up agreeing - I'll merely note, as I did on the reference desk, that the Law Commission produced a paper which explicitly mentions editing Wikipedia (p46). Among other things it also mentions intent to publish (p47). Even the links above talk about "reasonable care" and "strict liability". -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 06:58, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

• It's ridiculous in context. The sub judice rule covers reportage that may influence the outcome of the trial. It is pretty close to inconceivable that anything we could add here, would do that. See [272]. Guy (help!) 23:03, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Based on the content you provided it's pretty clear the only way to commit this offense in the UK is to have access to confidential court documents or proceedings and publish them with malicious intent. The statute clearly states that run of the mill reporting about court cases with publicly available materials is just fine, and since Wikipedia is an internet publishing site which only publishes articles based on public materials I don't see how a Wikipedia editor or Wikipedia in general could ever run afoul of this law. Perhaps that legal warning template should be listed for discussion as proposed by another editor. Octoberwoodland (talk) 03:40, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

The template-in-question should be removed. Is Gina Miller threatening to sue Wikipedia now? GoodDay (talk) 03:50, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

The templates have been removed (with consensus to do so). As far as I'm concerned this thread can now be closed. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 06:58, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

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

Aggressive editor behavior

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,

Recently I made an edit to a page that was reverted because an "in use" tag (which was on for almost a day, and is continously put on the page despite sporadic editing), I had scruples with the current edits, and the editor told me to "Go Away!" in big bold letters, see here. Totally unneeded. A remark on my talk page would have been nice, and would have sent the message way better. I do not want to edit war, and would like to squash any animosity, but this behavior is making it hard. This is also recent:

"He needs to back off, calm down, and come back in a few days to see what he makes of the article then. He also needs to think more carefully about many of his spray-gun arguments." https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/915702345

SuperWikiLover223 (talk) 20:44, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

• This is the latest episode in SuperWikiLover223's hysterical campaigns here. He has already today tried and failed to get the article deleted, having previously supported its creation after his split with Machiavellianism scale in pschology. This was followed up by a section at the Neutral point of view/Noticeboard He has been highly obstructive, edit-warring and hampering my attempts to refocus the article by many removals of referenced material, ignoring the "in use" template. He needs to back off, calm down, and come back in a few days to see what he makes of the article then. He also needs to think more carefully about many of his spray-gun arguments. Johnbod (talk) 20:59, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

You have not addressed the aggression and persist to call my behavior "hysterical". This is what I mean. I would like to gain an accord but it is becoming difficult.SuperWikiLover223 (talk) 21:07, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

SuperWikiLover223, just today, you have been talking about this particular article at AfD, NPOV and, now, at ANI. And yesterday, you created a related article Machiavellianism scale, separate from Machiavellianism (politics). While Johnbod could have been more civil, this looks like forum shopping. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:23, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, but to be fair the split-off of Machiavellianism scale (psychology) was pretty much agreed on talk, by me & others. Johnbod (talk) 22:53, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

How am I forum shopping? Never knew reporting aggression is forum shopping.SuperWikiLover223 (talk) 21:28, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

• SuperWikiLover223's recent edits are bizarre. Adding personal opinion to articles, no-hoper AfD and so on. I think the time has come for him to slow down and start asking for advice. Guy (help!) 21:32, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Screw this, if no one is willing (or simply ignoring due to favoritism) to see the other editor's errors, I just wasted my time. Nevermind this report.SuperWikiLover223 (talk) 21:34, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

You need to read WP:BOOMERANG. Guy (help!) 21:50, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

When did I say I was above reproach? I think this is diverting from the original discussion, but since it is deliberate, I choose to let it slide. That's fine.SuperWikiLover223 (talk) 21:54, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

• You can't simultaneously AfD an article, and claim that you're the only editor who can save it. I've certainly seen (and suffered) Johnbod being super-aggressive at defending his articles. But that doesn't (obviously) excuse this. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:57, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Excuse what? Trying to AfD an atrocious article filled with NPOV and CFORKs? You people are hilarious. Seriously consider making a comedy trio.SuperWikiLover223 (talk) 22:02, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Maybe you ought to tone down on the aggression yourself, SuperWikiLover223. El_C 22:04, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Are you my father, EL C? Is it past my bedtime as well? Oh please. Give me a break. SuperWikiLover223 (talk) 22:09, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

I am the admin looking into your conduct, which does not really inspire confidence, I'm sorry to say. El_C 22:13, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

To be fair, while User:SuperWikiLover223 is not doing themselves any favours, neither is Johnbod - repeatedly calling someone else's behaviour "hysterical" is getting into personal attack territory and certainly doesn't aid in gaining consensus.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:56, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Well, twice, and that only because I copied my response at the section at the Neutral point of view/Noticeboard here. Johnbod (talk) 23:36, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

@Liz: Not so sure about that retirement...see Special:Diff/915728943 (edit summary), Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Machiavellianism_(politics) creffett (talk) 00:41, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

@Liz: I suggest you reopen the thread and note the change in username (the new one is charming).--Bbb23 (talk) 18:10, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Who the heck approved "KingofGangsters" as a user name, for heaven's sake? Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:53, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

A good reminder that declared retirements should not close discussions, given how frequently they're used to avoid sanctions or unwanted outcomes. Grandpallama (talk) 16:36, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I've reverted the closure. I apologize for the premature closure and the delay in reopening. I thought we were done here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:17, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

KOG violated an agreement made with me to stick to 1RR and to leave the discussion of our agreement on his talk page. Given this behavior and that it could be an attempt to conceal the agreement we had I have blocked for 1 week. This user has emailed me previously, I made it clear discussion needs to take place on his talk page. I think this can be closed now. --WGFinley (talk) 21:12, 18 September 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 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.

---

on my talk page Andreasm ^{just talk to me} 01:54, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Sorry this happened to you. Jehochman ^Talk 02:01, 20 September 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.

Autonomicus

• Autonomicus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Time for a break here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:25, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

• Agree. The user in question posted in my talk page after I reverted his edits in Talk:Squaring the circle and left the welcome template and a comment directing him to WP:NOTAFORUM and WP:TALK in his talk page. Magidin (talk) 18:15, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

• I've blocked this editor for 31 hours for disruptive editing. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:00, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

I've now indef'ed based on their comments following the block. Venting after a block is fine; their (now rev-deleted) response was not.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:49, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

I guess that person must feel that they have grieviously wounded me with their boring, predictable profanities, Ponyo, but it has zero impact on me. Thanks. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:25, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Optometry definition

Hi,

I’ve been UK Doctor of Optometry for years and I was just adjusting definition of Optometry to include the fact that UK Optometrists can become Doctor of Optometry, via postgraduate degree at a few universities:

https://www2.aston.ac.uk/study/courses/doctor-of-optometry

There is an anonymous user who continuously vandalises the edit and calls UK Optometrists “ophthalmic opticians”, citing sources from 30-40 years ago. Such a term has been phased out in the UK and there are no professional bodies using such a term in the past few decades. I have been qualified nearly 20 years and never been called an ophthalmic optician, as I am addresses as doctor - same as USA.

Can you restrict editorial privileges of this user:

User:2.24.81.187

I wondered if they may have a psychological problem as they relentlessly change my legitimate edit.

Regards

Dr Michael Hope Doctor of Optometry, UK — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjhope77 (talk • contribs) 08:00, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

• It's an anonymous person from Islington who has been doing this since at least July, via at least 2 IPs: [273], [274]. I don't know whether it's better to semi-protect, or to warn/block, or to rangeblock. Softlavender (talk) 09:49, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
• As a heads up I chose to notify the most recent IP regarding the discussion. I realize that they might be hopping around but I thought it was at least worthwhile to try and reach them since this issue could be either a content dispute or a conduct issue. I also encourage Mjhope77 to try and explore WP:Dispute resolution techniques to resolve this content dispute. Michepman (talk) 14:16, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator comment) Mjhope77, please refrain from personal attacks like I wondered if they may have a psychological problem. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 12:17, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
• Mjhope77 I've semi-protected the article for one month. Hopefully they'll either learn to use the talk page to have a productive conversation, or get bored and go away. If problems continue once protection wears off, let me (or anyone really) know. Requestes for page protection is a click away. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 17:11, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Vandalistic page move needs fixing

Desertfalcon622 has moved University of Dallas, first to University of Dallas, not UT Dallas, and subsequently to Seth is the biggest guy on campus. Because a bot came along and edited the University of Dallas redirect to fix the double redirect, a page move revert is no longer possible, and administrator intervention is required. (Also, action against the orginal page mover might be appropriate.) WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:59, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 12:06, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Simulated child pornography in the United States needs a WP:HISTSPLIT

We need an admin to do a WP:HISTSPLIT at Simulated child pornography in the United States. I noticed this article when it came up on WP:RM/TR. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 00:58, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

See also Talk:Simulated child pornography in the United States#Refocused page. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 01:16, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

•  Done. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 01:40, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

User:ASD0202 adding links to historycooperative.org

Special:Contributions/ASD0202 is an spa exclusively adding links to historycooperative.org. Some are in context, others are replacing other refs. I don't think the guest blogging platform is an RS; regardless that's likely to be paid editing. Hydromania (talk) 01:15, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

• Blocked indef as a spammer. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 01:28, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Hydromania (talk) 04:06, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Ongoing vandalism at multiple articles by anonymous editor

For quite some time an anonymous Irish editor has been vandalising the season articles associate with The Middle (TV series). Edits consistently remove content related to the character "Sue Heck" and usually add "UGLY" to reference her. (typical example) It was somewhat of a mystery that the editor was normally only targeting the articles for season 7, 8 and 9. Pending changis were eventually applied to these articles in April 2019. However, the childish vandalism attempts continue to this day. Today, the same editor has refoccused his attacks on the season 1-6 articles. I'm assuming it's the same editor because it's from the same ISP (Virgin Media) and he has conspicuously avoided editing the season 7-9 articles. Based on previous history, which dates back over a year, I assume this was a preemptive strike to see if he could edit these articles. Given the continued attacks at the season 7-9 articles I was wondering if a range block might be a more effective way of managing this vandal. I have compiled a list of IPs below:

