Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1007

Paid editing suspect, how to proceed?

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 a user User:DrbrandY, his account was created in 2017. Now his only edits came yesterday and all were about a page Yogesh Dube. The suspicious bit is that the user seems to be well aware of basic wiki terminologies like mainspace,sanboxes etc and about why to use a sandbox. For someone to create a C- class article on their first day of editing is odd. The more concerning bit is that this Yogesh page was deleted twice before for promotion. I also see that his userpage is strikingly similar to ones I previously reported as socks(who were confirmed).

I suspect this to be more than just a case of paid editing. Its seems more likely to be a part of a sockfarm where this account was "aged" until autoconfirmation , But I'm not sure "who" the sockmaster could be. So how should I proceed with reporting this user?. Daiyusha (talk) 06:13, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

You could add this possible sock to a CU request? Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 06:23, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Also, please remember to notify folks when you start an AN/I discussion about them. I've done this for ya :) Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 06:25, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

@Dusti: Thanks, but in case of sockpuppetry, isn't it considered counterproductive informing the user about this discussion. When I report someone directly for sock investigation, it does state that its not necessary. Daiyusha (talk) 09:59, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

@Daiyusha: If you wanted to open a sockpuppetry investigation, SPI is that way. If you start a discussion here, you notify the user. GoldenRing (talk) 10:06, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Blocked. I have no doubt that this is a meatpuppet of some spamming outfit, but it is not really worth it trying to find out which. From experience, these spammers know how to evade CU or use different freelancers and/or proxies each time. I'm happy to receive reports like this on my talk page. MER-C 08:26, 3 April 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.

Bhaskarbhagawati and Kamarupi

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.

---

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

There has been an ongoing issue at Kamrupi dialect, Kamarupi Prakrit, as well as a number of related articles, wherein Bhaskarbhagawati wishes the articles to reflect the unqualified claim that the former (a modern dialect of Assamese) is in actuality the same language as the latter (a 12th century language). Opposition to this has been near-universal (the only other editor to agree with him has been permanently banned), particularly given the absolute lack of corroboration and, in fact, direct contradiction of this claim in literature; insomuch as Bhaskarbhagawati has provided attribution, they've been cherry-picked statements twisted from context.

This issue has been going on sporadically for the better part of a decade and Bhaskarbhagawati is not listening. More recently, this has gotten disruptive enough to trigger a page protection [1]. He has also recently taken to stonewalling in the article talk (for example [2]). He has brought up the dispute at RSN, even though the dispute with his desired article changes has not been the sources he uses, but rather what he claims they say. This might even constitute a form of WP:SHOPPING.

And, in the interest of providing some corroboration of this account, here is a list of relevant notices wherein administrators dropped the ball in sanctioning or correcting Bhaskarbhagawati's behavior

ANI, February 2013 wherein Bhaskarbhagawati and Chaipau were both warned for edit warring and the issue of Bhaskarbhagawati's stonewalling was brought up.

ANI, March 2013 wherein Bhaskarbhagawati was shown to be editing disruptively and failing to contribute to productive talk page discussion.

ANI, March 2013 wherein Bhaskarbhagawati was again shown to be editing disruptively and not contributing productive to talk page discussion.

ANI, August 2012, ANI, April 2013, and ANI, June 2013 wherein Chaipau repeatedly attempted to report Bhaskarbhagawati's disruption and edit warring, but was was told to discuss the matter some more or take the issue to DRN.

Bhaskarbhagawati does not listen to consensus. He does not cease editing when he knows his edits are contentious. His behavior has long been disruptive, and it's surely been frustrating for user:Chaipau, who has spent the most time dealing with Bhaskarbhagawati's disruption. IMHO, an indefinite topic ban (which, given what he tends to edit around, would amount to a de facto ban) would be the best course of action. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 04:44, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

• I won't be able to take a look at the editor conduct issues in any detail at the moment, but given the resumed edit-warring I have full-protected Kamarupi Prakrit and Kamrupi dialect, and informed Bhaskarbhagawati about the discretionary sanctions applicable to India-related articles. Abecedare (talk) 04:59, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Abecedare, i like to thank Ƶ§œš¹ for bringing the issue here, although i myself considered bringing it here, if wp:edit warring persisted. Abecedare i like to inform here that this dispute started back in 2012, with an preconceived notion of some editors including user Chaipau and user Aesoes, that a modern language/dialect cannot have a history, thus original article was divided into Kamrupi Prakrit and Kamrupi dialect citing lack of sources ?? As Aeusoes thankfully brought lot of things here, i will discuss them one by one.

• There has been an ongoing issue at Kamrupi dialect, Kamarupi Prakrit, as well as a number of related articles, wherein Bhaskarbhagawati wishes the articles to reflect the unqualified claim that the former (a modern dialect of Assamese) is in actuality the same language as the latter (a 12th century language).Here Aeusoes here actually supporting notions of user Chaipau that modern language/dialect cannot have a history, he confirmed his permanent stand by saying, he is not going to consider any further sources (although he seems layman to the subject and never contributed on it).