• Special:Contributions/2a02:8084:42e3:8b00:10a9:2e47:be84:6f09
• Special:Contributions/2a02:8084:42e3:8b00:11b:e8f7:1c79:3a6c
• Special:Contributions/2a02:8084:42e3:8b00:18cc:9e39:d8fa:5194
• Special:Contributions/2a02:8084:42e3:8b00:2ca5:b766:b66e:415b
• Special:Contributions/2a02:8084:42e3:8b00:34e1:8ecb:a81d:eb6f
• Special:Contributions/2a02:8084:42e3:8b00:3529:378a:2ec6:4e8e
• Special:Contributions/2a02:8084:42e3:8b00:5072:2327:2afc:5008
• Special:Contributions/2a02:8084:42e3:8b00:542d:2db9:3eac:e34a
• Special:Contributions/2a02:8084:42e3:8b00:5477:ab10:e0b9:be8
• Special:Contributions/2a02:8084:42e3:8b00:56f:146f:21a8:9fb8
• Special:Contributions/2a02:8084:42e3:8b00:5995:c524:bb99:80f9
• Special:Contributions/2a02:8084:42e3:8b00:78b4:f07b:5709:6c65
• Special:Contributions/2a02:8084:42e3:8b00:812a:3a46:5f44:673e
• Special:Contributions/2a02:8084:42e3:8b00:85ed:f59f:f72b:c2c1
• Special:Contributions/2a02:8084:42e3:8b00:8a3:ce7c:a312:bca3
• Special:Contributions/2a02:8084:42e3:8b00:992c:8343:8208:4afc
• Special:Contributions/2a02:8084:42e3:8b00:a598:a342:b624:70f
• Special:Contributions/2a02:8084:42e3:8b00:a971:e175:14aa:2673
• Special:Contributions/2a02:8084:42e3:8b00:ac8d:2d59:28fd:e05
• Special:Contributions/2a02:8084:42e3:8b00:acc7:2b35:f6c8:bfa3
• Special:Contributions/2a02:8084:42e3:8b00:b01b:8544:c9b2:efc6
• Special:Contributions/2a02:8084:42e3:8b00:b0eb:9ea5:c339:31ea
• Special:Contributions/2a02:8084:42e3:8b00:b546:d8dd:75ed:9c78
• Special:Contributions/2a02:8084:42e3:8b00:b8ff:eb41:3afe:33ed
• Special:Contributions/2a02:8084:42e3:8b00:bc11:d071:c8a5:a7e1
• Special:Contributions/2a02:8084:42e3:8b00:c40b:ce33:910d:3f43
• Special:Contributions/2a02:8084:42e3:8b00:cc76:514b:ca91:2b98
• Special:Contributions/2a02:8084:42e3:8b00:cc8e:7dab:31a2:63a3
• Special:Contributions/2a02:8084:42e3:8b00:d0fa:851e:6374:8abd
• Special:Contributions/2a02:8084:42e3:8b00:dc80:21f5:f71f:3c70
• Special:Contributions/2a02:8084:42e3:8b00:dd5f:ed86:4e42:857b
• Special:Contributions/2a02:8084:42e3:8b00:e494:8f42:a1a7:b317
• Special:Contributions/2a02:8084:42e3:8b00:e4b2:2a92:fed9:8792
• Special:Contributions/2a02:8084:42e3:8b00:e9eb:72ce:4fd0:1ad6
• Special:Contributions/2a02:8084:42e3:8b00:f181:ec16:9c3b:2afb
• Special:Contributions/2a02:8084:42e3:8b00:fdec:be0a:dd67:9b8a

With the exception of one IP, all have only edited The Middle articles and even the exception vandalised the only other article that was edited.[275][276] --AussieLegend (✉) 03:41, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

I blocked Special:Contributions/2a02:8084:42e3:8b00::/64 for six months. The block log shows 1 month and 3 months in late 2018. Johnuniq (talk) 04:01, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:16, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Not Sure If This Belongs Here.....

I have been having some edit conflicts with user User:KStrain2000 - the most recent issue being with List of programs broadcast by Family Channel" I put in a reference stating that Speechless was a Disney Show since User:KStrain2000 decided that it should be listed under the "Disney" section, which is under the "Former Programming" section in List of programs broadcast by Family Channel. This station aired Speechless after Family Channel decided to no longer air Disney Programming (see "Loss of Disney Channel programming rights and other changes" in the "History section of Family Channel - several references are given. Speechless did not start airing on Family Channel (nor was it even made) until after Family Channel ceased airing any Disney programming.

In the Wikipedia article for Speechless there is no refer3ence to Disney owning it, at all. I found a reference for the List of programs broadcast by Family Channel to state that Disney was owned by Disney; however, a little while after I did this, User:KStrain2000 reverted that edit, stating "Speechless doesn't need a reference because everyone already knows it's owned by them; those Nick animated shows weren't by Nickelodeon themselves and Strawberry Shortcake isn't a Family original".

I reverted the edit and fixed it so that the shows no longer aired under the "Animated Series" section for "Nickelodeon" in the "Former Programming" section; but the fact that User:KStrain2000 stated "Speechless doesn't need a reference because everyone already knows it's owned by them" is extremely rude; I didn't know they were owned by Disney since no reference (nor was it ever mentioned) showed that Disney bought rights to Speechless - that's why I found (and provided) a reference stating that Disney bought rights to it (Disney is listed in the fifth paragraph in the reference I provided - https://www.rollingstone.com/tv/tv-features/speechless-tv-show-wheelchair-planet-episode-jj-disability-801320/).

Also, in another past edit User:KStrain2000 made (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_programs_broadcast_by_Family_Channel&diff=prev&oldid=909636189) involved the plot summary "Bro WTF is wrong with you?"

Two rude edit summaries; I know that's not exactly punishable but the most recent one - stating that "everyone already knows it's owned by Disney" is false - am I wrong to think that a reference shows that Speechless was bought by Disney? Like I said before; the reason I put the reference in was because Family Channel lost Disney programming rights before it aired Speechless. TheBlackKitty (talk) 14:04, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I've left a reminder to be civil in edit summaries. Let me know or post here again if they don't take heed and attempt to be less combative and dismissive in their summaries. KillerChihuahua 14:38, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks; I will do so if anything else happens. TheBlackKitty (talk) 14:39, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Legal status of drawn pornography depicting minors

An admin might want to check up on this page, it came to my attention when a bunk of references were removed. I am not sure if it is being targeted or not based on recent edits. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:45, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

I have semi-protected for some days...people are invited to use the talk-page to discuss things. Lectonar (talk) 13:47, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Okay, thanks! I would revert all the recent changes to status quo before the reference removal, but cant right now in my given surroundings. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:49, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Never-ending dispute

• The Real Housewives of New York City (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• AnAudLife (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• KyleJoan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

AnAudLife and I have been involved in a dispute regarding the sorting of The Real Housewives of New York City article since June due to their bold edit that did not adhere to WP:BRD. Since said edit, we engaged in an edit war, for which I received a block. During this block, AnAudLife proceeded to form a conclusion based on their own argument with zero user involvement. After the completion of my block period, a formal discussion on the article's talk page commenced. However, after a while, it felt as if they and I were regurgitating the same points over and over, which prompted me to request for a third opinion on the matter (given here), open an RfC, and request dispute resolution, all of which have not resolved the dispute. Now, I am starting to think that the reason for this lack of resolve is due to what I perceive as AnAudLife's refusal to accept that not one (myself), not two, not three, but four users believe otherwise and that the only person on the article talk page that explicitly supported their theory has been checkuser-blocked.

Another isue that I would like to address is the constant broadening and narrowing of the scope of the dispute. After a third opinion was generated, AnAudLife, fully knowing that the dispute has always been about the sorting of a specific name on a specific article, broadened the scope out of left field. Then, during the RfC, it was back to the sorting of the specific name. I believe this confuses the discussion and makes it harder to assert points.

In relation to the scope, AnAudLife keeps contradicting themselves. Regarding the subject of one's nationality and the part it plays in determining indexing, they originally stated: Myself and others still don’t know why you think her nationality is a factor at all. Then it became: That is why this conversation was started, sorting indexing, alphabetizing...should be done according to the name itself, not exclusively the nationality, acknowledging that there's merit in the opposing view without acknowledging the shift in their view in regards to the dispute. During this process, they also referenced a WP guideline without addressing that the exact guideline was used to challenge their view.

AnAudLife has also exhibited a tendency to regurgitate points that have already been discredited. In regards to their claim that Alexandre de Lesseps is a Count and Luann maintains she is still a Countess . . ., I referenced two articles from the New York Daily News and the Miami Herald, respectively, that says the exact opposite. They then kept arguing their point, citing a dead link from a gossip site to support it.

They also failed to adhere to WP:OR, with statements such as . . . I’ve spoken with 2 English professors casually regarding this debate . . . and In order for Luann to carry the title of Countess, she had to become a French citizen and maintain that citizenship . . . without citations.

And finally, a personal attack in the form of an accusation of bullying. KyleJoan^talk 20:49, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

• That's ... a lot of discussion about whether to alphabetize it as "Lesseps, Luann de" or "de Lesseps, Luann". A lot. I understand it's easy to get sucked into this kind of thing. Eons ago I was sucked into a long argument about capitalization. Luckily I had a friend who noticed the dispute and pointed out to me that it really doesn't matter. I have some small hope that I can do the same for you. KyleJoan, I promise that it really doesn't matter how it's alphabetized. For that matter, AnAudLife, I promise that it really doesn't matter. The first one of you to realize that "wins". --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:03, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, Floquenbeam. I think at this point I have realized that it doesn't matter that much. However, I still take issue with the way the discussion was conducted. I don't know if you ever felt gaslit during your dispute, but I certainly have felt that way multiple times during ours, especially being accused of bullying, which was why I felt compelled to open this ANI discussion. KyleJoan^talk 21:12, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Why did you start this dispute here? When the moderator on the dispute page (that you initiated) here hasn't even written the RFC on MOS?

I honestly can't believe most of what you just wrote on this page and I refute most of it. I invite everyone to read my contributions elsewhere on this topic, addressing every point you make, leaving nothing out.

Why are you starting yet another argument in another place before allowing completion on the dispute page?

Also, I didn't think I've ever accused you of bullying, but I have certainly felt that way myself with the never ending disputes and accusations. However, if you feel as if I have bullied you, I do apologize.AnAudLife (talk) 21:15, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

I've never felt bullied by you. Never said it. Never felt it. Regardless, thank you for the apology. KyleJoan^talk 21:34, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This was so long ago that "gaslit" wasn't really a thing yet. I mean, certainly not before the movie, but before it became a popular reference. But yes, at the time I did honestly feel that way. With time and distance, I realize he probably honestly felt the same way. The "bullying" accusation is sub-optimal, but (a) if you take it as an honest description of how AnAudLife feels, it's useful info even if not objectively true, and (b) you're kind of accusing them of intentionally gaslighting, right? Seldom are these things 95% Person A's fault, and 5% Person B's fault. Usually they're 45% Person A's fault, and 55% person B's fault, and it takes a lot of real, honest effort to figure who the 45% is and who the 55% is, and at the end of the day, after all that work, the difference between 45% and 55% is so small that the best solution is "why don't you guys kind of avoid each other for a while?". For something as low stakes as this, is it really worth finding out? --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:23, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

"gaslighting" dates to the 1930s. --Jorm (talk) 21:58, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm in no position to determine whether someone does something intentionally or not; I'm only saying that I feel gaslit, especially when every single one of my grievances contains direct links to specific instances of the problems I presented and they're still being disputed. I also do plan to avoid the dispute from now on. I think this ANI discussion is my final attempt to ensure that I address these problems in case they ever arise again in the future. KyleJoan^talk 21:34, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

• Wow, that's... special. Is there even a MOS guideline for this? I have seen "De Word, William", "Word, William de", an algorithm that says De Word for single syllables and Worsmith, De for multi-syllable, I have seen "de Word" but alphasorted as Word, and so on. It's a muddle, so I am not surpised it's not settling. Much as I hate the MOS, this is really a job for a style guide. Best of luck. Guy (help!) 22:12, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I have a vague, horrifying recollection that Belgium and the Netherlands traditionally treat the nobiliary particle differently (one omitting it and one including it in alphabetization), so it's...difficult to write a broad rule for this that won't make swathes of people unhappy. Choess (talk) 00:16, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes. Different nations use different rules. The content issue that I was trying to resolve at DRN is whether the national rule should be based on the nationality (citizenship) of the person, or on the national origin of the surname. I thought that I had agreement that the matter would be resolved by an RFC, which I was in the process of drafting. Their arguments weren't going to affect me, because I was drafting it to be a neutral RFC to be resolved by the community. I had asked the participants in the DRN where to post the RFC to get the most responses. I am now asking the community here where I should post the RFC. I have failed the DRN discussion because DRN does not handle a case that is also pending in another forum including ANI. I am still willing to try to address the content issue with an RFC after any conduct issue is resolved here. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:29, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

I felt that the DRN had become a proxy forum for more regurgitations of points already made, and I knew this ANI discussion wouldn’t affect the neutral RfC Robert McClenon was drafting. My intention with this ANI was to address behavioral issues related to the dispute. If the dispute itself could still find a resolve, then great. KyleJoan^talk 01:11, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Although I thought KyleJoan planned to avoid the dispute from now on, as I stated previously, I personally would still like to see the RFC that Robert McClenon is drafting come to fruition to be discussed with other users. I'm not sure that this specific case can ever be definitively and satisfactorily decided, especially without further deliberation from other editors regarding MOS in general. I noticed when KyleJoan begins a dispute she visits other users talk pages and asks them to visit said dispute and give their opinions. Is that standard procedure? Can I do that as well? AnAudLife (talk) 01:35, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

@AnAudLife: To clarify, I'm distancing myself from arguing for the acceptance of one theory over another regarding this dispute. I still find your behavior problematic and will continue to respond to questions and comments revelant to said behavior as well as previous discussions that took place. Speaking of problematic behavior, it's difficult not to feel gaslit when viewing statements such as I'm not sure that this specific case can ever be definitively and satisfactorily decided, especially without further deliberation from other editors regarding MOS in general because you know good and well that you have personally initiated two MOS discussions, which others can find here and here, that did faciliate further deliberation from other editors regarding MOS in general, so the idea that the deliberation process on this matter did not go far enough is outright false. KyleJoan^talk 03:27, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I fail to see that my "behavior" is any different than yours, you have argued your position just as vehemently as I have so there's that. When this journey (yes, that's what its starting to feel like) began, I felt that this case particularly was all that needed to be addressed, but then as other editors weighed in it became obvious that a more broader guideline needs to be established, not to mention all of the outside information available, it's mind-boggling. So the scope changed a little, it is not the end of the world. Either way it's a win for Wikipedia if we clarify this AND other cases in the future where this may happen. The discussions you spoke of, which I have NEVER denied initiating....nothing came of them. Nothing was concluded. Nothing was decided. Conversation dried up and that was that. Nothing changed. I'd like to see a RFC written by a NEUTRAL party and have other editors, not just the ones you recruit, to offer their opinions. Now if we're allowed to ask others to join in the conversation, then I will do so as well. AnAudLife (talk) 04:03, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

@AnAudLife: One key difference between our behaviors: I've legitimized your view. Never once did you legitimize mine. You simply changed the scope of the discussion multiple times and took bits and pieces out of my analyses and presented them as if they've never been said in the discussion (i.e. acknowledging that one's nationality is a factor in indexing after weeks of denying it, referencing WP:MCSTJR, etc.), therefore, gaslighting. I'm going to stop engaging you now. I'll continue to address my concerns regarding your conduct if anyone else would like to discuss it. Thanks. KyleJoan^talk 04:25, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't even know what gaslighting is and certainly didn't do anything underhanded or intentional. I merely stated my position and presented facts, when you would bring additional points to be discussed, I discussed them, you changed the content, you set the tone, I simply followed suit. You consistently brought up nationality, I had to address it, right? As well as all the other points you brought up? And if you must know, in this case, it's a mixed bag. Luann de Lesseps is French, Algonquin and French Canadian, born in America, married to a Frenchman. How's that for confusing? I'm sorry if you feel I did something wrong, I certainly didn't mean to and not sure that I did. Is this just because you don't like to be challenged? No one does but isn't that what we're all doing here, trying to better Wikipedia? Isn't that the ultimate goal? AnAudLife (talk) 04:39, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

RFC

I have posted the RFC at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#RFC_on_Sorting_of_Names_with_Particles . Robert McClenon (talk) 00:55, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Proposal A: Interaction Ban

The above uncivil back-and-forth between User:KyleJoan and User:AnAudLife is oddly clarifying, in that it shows that we have two users who do not like each other and do not get along, and their interaction is a problem. I propose an interaction ban between these two editors, with the usual exceptions. I will complete posting an RFC within 48 hours, which should resolve the content dispute. The interaction ban will prevent the conduct dispute from interfering with resolving the content dispute. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:56, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:56, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
• Comment – Genuine question: Is pointing out patterns of behavior complete with direct quotes and direct links and addressing how said patterns make one feel considered uncivil? I really tried my best to focus on content, so I apologize if some of my comments went beyond that. That was not my intention. I always aim to use discretion to maintain civility, and I'm sorry for the times that discretion was lost during this discussion. KyleJoan^talk 07:31, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
• Comment – Genuine question: What does all this mean? Does this mean when you post the RFC that neither one of us can comment on it? And that if we run into each other again like say 6 months from now that we can’t change each other’s edits...or challenge the validity of their content or even converse on each other’s talk pages? And that we can’t ever address each other again? While I joined Wikipedia in 2012, I didn’t begin actively editing until this year so I am new to it and am learning as I go along, please pardon my ignorance with what you’re proposing and help me to understand fully. While I’ve felt attacked and belittled and falsely accused, I still don’t hold it against KyleJoan and have also apologized if they felt slighted. AnAudLife (talk) 13:09, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • @KyleJoan and AnAudLife:

Although the interaction-banned users are generally allowed to edit the same pages or discussions so long as they avoid each other, they are not allowed to interact with each other.

Editors subject to an interaction ban are not permitted to:

• edit each other's user and user talk pages;
  
• reply to each other in discussions;
  
• make reference to or comment on each other anywhere on Wikipedia, directly or indirectly;
  
• undo each other's edits to any page, whether by use of the revert function or by other means;
  
• use the thanks extension to respond to each other's edits.

From WP:IBAN. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:10, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

So you can both post to the RFC, just not comment on each others' posts. You have been commenting on each others' posts at too much length. You will notice that it also says that a no-fault two-way interaction ban is used to prevent a dispute from spreading. Also, you haven't been interaction-banned yet. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:42, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

I do not plan to engage the other user, but if I can't raise concerns regarding their conduct or even reference their conduct at all, then I'd like to ask for another solution. KyleJoan^talk 21:50, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support (if I’m allowed) Assuming the other user abides by the ban, I can't imagine there would be a problem with this at all. I would feel a bit safer and happier if I knew this would end the turmoil, the reverts, the arguing. BUT, if they continue to revert or undo my edits or contact me in any way on Wikipedia, will I have a means to report them? AnAudLife (talk) 22:27, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose (if I get to state a position). I feel that the interaction ban does not address the conduct concerns I raised about the other user. Now, if anyone would like to raise concerns about my conduct in this dispute and reference specific instances of when said conduct needed correcting, then I would like to hear them and have the opportunity to address and correct it. KyleJoan^talk 23:13, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
• Comment - The statement by User:KyleJoan that "Now, if anyone would like to raise concerns about my conduct in this dispute and reference specific instances of when said conduct needed correcting, then I would like to hear them and have the opportunity to address and correct it" shows a lack of self-reflection. We have already tried to raise a concern about her conduct, which is that their focusing on the other user's conduct is tendentious. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:17, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

I feel the need to restate this, so believe me when I say I always aim to use discretion to maintain civility, and I'm sorry for the times that discretion was lost during this discussion. Aside from that, I'm really confused. How am I supposed to reference conduct if I'm not able to point it out directly? Also, if asking for an evaluation of my own conduct to ensure the discussion remains balanced is improper, then I apologize for that statement as well. KyleJoan^talk 01:18, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose This feels like an overreaction to a first appearance at ANI, where, at most, there has been some mild incivility with probably not-overly malicious intent. And We have already tried to raise a concern about her conduct, which is that their focusing on the other user's conduct is tendentious feels like an overstatement; all I saw was a couple of editors advising taking a breath and walking away. KyleJoan has asked for specific diffs where they could have improved, and that feels like a good-faith request that shouldn't result in a sanction. Grandpallama (talk) 16:32, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per Grandpallama. This seems like overkill. Buffs (talk) 15:43, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

KrishRoyceInc issues

KrishRoyceInc has been blocked before for editing while logged out to make controversial edits. There are 3 open SPI items out there for this user who is clearly masking his real IP, at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/KrishRoyceInc. The reason why I am here is this user is now making other edits that I feel warrant bringing here despite the SPI being open.

This user just made two redirects at [277] and [278] followed by minutes later the IP user changed a page to that name [279]. These changes are a clear example of vandalism as they are inaccurately now changing pages.

Additionally this user I guess was tired of all their articles getting moved to drafts, so they just created their most recent one as a draft, but they are now linking to it from the mainspace [280] [281].