• Opposition to this has been near-universal (the only other editor to agree with him has been permanently banned) Most people involved in past and present in current dispute hardly contributed to the article, other editor who he referred to was actually seems to be native speaker of Kamrupi, who seems to frustrated with their handling of the dispute. Instead of recommending mentor-ship by community, Aeusoes wrote a well designed case to topic ban him, fully supported by user Chaipau, which further aggrieved the issue.

• particularly given the absolute lack of corroboration and, in fact, direct contradiction of this claim in literature; insomuch as Bhaskarbhagawati has provided attribution, they've been cherry-picked statements twisted from context. The said attribution was done not unilaterally as portrayed here, rather was based on recommendation of wp:rsn (diff, diff), to do their part in addressing long pending dispute, which Aeusoes failed to point although he was part of discussion. For cherry picking, said citations were take to wp:rsn, and they think it in different way, even even user Chaipau has different opinion on this.

• This issue has been going on sporadically for the better part of a decade and Bhaskarbhagawati is not listening. More recently, this has gotten disruptive enough to trigger a page protection [3]. I agree with Aesoes on this point, this article is in bad shape since 2012, when Chaipau and other uninvolved editors including Aeusoes divided the original article due to lack of sources, as informed above. As for listening, it seems Aeusoes said that he not going to consider sources further, as pointed above. As for page protection, again it is misrepresented, it was i who requested page protection to halt the edit war.

• He has also recently taken to stonewalling in the article talk (for example [4]). He has brought up the dispute at RSN, even though the dispute with his desired article changes has not been the sources he uses, but rather what he claims they say. This might even constitute a form of WP:SHOPPING.For so called stonewalling, was a discussion where it was asked if consensus, if any, can change with newer sources, which Aeusoes answered in negative, as discussed above. As talk page discussion failed, i have taken this matter for binding consensus to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Removal of reliable sources, where all the sources listed, especially most important one, along with entire reference section of both the article.

• And, in the interest of providing some corroboration of this account, here is a list of relevant notices wherein administrators dropped the ball in sanctioning or correcting Bhaskarbhagawati's behavior

ANI, February 2013 wherein Bhaskarbhagawati and Chaipau were both warned for edit warring and the issue of Bhaskarbhagawati's stonewalling was brought up.

ANI, March 2013 wherein Bhaskarbhagawati was shown to be editing disruptively and failing to contribute to productive talk page discussion.

ANI, March 2013 wherein Bhaskarbhagawati was again shown to be editing disruptively and not contributing productive to talk page discussion.

ANI, August 2012, ANI, April 2013, and ANI, June 2013 wherein Chaipau repeatedly attempted to report Bhaskarbhagawati's disruption and edit warring, but was was told to discuss the matter some more or take the issue to DRN. The selective old threads brought here by Aeusoes are linked, some of them are opened by myself, casual editor can judge it, i don't want to comment on the same.

• Bhaskarbhagawati does not listen to consensus. He does not cease editing when he knows his edits are contentious. His behavior has long been disruptive, and it's surely been frustrating for user:Chaipau, who has spent the most time dealing with Bhaskarbhagawati's disruption. IMHO, an indefinite topic ban (which, given what he tends to edit around, would amount to a de facto ban) would be the best course of action. Here, what Aeusoes saying is identical as he did for other involved editor back in 2012, with selective and well designed case, overlooking that i am the original and most involved editor in Kamrup and Kamrupi topic, which otherwise attracts negligible edits.

Thus, to conclude it is clear case of wp:bad faith editing,wp:censorship, blocking of wp:dispute resolution processes etc. Although Wikipedia is an collaborative process, involvement of user Aeusoes on the subject seems to hampering in efforts of attaining binding consensus, which can confirmed by history section of both the articles, where existing reliable sources and large old content are persistently deleted. As reliable sources and wp:noticeboards are disregarded by them, i don't know where to go next. Finally, i like to see wider involvement of editors in neglected subjects like current one, but for now its seems difficult. Abecedare, consider helping on this.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 21:39, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

I'll leave it to others to read Bhaskarbhagawati's links and come to their own judgment. I do think a link to the "well designed case" against the other editor is worthy of sharing, which can be found here. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 22:11, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

• ANI is not really the best place to settle a content-dispute or even analyze the related 7-year history of contributor conduct; that's why, for now, I am not addressing the individual points raised above even though I have read the posts and sampled the linked discussions. In interest of moving forward:
  • @Bhaskarbhagawati: do you agree to take the content dispute to WP:DRN and until that is done not to edit Kamrupi dialect, Kamarupi Prakrit and related articles/talkpages?
  • @Aeusoes1 and Chaipau: Would you two be willing to participate in the dispute resolution if Bhaskar does initiate the process at WP:DRN?