This user clearly knows that its doing because any of the controversial edits are made while logged out, but to be clear, I am bringing them here for WP:NOTHERE separate and apart from the open SPI. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 14:14, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

It's not clear to me that this isn't a content dispute. I'm not seeing evidence of NOTHERE. I cannot speak to the sock allegations, that's out of my purvue. KillerChihuahua 14:21, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Not a content dispute. The two issues here are 1) the user is making disruptive edits while logged out to avoid WP:SCRUTINY including edit warring and 2) they have been copy pasting content from other articles to create articles without proper attribution. I will elaporate future below. StaticVapor message me! 17:31, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

• It seems that KrishRoyceInc will create articles by copying parts of other articles and fusing them together into these super messy articles that others have to clean up. Then any furthur editing after creating the articles, is done via their various IPs that trace back to Italy ([282], [283] and [284]). You can see an example here, where the IP edits the article less than five minutes following it's creation. You will also see at Draft:The Glorious Perfection, the IP edits the article one minute after KrishRoyceInc creates it. There is no way a random reader found this obscure draft a minute after it was created. Clearly same person based on the singular focus on articles and drafts created by KrishRoyceInc, the only other edits being linking to said articles. Except the new IP 79.37.163.88 is now introducing deliberate factual errors to The Undisputed Era and The O.C. (professional wrestling). They will also use the IP to edit war reverting without edit summary as seen here, most notably on The Riott Squad article, and on The Boss 'n' Hug Connection. The Riott Squad even had to be protected to make the redirect stay there. Clearly the logging out is to avoid warnings and WP:SCRUTINY. Article's that have been copy-paste created without CC attribution by this user include Draft: The Rascalz, Draft:The Absolution, The Boss 'n' Hug Connection, Draft:The Glorious Perfection, Draft:The North (professional wrestling), Draft:Shirai Sisters, Draft:The Kabuki Warriors and The Riott Squad (now a redirect). Also of note the majority of the drafts were published to the mainspace, but moved to drafts due to the such poor condition of the articles, due to the copy paste merging of separate articles into one. Check users cannot connect IPs to users but this is an obvious WP:DUCK. This is a good forum for this as the SPI has not been responded to for days and the disruption is ongoing and needs to stop since it is getting worse (now adding deliberate factual errors to BLPs).StaticVapor message me! 17:31, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Competence of SHISHIR DUA

• SHISHIR DUA (talk · contribs)

I have numerous concerns about this editor. A quick glance at their talk page sees a large number of warnings over a relatively short period of time, as well as two blocks in a few weeks - unsourced content, disruptive editing, and copyright.

I came across them with concerns about the creation of a larger number non-notable articles - by my count they currently have 6 articles at AFD, with another 3 at PROD.

I have tried to explain to them how notability works and the other issues above, but my comments appear to have fallen on deaf ears, and the editor is now hopelessly attempting to become an administrator, see this (deleted) and this.

I don't doubt that they are a good faith editor, but they are one who severely lacks competence. They have already had two blocks and in the absence of somebody with the patience and skill to get through to them (I have neither, it seems), a third can't be too far away. Posting here for advice/action. GiantSnowman 15:39, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

You can add copyright violation to the long list of issues that SHISHIR DUA has: [285][286] 86.134.77.93 (talk) 16:30, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

@SHISHIR DUA:, it would be really helpful if we could get some response from you here to all the things brought up both here and on your talk page. I'd also be curious as to whether you would consider entering the WP:ADOPT program so an experienced mentor can help you. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:40, 17 September 2019 (UTC) I tried to maintain all the rules according to Wikipedia but due some personal reasons it might have crept in. I apologize but citing that don't doubt on wiki editing abilities and I solemn I'm gonna maintain the policy of wikipedia in future.

Continued unsourced edits by IP 84.248.191.201

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.

---

As can be seen on their talk page, this user is choosing to ignore continued warnings, including several final ones for genre changes and additions without sourcing their edits as can be seen here on their contribution page. Examples here, here, here, here & here. Robvanvee 13:00, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

It looks like they just realized that Materialscientist's block had expired and they decided to pick up where they left off. I've reblocked the IP.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:33, 20 September 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.

Rochdale A.F.C.

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

---

This article is being promoted as a "happy customer" on the Wikipedia page creation site https://www.thewikiexpert.com/ and I was unable to find a single disclosure in the edit history (or talk page) for paid editors. I don't have the skills to track this down but I figured someone would like to defend the community by identifying this violation. Thanks. Luke Kindred (talk) 22:18, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

I'll look at it. Chetsford (talk) 23:12, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

This is what I found.

• The article was created in 2004, which was 15 years before thewikiexpert.com URL was first registered.
• The article creator and three most prolific editors don't have any obvious, telltale indications of being undisclosed WP:PAID editors.
• There have been no dramatic edits to the article since thewikiexpert.com was first registered earlier this year.
• It's not a very well-written article but I see no signs of WP:PROMOTIONAL language.

I think either (a) thewikiexpert.com is claiming to have worked on this page when, in fact, they did not, or, (b) their edits violate our WP:PAID disclosure policy but are otherwise content policy compliant, or, (c) their edits violate our PAID policy and are not content policy compliant, but there is enough GF activity on the article as to obliviate any practical impact of the PAID editing. I'll watchlist it. Chetsford (talk) 23:27, 19 September 2019 (UTC); edited 23:42, 19 September 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.

Attempt at accessing my 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.

---

I have been notified that about 10 hours ago there were "multiple failed attempts" to log in to my account from a new device. I was at work and not accessing WP at the time. At the same time, IP editor 80.44.204.208, who is engaged in an edit war at Trabant, reverted my last edit. I find this to be an unlikely coincidence. Are one of the admins able to check the IP logs to see where the attempts to log into my account came from and if they're the same person? thank you. MartinezMD (talk) 06:51, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

• Hi Martinez, this is not required. If you have a strong password, you don't need to worry. Admins or checkusers will not try to connect anything based on suspicions. Thanks, Lourdes 07:06, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. Maybe I don't understand, but isn't someone trying to hack a user's account a legitimate reason? Or is it simply more effort than available check users? MartinezMD (talk) 07:18, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

No Martinez. I didn't mean that. I meant that what you presume as hacking, could be a mistaken login attempt, could be a deliberate attempt, could be the IP, could be any outside entity, and so on so forth. Admins or checkusers would never wish to do a wide expansive investigation based simply on suspicions of hacking. Thanks, Lourdes 07:25, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Got it. thank you MartinezMD (talk) 07:25, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

CUs do not have access to "trying to" login data afaik, I'm sure the people at WMF IT do, but I doubt they will crosscheck it for you to find the culprit. More than often, it's just someone trying to spook you or bruteforcing based on email/passwords from a leaked database. --qedk (t 桜 c) 07:32, 21 September 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.

Unsigned comment

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 an unsigned comment here, made some time ago, on August 1st. On the next day, I alerted the user to add their signature (here), but so far they did not. Can someone among administrators fix that, by designating the signature? Sorabino (talk) 09:11, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

I added {{unsigned}} if this was your request.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:24, 21 September 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.

Template:BMW E24 timeline

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. The outcome of WP:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_June_28#Template:BMW_E24_timeline was to delete the template. However it has now been re-created without any discussion. It is not about whether the decision was correct or not, but this is about following proper process. Therefore I request that the template is removed until if/when a proper review decides that it should be restored. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 11:19, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

• It has been recreated by the original creator, claiming that it was "nominated for deletion by troll", but it wasn't, it was nominated by a long-time and very experienced editor. And it's still ugly, and used only in a single article, so I have nominated it for speedy deletion per CSD G4... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 11:50, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

A user with 6 edits who was CU-blocked? Sounds like a troll to me! 158.106.203.154 (talk) 13:38, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

The original "Lukeno94", who made the edit in 2015, has been renamed and (voluntarily) vanished, the account the link now leads to was created (and blocked, see block log) as an impersonation account. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 14:43, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

• This template was deleted years ago. Any question now as to whether WP is improved or not by its use is a content issue, not for WP:ANI. OSX has disappeared. Luke disappeared in the midst of considerable argument (if not an actual cloud overhead) because of issues like him seeking to delete templates and infoboxes he disapproved of.

The BMW E24 series is a notable and long-lived subject. A timeline box is appropriate and consistent with our similar pages elsewhere. It's also appropriate to modularise its coding as a template. If the results are currently "ugly", then that's a question for Template talk:BMW_E24_timeline, Talk:BMW 6 Series (E24) and maybe car projects, not here. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:53, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

@Andy Dingley: As WP:Templates says "... templates are used to add recurring messages to pages in a consistent way" (note "recurrent", and "pages" in the plural), while this template would fit only in a single article (BMW E24), and isn't being used even there. So I suggest you selfrevert your removal of the speedy-template... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 14:19, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

• Templates are not solely used for recurring uses. There is also a widespread and valid use of them to encapsulate complex sections of coding which don't need to be in the main wikitext of an article. We do this a lot, we aren't going to stop doing it.

It's only "not used in any articles" because it was recently removed from the BMW article, presuambly as part of this deletion effort. That is no reason at all to delete it: if we're objectively better off with it, then we should use it.

As to the speedy template, then the last thing we need is that overlapping with a discussion here. Although I'd have no objection to relocating all of this to TfD, where it belongs. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:25, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

The template was removed from the article after this thread was started, and not by the OP but by another user (who quite possibly knew nothing about this thread since the edit summary says that the edit re-adding the template was reverted because the template had been deleted...). - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 14:51, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

• And JzC has deleted it as G4 anyway as either an admin supervote, or more likely just to piss me off. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:08, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

• ... or simply because they agree with me, that is feel that my speedy-nomination was correct (don't automatically assume that *everything* is about you). - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 18:23, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

• As a challenged speedy, it's invalid to re-add it. In no way is it a vandalism, copyvio or BLP issue. There's a tag on the template linking to this discussion here. At the very least, this was an admin supervote in a content dispute. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:24, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

• Well, no, it's a perfectly correct G4, because it's an exact re-creation of something that was previously deleted via XfD. Having said that, given that it's four years since the TfD, and only two peope opined on the original discussion, I would have been tempted just to send it back to TfD again. Black Kite (talk) 20:02, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

  Black Kite, Exactly. I had no idea it was challenged, but that would not have been relevant as the sole valid basis to challenge a G4 is that the content is not substantially identical. I saw this thread, reviewed the deleted version per TFD and the current version, they are visually identical, as you verified. The creator's explanation is implausible: it was deleted over four years ago and he suddenly decided it was a troll, so he'd recreate it? I have heard more plausible things from Sean Spicer. He could have challenged it at DRV at the time, he did not. He could have raised it now at DRV, he did not. The rationale here is straight-up WP:ILIKEIT. Guy (help!) 20:10, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

And I wonder when Andy Dingley was thinking of pointing out that he had a beef with the TFD nominator? [287] - always best when you have a dog in the fight, to admit it, rather than wait for people to hear it barking, right? Guy (help!) 20:15, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Not everyone here is driven by your personal animosities. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:20, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

See also: projection (psychology). Guy (help!) 20:34, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The correct procedure for challenging the outcome of a deletion discussion with few participants is to post at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion, not re-creating the template and then having a new deletion discussion. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 20:21, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

• Maybe so. But we are where we are, and the question is what to do next. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:31, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Knowing you, I am guessing that "leave it be" will not be on the list of options. Guy (help!) 20:35, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

• Of course it's not a valid CSD. It was a valid one when Thomas tagged it, but it was then obviously challenged here and I removed the tag to avoid a careless admin deleting it despite. Guy ignored that and deleted it anyway. But as all admins are surely aware "If an editor other than the creator removes a speedy deletion tag in good faith, it should be taken as a sign that the deletion is not uncontroversial and another deletion process should be used. ". But Guy persistently just creates new policies, like WP:RSONLY, as he feels fit. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:30, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

• Deletion per CSD G4 can't be "controversial" if the re-creation is identical to the one that was deleted per XfD, and "administrators have broad consensus to bypass deletion discussion, at their discretion, and immediately delete Wikipedia pages or media" (per Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion) if a page obviously meets CSD G4, so removing the speedy-tag isn't the supervote you seem to believe it is. And as I wrote above any challenge to the deletion should be handled at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 20:39, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

• That's a hell of a mis-quote.

"The criteria for speedy deletion (CSD) specify the only cases in which administrators have broad consensus to bypass deletion discussion, " (emphasis mine). Your quote is not a statement that admins have such consensus, it's a statement that they will only have such consensus, if they comply with the constraints of CSD otherwise (such as I noted above). Andy Dingley (talk) 21:17, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

I suggest you read what I write before replying the next time, or maybe the parentheses confused you. So let's try again: "administrators have broad consensus to bypass deletion discussion, at their discretion, and immediately delete Wikipedia pages or media" if a page obviously meets CSD G4", which is what we were discussing. Or in other words, I did not claim they always have that right, only if pages meet the criteria for CSD. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 21:28, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

• You wrote, literally, Deletion per CSD G4 can't be "controversial" if the re-creation is identical to the one that was deleted per XfD,

Yet deletion of identical content under G4 becomes controversial (to the level that CSD can't be applied any more) once, "If an editor other than the creator removes a speedy deletion tag in good faith, it should be taken as a sign that the deletion is not uncontroversial and another deletion process should be used. " applies. This is clearly stated in WP:CSD. Which is what had already happened here. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:39, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

No, creating a page that is identical to one that has been deleted at XfD does not become "controversial" (in the sense that it makes it impossible to speedy the re-creation) just because someone removes the speedy-tag. Nominations for A7, G11 and similar can become controversial, since opinions can differ as to whether there is a claim for fame or not, or a page is purely promotional or not, but not G4 (or G5, creation by blocked or banned user, if the creator has been blocked as a CU-confirmed sock). And I stand by that. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 21:49, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

• "If an editor other than the creator removes a speedy deletion tag in good faith, it should be taken as a sign that the deletion is not uncontroversial and another deletion process should be used. "

It's a direct quote from WP:CSD. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:52, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Andy Dingley, G4 is unambiguous. A substantially identical copy of material deleted via a valid deletion process. A G4 where the content is visually identical is never controversial. As a non-admin you can't see the deleted version. I can.

The third incarnation was character for character identical with the second. Guy (help!) 22:44, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

• It's not about whether G4 applies, it's whether CSD applies. Thomas's G4 was correct. But once it has been challenged, you can't re-apply a CSD (BLP etc. apart), so your G4 on the same template no longer was. Maybe you don't know what CSD means? It's not "speedy" as in, "I'm an Admin, I'm too important to wait for others" it's for deletions that are obviously and uncontroversially appropriate. Once they're questioned, and this one has been, that's just not an option. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:06, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Andy Dingley, If your idiosyncratic interpretation fo G4 were true, every single deletion - especially those contested by armies of meatpuppets - would result in an endless succession of XfDs. Fortunately for our ability to delete anything at all ever, that's not how it works. Same user, same content, G4. End of. Guy (help!) 23:15, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

@Peter.shaman: - are you aware of this thread? Andy Dingley (talk) 19:55, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

The thread isn't about him, but a question about what to do with a recreated template. But he is well aware of the speedy-deletion nomination, as can be seen here. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 20:08, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Peter.shaman blocked

Peter.shaman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) created Template:BMW E24 models, which is word for word identical to the last deleted version of Template:BMW E24 timeline. I have blocked for 31h for persistent re-creation of deleted content. Guy (help!) 20:49, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Can you just imagine for a moment all the opportunities a better admin might have had, and used, for resolving this in a better way? Andy Dingley (talk) 21:22, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Can you just imagine for a moment what it would be like not to pour petrol on every single fire you come across? Rhetorical. Andy, we are both cunts, the difference is that I realise it. Guy (help!) 22:46, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

• Andy "forgot" to mention that he just WP:FORUMSHOPPED this to Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion. Guy (help!) 23:29, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
• Looks like a very valid CIR block to me. Period. --qedk (t 桜 c) 16:11, 19 September 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.

Keddie murders edits

I did extensive work on this article last year and recently revisited it to find there have been numerous recent edits made with rambling edit summaries critiquing the sources used as insufficient. The user, Motthoop (talk · contribs), appears to have some personal involvement with the case and disputes the newspaper and book sources cited. I cannot make sense of what s/he is saying in most of the edit summaries. I looked back and they have a history of editing this page, and were doing it long before I was making regular edits to it. They posted on the talk page a few days ago, endorsing a single web article as the only source that contains the ostensible "truth" (mind you, this source was already cited in certain parts of the article), but again, the details are rambling and indicate a personal investment in the case; some of the post seems to be declaring guilt at certain suspects. I responded on the talk page and attempted to explain that just because s/he believes and/or knows certain details about this case, that the policy on Wikipedia is that we have to go by published reliable sources, but I don't think the message was conveyed.

Given the state the article was left in (riddled with typos, informal language, reference problems, and other inconsistencies), I reverted the article to a former version without this problems, but someone is now making edits while not logged in. I've never dealt with a problem like this on here and am not sure what to do here. --Drown Soda (talk) 08:35, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

• Comment - From the few interactions I've had with Motthoop, it seems evident they[288] are[289] not here to contribute to this encyclopedia. Lupin VII (talk) 08:52, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Comment - To add onto what Lupin VII said, this guy seems to be pretty angry at Wikipedia in general. Nearly every comment he has made on a talk page and edit summary he has left on main space has had some kind of personal attack or profane insult directed at other users or at Wikipedia as a whole. His talk page is also covered in warnings to stop edit warring and to tone down the personal attacks. Nothing seems to have worked, so I think it’s time for admins to (at a minimum) admonish him to stop being so aggressive and also consider semi protecting the page to deal with the IP edit warring. This guy seems passionate and he might actually be knowledgeable about the case (reading between the lines he appears to be an investigator or reporter) but he can’t trash articles or other editors to make his point. Michepman (talk) 13:59, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

• I have blocked the user indefinitely per the above. Regards, ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 20:36, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

That user talk page is a textbook example of determined, tenacious original research. I endorse the block. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:16, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Lock shemale edit Autoconfirmed

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.

---

Lock shemale (edit=Autoconfirmed) (move=Autoconfirmed) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peeravich23 (talk • contribs) 01:31, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

There has only been one IP that edited shemale recently. Their two edits were reverted and nothing further is needed. Next time please use WP:RFPP. Johnuniq (talk) 01:38, 21 September 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 hopper changing language templates to Wikidata format

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 an IP hopper making such edits [290]. I reverted some a couple of weeks ago, yesterday they changed the IP and I have to revert about fifty edits (example); I noticed that @Fram: today reverted a bunch of edits made by yet another IP. Irrespectively of what I think about the Wikidata integration, there was an RFC with the results that such edits are not allowed. I left a note on the talk page of the yesterday's IP, which apparently had no effect. Any ideas what to do next? Range block? Edit filter?--Ymblanter (talk) 11:16, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

@Fram: Grandpallama (talk) 13:46, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: what is the extent of the "hopping"? If they are within a range, range-level contributions can be checked. If they are all over the place, then edit-level controls (e.g. edit filter) could be looked at to detect or prevent future cases. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:28, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

I do not know. I will now provide two IPs which I know of; I am sure there was another one editing a bit erlier but I do not know how to find it.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:30, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

2001:b07:6442:8903:3da1:25fa:3859:5d7c (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

2001:b07:6442:8903:8c2f:1b4c:7ff5:dc0a (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

@Ymblanter: try Special:Contributions/2001:b07:6442:8903:0::0/64 - does this include everything you are looking for? — xaosflux ^Talk 14:36, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I think so, thanks a lot. Should we just block the range? I will revert the recent contributions in the meanwhile.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:39, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: sorry, I'm a bit at a loss here - what is "wrong" with the edits that were made? — xaosflux ^Talk 14:43, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

We had an RfC which specifically outlaws any usage of Wikidata in the text of articles (it can obly be currently used in infoboxes). I personally opposed, but this was the outcome.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:48, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

On Tuesday, I told the Ip that there was no consensus for these changes, and that I will be reverting them, but apparently it did not have any effect.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:49, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

It would be useful to have a wikilink to the relevant RFC, so that it can be pointed out to this IP and to any subsequent offenders. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:02, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

I hoped someone would help me, because it is not convenient for me to search right now, but if not, I will look for it in the evening.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:08, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Most likely, this is this RfC: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 204#New RFC on linking to Wikidata, though it might have been another one as well.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:07, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

That one was more about a subset of such uses, but basically confirmed the original RfC from 2013, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikidata Phase 2, which said that it is "not appropriate to use Wikidata in article text on English Wikipedia" and which, as far as I know, hasn't been overturned on this point (and found consensus in related subdiscussions like the above RfC or Listeriabot AfD discussions). Fram (talk) 16:22, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: sorry, I'm still at a bit of a loss, in the edit you started this section with: Special:Diff/916139100 - it appears that both the "before" and the "after" include #property invocations, which has been in that article for two years; as such I'm not seeing much at fault from this IP editor since they were just continuing the editing style that was already present. In your own revert you edited the article and left a #property tag right there so not really editing by example. The subsequent edit by Fram seems much more appropriate, in that it cleans up the entire issue. It is certainly fine to not make an edit - but when you are saying "don't do this thing" and it is literally next to another copy of the thing you don't address it doesn't send a clean message to the other editors. Additionally, a quick search shows that wikidata items are fairly heavily being used in articles now, so perhaps an old RfC at least needs some better explanation? — xaosflux ^Talk 18:31, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

This is fine, but I got so much mud throwing on me during the last session, that I am certainly not going to start any Wikidata RfCs, and most likely will not participate if one has been started. If the community thinks the edits by IP are fine, it is ok with me. Concerning my edits, i checked a couple and then started using rollback - apparently, it was not a good idea. I will go through them again.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:40, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

The majority of the pages showing up on that search appear to use #property inside infoboxes or other templates, which has always been permitted. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:45, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

@Pppery: thanks for the note, went back and actually read one of those old RfC's that were prohibitive of use within the body of the article. @Ymblanter: if you think this is happening a lot, you could post at WP:EF/R and we could write an edit filter to at least detect property invocations in the text (would have to think about the formatting of it to ignore non-body sections, but it could be possible). — xaosflux ^Talk 22:34, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I will think about it. I guess the IP just edit all articles about Wikipedias, in the decreasing order in terms of the number of articles, so it is not difficult to predict what article would be the next.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:38, 20 September 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

Hi, this IP is continuously making unconstructive edits, they have been warned by several editors, but they don't seem to be ready to stop. Admins' eye would be welcommed. Best regards.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:37, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

I think this request would be better suited here Curt内蒙 22:45, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

The IP editor hasn't edited since the warning notices were posted on their talk page so I'm reluctant to block now. Please update if vandalism continues. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:47, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, i hesitated between going to AIAV and coming here ... Thank you guys for your input, @Liz: ok, i'll do that if they come back at it again ;-) Best.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:10, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

IvanScrooge98's edits in the area of Germanic languages

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. Over the last year, IvanScrooge98 has made a series of dubious edits in the area of Germanic languages (specifically IPA transcription). The issue reminds me of LoveVanPersie. What's the same is this:

• Inability or (even worse) unwillingness to read the relevant literature - in other words, issues with WP:COMPETENCE and sometimes also with complying with WP:RS.
• Issues with WP:DIDNTHEARTHAT.
• Relying on other users to clean up after him (or at least to notice his mistakes, he tends to clean up after himself after that).
• Relying on other users to teach him phonetics/phonology for free instead of reading the literature.

I should've reported him sooner, definitely.

First the discussions, which IMO show his lack of competence:

• In this discussion, he asked me whether we could manufacture a pseudo-consensus regarding the use of the secondary stress mark in IPA transcriptions of Swedish, regardless of what reputable sources say about the subject (so that he could keep editing in the area of Swedish phonetics). Other discussions about that include User talk:Kbb2#Blekinge and User talk:IvanScrooge98#Long consonants in Swedish - I think that they prove that he hasn't improved his knowledge in the area of Swedish phonetics and phonology at all. He had a year to do that.
• In this discussion, he was pointlessly arguing with me that Swedish [ɪɛ] can be understood as anything other than a sequence of two vowels, which is unlikely (especially if you only consider those of our readers who can only read English IPA - in English, [ɪɛ] [mostly written as [iɛ] or [ie]] can't be compressed to [jɛ]). Plus, the pronunciation with [j] is possible in Swedish. Maybe not in all words, but it is possible and I gave him a source for that. That argument, as well as this discussion was a waste of time for everyone involved and a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. What else should you call repeating "I'm not convinced" or "I don't agree", no matter what I say? Pronouncing "copy-edit" as [ˈkɒpjɛdɪt] (or [prəˌnʌnˈsjeɪʃən] for "pronunciation") is impossible in native English. Here's a quote from Geoff Lindsey's "English After RP", page 25: [S]ome of the words which are most commonly mispronounced by non-natives are ones in which weak FLEECE and GOOSE are followed by a vowel, such as association and situation (see Chaps. 8 and 9). In such words, non-natives very often fail to separate the two syllables in 'ua' and in 'ia'. Here, FLEECE should be taken to mean HAPPY, which isn't a true phoneme in English (HAPPY = KIT in older Received Pronunciation, hence the transcription ⟨ɪ⟩ in some sources. Other sources use ⟨i⟩, which is a symbol that means "either /ɪ/ or /iː/".
• In this discussion, I noticed that he misheard [trɔlˈhɛtːan] for [²trɔlːˌhɛtːan], which means that he knows little about the Swedish pitch accent. He was partially right about the long consonants though.

Now the diffs.

• He's made a series of mistakes when transcribing German:
  • He transcribed /ən/ after /m/ as if it were syllabic, which is an impossible pronunciation: [291]
  • He transcribed /ən/ after /ŋ/ as if it were syllabic, which is an impossible pronunciation: [292]
  • He transcribed /əm/ after /t/ as if it were syllabic, which is an impossible pronunciation: [293]
  • He mistook the syllabic [ɐ] for the non-syllabic [ɐ̯] just because it was preceded by a vowel: [294]
  • In this edit summary (of an edit that's a part of [this edit war), he told me that we should either transcribe [ʁ] everywhere (no source does that) or use [ɐ̯] instead of it (which is a solution used in a minority of sources). This shows that he's not reading the literature (AFAICS, he also wasn't aware of the fact that [aɐ̯] and [aːɐ̯] fall together with [aː] for all speakers who consistently vocalize their /r/ [though in regional SG there may be a difference of [aː] (phonemically /ar/) vs. [ɑː] (phonemically /aː/ and /aːr/)] - ⟨aɐ̯⟩ and ⟨aːɐ̯⟩ is just a convention used for the sake of phonemic identification, mostly for speakers of Swiss Standard German). The relevant discussion on his user talk page is here. In it, he admited that he can't really distinguish between a uvular approximant and [ɐ̯], which is an amateurish mistake. Most sources use ⟨ʁ⟩ or ⟨r⟩ after short vowels and ⟨ɐ̯⟩ after long vowels.

The relevant discussion on his user talk page is here. These are amateurish mistakes that nobody who's well-versed in the area of German phonetics would make.

• He's made a series of edits in the area of Icelandic phonetics, here are some of them: [295], [296], based solely on Help:IPA/Icelandic and Icelandic phonology#Vowel length (I guess he didn't know that Wikipedia is not a source and that they can be incomplete or even plain wrong).
  • This edit has an alarming edit summary - he shouldn't have performed it if he wasn't sure of the correctness of the IPA. Here's basically the same kind of an edit in another article.
• He edit warred with me on Henryk Sienkiewicz over a regional IPA: [297].
• He's made a series of dubious changes to Swedish IPA:
  • Somewhere in this discussion it becomes apparent that he changed tone 1 to tone 2 in some transcriptions based on his assumptions and/or his untrained hearing (again, how can you mishear [trɔlˈhɛtːan] for [²trɔlːˌhɛtːan] if you claim to be competent enough to transcribe Swedish into IPA?). I'm not sure what those edits are ([298] is one of them) exactly, but they were performed roughly between August 25, 2018 and September 1, 2018.
  • Here, when fixing the Swedish IPA, he forgot to change the first vowel to [æ], which is an obligatory allophone of /ɛ/ before /r/ in stressed syllables. Again, an amateurish mistake.
  • In this edit he basically told me that he WP:OWNS Help:IPA/Swedish (that's how I understand it anyway) and I should just accept that edit based on the fact that he knows what he's doing (whatever that means, he didn't feel the need to clarify that).

I propose a topic ban for editing anything IPA- and phonetics-related in general in the area of Germanic languages (excluding English, with which he seems to have no problems). With such disregard for WP:RS we have no idea what he's gonna screw up next. It's not our role to clean up after him.

It'd be great if someone could check his edits in other areas (Italian, French, Slavic languages other than Polish, etc.) Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 07:14, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Again, you did not understand (or pretended not to) my argument regarding Swedish [ɪɛ], involving instances where an English speaker might use /iə/. The examples you put are just unrelated.

What should I say about the rest? My fault is that when I see a transcription that is more or less incorrect or does not follow what appears to be the implicit consensus stated in the help, I tend to try and correct it myself instead of using template tags such as {{fix}}. I must admit that, and all can do now is promising I will use them more often when I am not sure about my editions, however late this may be coming. 〜イヴァンスクルージ九十八［IvanScrooge98］（会話） 07:46, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

@IvanScrooge98: If they can read IPA it's impossible that they'd confuse [ɪɛ] for [ɪə]. Pronouncing English /ɪɛ/ as anything other than two consecutive vowels is a non-native mistake (and, in Swedish, unlike English, [jɛ] is a possible pronunciation of /ɪɛ/!)

You need to have the WP:COMPETENCE to perform those fixes. That you can gain by reading the literature (WP:RS). Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 07:53, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

A concern is that editors are coming to conclusions about IPAs based on their own opinions as to how indirect sources in literature such as textbooks should be interpreted or as a result of their own WP:OR. Surely IPAs should only be added if directly cited WP:V? Help:IPA/Italian is a further snare in that it seems to encourage original work.SovalValtos (talk) 08:55, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

I understand the concern with this but I still think it's the optimal approach. It's preferable for Wikipedia to contain pronunciation information than not to contain it. It is also preferable for our IPA pronunciations to line up with IPA help pages, which means occasionally transliterating into IPA from other pronunciation systems or making trivial tweaks to what is in sources like dictionaries (remember that there is often more than one acceptable or established way of transcribing something in broad phonemic notation, for example in Czech the vowel <o> can be transcribed as /o/ or /ɔ/, it doesn't matter, but we use /o/ to be simple and consistent.) IPA help pages can be created from reliable sources in such a way that any native or competent speaker of a language can interpret them and know how to transcribe anything by analogy to the example words given next to each phoneme. Calling that OR is not that far off calling translating OR in my opinion. The main purpose of the help pages however was to help users unfamiliar with the IPA make sense of transcriptions (hence the "nearest English equivalents"), and when they were first created they were made intentionally over-broad and simple. I am not sure how much that still rings today as certain pages such as Help:IPA/English have become overcomplicated to the point of just becoming summaries of technical phonology articles like English phonology. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 09:34, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Surely IPAs should only be added if directly cited WP:V? Yes please. It's preferable for Wikipedia to contain pronunciation information than not to contain it. Not if it is just made up by random people with no basis in anything but their own opinion. Calling that OR is not that far off calling translating OR in my opinion. Obviously translation can be OR, and if there is a question of two different meanings/translations then the correct way to settle it is by consulting reliable sources. --JBL (talk) 14:49, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Presumably a Wikipedia IPA help page should not be used to justify one editor's preferred transcription as was done by User:IvanScrooge98 in this edit [299] having previously changed another editor's preferred version in this edit [300] without source? Later in this edit [301] he persisted in adding his version without supplying a reference and without consensus.SovalValtos (talk) 10:37, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

@SovalValtos: I had explained there was no need for further refs other than the one I had provided, as Modern Greek pronunciation is constantly predictable from the spelling. 〜イヴァンスクルージ九十八［IvanScrooge98］（会話） 11:03, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

This may not be directly relevant to 'edits in the area of Germanic languages' but I think it reveals the perhaps over self-confident attitude of User:IvanScrooge98's own opinion as to the value of his edits rather than those of others. I note that he did not add an acceptable ref after than the one he had earlier suggested was rejected [302]. Neither did he use talk to attempt to achieve consensus. His opinion that no ref was needed reveals an unacceptable approach to WP:V policy, as applicable to himself, when in disagreement with other editor's edits; his unilateral assertion is that his edit is exempt for some reason of his own.SovalValtos (talk) 11:45, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

I quote SovalValtos. Just have a look at this sample list of edit summaries: [303]. He was also blocked in en.wiktionary and nl.wikipedia, and his talk page contains quarrels with many different users. This may not be directly relevant to the thread but might be helpful to frame the individual.Yniginy (talk) 11:11, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I have made mistakes in Wiktionary that I’m surely not willing to repeat here. Regarding those edit summaries, I let myself get carried away by the anger, after endless reverts to my sourced edits (I was warned some time ago for them, already). I actually wonder whether Yniginy, who seems to have signed up just just to add a comment here, is another of those sockpuppets made by (presumably) the same person to constantly go against my revisions. 〜イヴァンスクルージ九十八［IvanScrooge98］（会話） 11:20, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

@IvanScrooge98: You are repeating the exact behavior for which you've been banned multiple times on Wiktionary: editing outside of your area of expertise (if I may use that word here). See [304]. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 12:42, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

No, I’m not. My editing there was massive and blind, and I refused to even discuss with other users; which I am not repeating on this project, or at least trying not to, more so from now on. I acknowledge my mistakes and will wait for a definitive decision from an admin. 〜イヴァンスクルージ九十八［IvanScrooge98］（会話） 12:55, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Oh, and it looks like Trollhättan is indeed pronounced as I have heard in every single recording I have listened to. Just to say. 〜イヴァンスクルージ九十八［IvanScrooge98］（会話） 11:57, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

@IvanScrooge98: Perhaps. But Karlstad and Vigdís Finnbogadóttir aren't. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 12:36, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

@Kbb2: I clearly meant it as a reply to I noticed that he misheard [trɔlˈhɛtːan] for [²trɔlːˌhɛtːan], which means that he knows little about the Swedish pitch accent. Apparently you misheard it but were convinced I had, which means we are at least on a similar level when it comes to knowledge of the Swedish pitch accent and neither of us should correct the other. Regarding Karlstad, the present audio separates the two consonants, but we do not know whether it is the regular pronunciation or some kind of “more careful” one, considering how Karl is normally uttered. 〜イヴァンスクルージ九十八［IvanScrooge98］（会話） 12:49, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

@IvanScrooge98: A year ago you were changing tone 1 to tone 2 in Swedish transcriptions based on your hunches. That transcription was a part of your editing spree. Whether it was correct is, I think, less relevant than the bigger picture itself.

I'm not convinced that you should use your untrained, non-native ears (which are like mine in that regard) to judge the pitch accent in Swedish, especially in words with three syllables or more. The fact that multiple people oppose a topic ban for you doesn't give you a carte blanche to do as you wish. It's better not to provide IPA than to guess it. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 13:01, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

@Kbb2: yes, but you seem to have done the same when you first added the stress, instead of either removing the transcription, tagging it as incomplete or looking for a source.

I am not taking it as carte blanche, don’t worry. I have understood when I should edit and when not. 〜イヴァンスクルージ九十八［IvanScrooge98］（会話） 13:47, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban. This is really unnecessary and premature. ANI is your last resort; you shouldn't bring anything here until other resources have been explored. Seems like you learned nothing from the friendly caution FeRDNYC gave here just a couple days ago. It also seems you didn't notice the warning at the top of this page, which tells you to be concise: I mean, do you seriously think admins and veterans who frequent here are going to read and understand all of what you wrote there? Invite editors well-versed in the area for their opinions at a more appropriate forum (like WT:LING). At this stage this is simply a content dispute. So seek for arbitration, not sanction.

  IvanScrooge98 is a prolific editor in this area and, as far as I've encountered and as far as the languages I'm familiar with are concerned, a very competent one. And there are few competent IPA editors, let alone such prolific ones. So far I see no reason to believe he will not be persuaded when confronted with reasonable evidence that disagrees with his behavior. So if he's not, then maybe you haven't been doing a good enough job convincing him. Have you, for example, asked for a third opinion? (I know I've been asked by Ivan, which I was about to get to, but then this happened. Thanks for your patience.) I advise Ivan to stick strictly to WP:BRD, i.e. always prefer the version before you arrived at the article whenever your edit is challenged until it is settled in a discussion. I advise Kbb the same. Nardog (talk) 08:58, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

@Nardog: You're probably right. I'll let this discussion come to an end in a natural manner (unless more users join and decide that a topic ban is a reasonable solution after all - that could happen too) and will start a discussion at WT:LING. Though I don't see how this report (apart from the wording of a few sentences, which could be improved) could be understood as a personal attack. I saw sufficient reasons to report him and so I went ahead. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 22:40, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban. Agree with the above, this is premature. I did as you asked and checked Ivan's scant contribs in Czech and Slovak and found one incidental error which anyone could be forgiven for and is of little consequence. I have more bones to pick with some of the English transcriptions being added (not just by Ivan) which I will gladly elaborate on in a more appropriate venue. Also, responding to one specific point raised above, if IPA help pages like Help:IPA/Icelandic are wrong (as in actually wrong, not just intentionally broad, which is by design), then I think our priority should be fixing them first before we get into disputes over individual pronunciations. I recommend using sources published by the International Phonetics Association to adjudicate any disputes around IPA help pages, as no one can sensibly claim that those are unreliable. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 09:34, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
• I checked the Icelandic edits that are linked to and they are fine. The first vowel in Katrín is indeed long and IvanScrooge98 was right to correct that.[305] Haukur (talk) 10:42, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose topic ban. I checked the German edits that are linked to. I see no basis for claiming that any of them should be “an impossible pronunciation”. On the other hand, I know that Kbb2 rejects variants very strongly. --mach 🙈🙉🙊 16:48, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
  • @J. 'mach' wust: Then you also don't know how syllabic consonants are formed in German. The first three mistakes in transcription are, in fact, an impossible pronunciation (which is how I phrased it). The first two would be heard as [m̩] and [ŋ̍] [which is a correct pronunciation and not necessarily very informal] by native speakers (their established transcription is [mən] and [ŋən], nobody would write them [mn̩] or [ŋn̩] except for few phonologists, these transcriptions are very abstract by the way and so is [tm̩]) and the last one as [pm̩], which is a serious pronunciation error. Neither German nor English allows the schwa in /mən, ŋən, təm/ to be dropped (in that manner anyway, the first two can be pronounced [m̩] and [ŋ̍] in German).

The pronunciation of /eːər/ as [eːɐ̯] is colloquial and shouldn't be transcribed in an encyclopedia.

Please leave the topic of Help:IPA/Standard German out of this. I have nothing against posts that genuinely support Ivan but your message shows a similar lack of research in the area of German pronunciation as Ivan's edits themselves. IMO it's also alarming that a native speaker that's been dealing with IPA for at least 15 years (if I'm not mistaken) would endorse those specific edits. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 21:10, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

I have dealt long enough with German pronunciation to be extremely skeptical when somebody claims that some plausible transcription should be a mistake or impossible or not allowed, especially when these bold claims are not backud up with any sources. You are accusing IvanScrooge98 of making mistakes and of using impossible transcriptions, but you have not given proof to substantiate your accusation. I therefore oppose a topic ban. --mach 🙈🙉🙊 22:19, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

@J. 'mach' wust: You cannot be serious right now. Insisting that [mn̩], [ŋn̩] or [tm̩] are plausible pronunciations shows that you have no idea what a syllabic consonant is. Again, an amateurish mistake. I really hope that you're joking, because you're a native speaker of German. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 22:31, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

I certainly was not joiking. Substantiating your accusations would help you more than personally attacking me. --mach 🙈🙉🙊 22:50, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

@J. 'mach' wust: It's interesting that you, a person who's been dealing with IPA and German pronunciation for more than a decade, haven't provided a single source yourself. My source is the 7th edition of Das Aussprachewörterbuch, pp. 39–41. I'm sorry but this is either a provocation or your knowledge in the area of German pronunciation is seriously questionable. Nobody who thinks that Atem can be pronounced [ˈaːtm̩] has been dealing with IPA for more than a couple of weeks. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 11:49, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

First: Why should I have to cite any sources? I am not making any claims, let alone accusations. Please read and understand WP:BURDEN. Second: I wonder whether you have actually consulted the Aussprachewörterbuch. It does not say anywhere that the transcriptions IvanScrooge98 has used are “mistakes” or an “impossible pronunciation”, as you have claimed. It just explains the conventions used in that dictionary – IvanScrooge98 has not followed them, but that obviously does not mean that IvanScrooge98’s transcriptions are “mistakes“ or an “impossible pronunciation”. Third: I feel silly for having to point this out, but a dictionary could not possibly prove your point that certain pronunciations are impossible. You would have to find peer-reviewed phonetic literature that uses hard empyrical data. I seriously doubt that you are ever going to find it. Empyrical data is likely to prove you wrong by showing that the pronunciations you so insultingly reject are really possible and do occur. --mach 🙈🙉🙊 13:02, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

@J. 'mach' wust: Someone please warn this guy and remove the conversation. This is a case of deliberately spreading misinformation. I'm ending this per WP:DONTFEED. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 17:39, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia. If you are trying to win an argument by claiming your POV is obvious and then implying that anybody who does not agree with your POV is stupid, you are not going to succeed. --mach 🙈🙉🙊 19:24, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

• Luckily no one understands what this IPA stuff means anyway, so it doesn't matter except to those involved. EEng 02:40, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

  Well, that is what helps are made for. To help people understand. By the way, I’m thanking everyone who’s taken the time to constructively intervene so far. 〜イヴァンスクルージ九十八［IvanScrooge98］（会話） 07:35, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

• Don't ban IvanScrooge98. Although I have differences with that user, at least he's providing information (both English & foreign words) on phonetics & pronunciations. If you are a native speaker of other languages (ie., French, Spanish, etc.) & knows the rules of phonetics & pronunciations, do provide the correct information. Banning that user would be total loss to Wikipedia. NKM1974 (talk) 18:30, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

@NKM1974: We're discussing a topic ban (so that he wouldn't be allowed to edit in certain areas), not a block. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 08:02, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

You can place me firmly in the category of "dealing with IPA for ... a couple of weeks". I.e. I'm looking at IvanScrooge's edits and physically trying to replicate the sounds proposed.

1) To go from m to n without a vowel between requires a pause. In transition without a pause, there'll be a schwa (an "uh" sound) (i.e. muhn). It's not (afaict) possible to do otherwise. The "m" sound is made with the mouth closed (it's a bilabial sound, meaning that it's made with the lips). So if you open your mouth while saying "m" it becomes "muh" (i.e. mə). In tandem, the "n" sound is made with mouth open and tongue pressed against the alveolar ridge. So, in transition you get "muhn" ("mən").

2) It's more plausible to go ŋ to n without a schwa. Try saying "singn", but not "singuhn". It's possible, but difficult and unnatural. The tongue has to slide forward from the velum to the alveolar ridge without creating a pocket. The reason is that the dorsum (back of tongue) touches the roof of the mouth when making a velar sound (ŋ), whilst the tip of the tongue touches the roof of the mouth when making an alveolar or post-alveolar (n) sound.

3) Tm is a lot like mn. You get a "tuhm" (təm) sound. Again, when making a "t" sound, the mouth is open. When making a "m" sound, the mouth is closed. You can again do "t pause m".

I hope my explanations make sense, and forgive me that I don't know the terminology well. I cannot replicate these sounds, or if I can, it is absolutely unnatural. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:49, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

The tongue has to slide forward from the velum to the alveolar ridge – It’s because of filth like this that Wikipedia is blocked in some countries. Please, think of the children! EEng 10:56, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

@EEng: what is this comment even about and how is it even relevant to this discussion? 〜イヴァンスクルージ九十八［IvanScrooge98］（会話） 13:47, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

It's one of EEng's patent-pending(?) comedic comments intended to provide levity. Honestly, the dirty sounding nature of my explanations is why I departed every instance of "lips parted" from this a few days ago. A good call, all-in-all. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:00, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Gosh, I must really have a problem with taking people otherwise than seriously. XD 〜イヴァンスクルージ九十八［IvanScrooge98］（会話） 18:31, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

For what it's worth, both [mn] and [tm] are phonetically possible. In [mn] you just have to make a closure at the alveolar ridge with the tongue tip or blade while producing [m] and then open the lips. [tm] is basically this in the opposite order, except involving a nasal release. Whether these occur in German I do not know. Nardog (talk) 18:21, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support topic ban from Swedish phonology, but not for other languages. The evidence provided by nom, if correct, shows that IvanScrooge98 is incapable of editing competently in that topic area, especially with regards to the language's tones. (Admittedly, I don't know anything about phonology in any foreign language, but I know many of the sounds.) However, Haukurth and Filelakeshoe have shown that there isn't a serious problem in other languages.

On the flipside, I found a couple of edits by Kbb2, [306] and [307], where Kbb2 admits wrongdoing on his/her behalf with regards to edits by IvanScrooge98, both regarding IPA in North Germanic languages (Icelandic in the former, Danish in the latter). This suggests that Kbb2 is acting near-preemptively against IS98 because of the latter's history with Swedish phonology. In addition, the claim by J. 'mach' wust that Kbb2 rejects variants very strongly is backed up by edits like [308], [309], [310], and [311]. This is contrary to the unnamed foreign-langauge analog of MOS:RHOTIC, and suggests that the rest of the problem lies with Kbb2, not IS98. Perhaps Kbb2 should be banned from interacting wih IS98. Kbb2 should also be warned about RHOTIC. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:29, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

@LaundryPizza03: the unnamed foreign-langauge analog of MOS:RHOTIC There is no such thing. RHOTIC only applies to transcriptions for English and affects no other language whatsoever. Moreover, RHOTIC is a rule that aims for a maximum possible coverage of variants in a minimum possible number of letters. So even if such a thing existed, wouldn't eliminating predictable variants rather be in line with it? In fact eliminating predictable variants is in line with parts of WP:PRON that actually exist—particularly WP:PRON#Other languages, which says if the language you're transcribing has such an IPA key, use the conventions of that key. Nardog (talk) 16:51, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Might User:IvanScrooge98 consider writing and publishing a pronunciation dictionary in the real world from his original work, under editorial control which might include perhaps Kbb2, Filelakeshoe and mach It would simplify the search for citations for IPA transcriptions when done and in the meanwhile give some of us a rest.SovalValtos (talk) 07:29, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban User:IvanScrooge98 shows signs of listening and improving his editing and sourcing.SovalValtos (talk) 19:06, 21 September 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.

Meluvswiki, GWAR yet again, absolutely no communication

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.

---

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

GWAR after final warning. History shows 10-15 GWAR warnings and 6 prior blocks, all for GWAR or addition of unsourced content.

Editor ignores all talk requests, very rarely uses edit summaries of any kind and marks all edits as minor.

With close to 9,000 edits (and all of those warnings), they have made 14 user talk edits (and none to article talk pages).

Their last user talk edits were the three shown here, begging off a final GWAR warning and asking, apparently rhetorically, "What would you think if from now on I only edit genres if I remember to put citations on it?" on 4 February 2018, leading up to another block for GWAR on 10 February 2018.

After another final warning for GWAR at 18:35 yesterday (for removing a sourced genre without explanation), their first edit back was an unsourced/unexplained genre change.

Competence and communication are both lacking. - SummerPhD^v2.0 22:41, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

I have given this editor an indefinite block and explained on their talk page what they must do to get unblocked. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:03, 21 September 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.

Lots of edits, little communication

TheHistoryBuff101 (talk · contribs) since joining last month has made several thousand edits, only a tiny percentage of which have edit summaries. They've received numerous complaints on their talk page but have never responded. Their main focus lately seems to be on small changes to image captions, such as adding or removing periods from the ends of sentences, in accordance with MOS:CAPTIONS. The edits are in good faith and are generally constructive, though there are a fair number of errors (see e.g. Gulf War).

It's often difficult to see or understand what the changes are, because they are so small and so many, and this has led to accusations of vandalism or disruption. Other editors have repeatedly requested the use of edit summaries. After requests from me on 10-11 September, they made a few edits with summaries explaining what they had done (though not why), but then went back to not using them, making several hundred more edits. The same thing happened following a complaint yesterday by BeenAroundAWhile; they left edit summaries for a grand total of 24 minutes, then proceded to make more than a hundred more edits without them. I'd like them to address these concerns. --IamNotU (talk) 19:15, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

While leaving edit summaries is good practice and we should all do so, it is not a requirement. And, per WP:FIES, Summaries are less important for minor changes (which means generally unchallengeable changes, such as spelling or grammar corrections which seems to be what you're describing when you say "Their main focus lately seems to be on small changes to image captions, such as adding or removing periods from the ends of sentences".
Editors are also free to ignore each other except in limited cases and I don't believe this is one of those cases. If there is disruption or vandalism occurring, it might be helpful if you could post some diffs, either here or at WP:AIV (I've looked at their last five edits and don't see anything wrong but in the absence of any diffs I can't say if that's the rule or exception). I'm not sure we can do much to forcibly socialize TheHistoryBuff101 if s/he's decided to be the J.D. Salinger of Wikipedia. While I share your curiosity about what motivated their crusade to correctly punctuate sentence fragments this might be a mystery with which we have to live. Chetsford (talk) 20:09, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

If a user is very problematic and also refuses to communicate, there is a case to be made for a block to get their attention and emphasize that this is a collaborative project. However, a case has not really been made here. As noted above, diffs would be helpful so others can easily see the issue. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:26, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

And today they did in fact make a post to their talk page: "Hello. I have just received a notification on my talk page that there is ongoing discussion about my editing. While I perfectly understand that I have not provided edit summaries and have not responded to your complaints, I just want to make absolutely clear that I have not been engaged in neither disruptive editing nor vandalism, as the edits I've made have been only about removing periods from certain image captions, rewriting image captions, fixing incorrect links to articles, and removing or replacing unnecessary pictures. I do, however, appreciate your concerns and I'm taking steps to ensure I edit articles the right way." So, without evidence of serious ongoing disruption I don' think there's anything to be done here. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:29, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies. I've read their response and it's a very positive sign. As I noted, their edits have been in good faith, and generally constructive. I do think that if someone repeatedly disregards other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits (WP:DISRUPTSIGNS), it may constitute a pattern of disruptive or problematic editing, even if there is no one edit, by itself, that is. My concern is as much for TheHistoryBuff101 as for others, as they've accumulated a number of "disruptive editing" warnings which may or may not be valid. I agree that there's not really a case for a block, but a nudge to follow the advice in Wikipedia:Communication is required to work things out. It seems to have had a good effect, and I hope that they'll continue to be responsive, work with others to allay any concerns, and maintain a good environment for collaborative work. --IamNotU (talk) 23:45, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

You're absolutely correct. In this case, however, it doesn't seem any questions or requests were posed on their Talk page, just a lot of templates were plastered to it which contained statements. Unless I'm missing something, they ceased editing the articles named in the templates almost immediately after getting hit with each. In any case, though, it's great this was resolved! Chetsford (talk) 04:08, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Chetsford, you're right that most of the previous templates were not really questions or requests (and were mostly unfounded as I noted below them). Just for the record though, I did write a personal message rather than another template last week, requesting explanations concerning the captions edits, with some suggestions, and I specifically asked for a reply. This was the day after the first uw-editsummary template (which in itself I guess is a request for explanations via edit summaries) was ignored. I suppose the third message from BeenAroundAWhile technically wasn't posed in the form of a question, but still it's clear they were requesting explanations. In any case, the response on the talk page will help other editors understand what TheHistoryBuff101 is doing, and they've started using edit summaries, so as you say it's great that it was resolved! Thanks again for your assistance. --IamNotU (talk) 09:16, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Are there any objections to my presuming that TheHistoryBuff101 does not really spend a lot of time managing their own talk page, and further presuming that I may remove the erroneous templates that have been splattered across their talkpage and that have led to misunderstandings? I will of course leave notes so that subsequent comments will remain intelligible. MPS1992 (talk) 20:52, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

MPS1992, I understand the concerns about some of the earlier templates - that's exactly why I already made several comments to try to help clear up any misunderstandings. But I don't think that extends to deleting good-faith (if misguided) messages from other editors, from someone else's talk page. If you'd like to offer to help TheHistoryBuff101 learn how to archive their talk page messages, that would be generous of you, and I think it would be great! Or perhaps ask those who left the templates to strike their own comments? Otherwise I would think it's best if TheHistoryBuff101 takes responsibility for their talk page themselves, like everyone else... --IamNotU (talk) 00:28, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Templated messages wrongfully accusing them of vandalism are disruptive, and as such can be removed by anyone. Any minute now someone will be turning up to splash another template on their page, this time having a go at them for not signing their response on their own talk page. This is not productive. MPS1992 (talk) 16:32, 19 September 2019 (UTC)