I am making the proposal since talkpage discussions are clearly at an impasse and in the hope that such voluntary steps will preempt the need for community-imposed restrictions. Abecedare (talk) 23:17, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure how years-long problematic contributor conduct doesn't fall under "chronic, intractable behavioral problems". I don't have a lot of faith that DRN will yield much in the way of resolution. In the past, Bhaskarbhagawati has shied away from contributing when the DRN process starts. But I'm willing to participate. If it comes to it, we can come back here after a lack of resolution and bring the issue up again.

Is there a reason you've worded your question with the assumption that Bhaskarbhagawati would start the DRN process? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 04:15, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

I posed the question to Bhaskar because (1) they wish to change the status quo at the articles and therefore it would be natural for them to make the case for the changes at WP:DRN, and (2) as the links you provided earlier showed, Bhaskar is the one who has equivocated in the past about discussing the issue to DRN. So it would be good to get a straight-up answer from them. Abecedare (talk) 04:29, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Abecedare i accept your suggestion and willing to maintain status quo, will take it to wp:drn for binding decision. They are most welcome there to settle the bitter long pending dispute.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 05:26, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

@Bhaskarbhagawati: Thanks for the response. That's helpful. I wanted to double-check though that besides taking the issue to WP:DRN you agree "not to edit Kamrupi dialect, Kamarupi Prakrit and related articles/talkpages until the DRN process is completed" ? Abecedare (talk) 05:46, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Abecedare, indeed i have no intention to contribute further on said articles untill i get some binding consensus although articles are in half deleted state, i expect the same from user Chaipau and others, furthermore you will be informed about such consensus to peacefully enforce it, thank you i really appreciate your help.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 10:35, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

@Abecedare: The issue here is not about content dispute, as user:Bhaskarbhagawati is trying to present here, but about a behavior pattern that he has persistently and consistently demonstrated since 2012. As the remarks by others have shown, he makes no effort to come to a consensus and have persistently rejected 3O (I shall give examples later today). Once consensus goes against his point of view, he starts WP:GAMINGTHESYSTEM to try to include his point of view, by using different templates and other techniques (e.g. using "Kamrupi language links here" on Kamrupi dialect etc.). He floods article ledes with cherry-picked quotes that he mines with search engines. His effort at the WP:RSN is in line with gaming the system—to get his quotes anointed as "reliable sources". Even when it was pointed out to him that it was not an RS issue, he still wanted to use it. The He tries WP:POVFORK to include his POV (e.g. Ancient Kamrup for Kamarupa). This pattern of behavior is highly disruptive. The stunted growth of Kamrupi dialect since 2012 is itself an example. I shall document this pattern of behavior in more detail below sometime later. Chaipau (talk) 11:13, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Chaipau thanks and welcome to discussion. I am addressing your points below.

• The issue here is not about content dispute, as user:Bhaskarbhagawati is trying to present here, but about a behavior pattern that he has persistently and consistently demonstrated since 2012. Indeed it is in their interest to portray the same as behavior issue, although entire dispute started with division of original article in 2012.

• As the remarks by others have shown, he makes no effort to come to a consensus and have persistently rejected 3O (I shall give examples later today).The original article is in same state since 2012, with original content long gone. Also you are constantly pointed that WP:3O does not determine binding resolutions, it simply offers a non-binding third opinion on debates that exist exclusively between two editors, and would be superseded by a consensus decision at wp:rsn, wp:drn or elsewhere.

• Once consensus goes against his point of view, he starts WP:GAMINGTHESYSTEM to try to include his point of view, by using different templates and other techniques (e.g. using "Kamrupi language links here" on Kamrupi dialect etc.).The example given for so called gamingthesystem, the template {{Redirect|Kamrupi language||Kamrupi (disambiguation){{!}}Kamrupi}} cannot be a controversial one, effort here by Chaipau is to cement his point that said speech is mere dialect which entirely lacks history.

• He floods article ledes with cherry-picked quotes that he mines with search engines. His effort at the WP:RSN is in line with gaming the system—to get his quotes anointed as "reliable sources". Even when it was pointed out to him that it was not an RS issue, he still wanted to use it. I have discussed above how attribution of each views are done as per wp:rsn, the cherry pickings Chaipau referring, his recent view seems altogether different ? For mining quotes from search engine comment, he may not sitting besides me when i am editing.I have taken it to wp:rsn to follow wp:dispute resolution process, rather wp:edit warring which Chaipau seems quite used to. Chaipau intentionally misrepresented the wp:rsn, where they do said issue maybe not of rs although they are reliable to use, if anybody disagree should be attributed (diff, diff).

• He tries WP:POVFORK to include his POV (e.g. Ancient Kamrup for Kamarupa). This pattern of behavior is highly disruptive. The example provided is too misleading, although content should not discussed here, to clear Ancient Kamrup was for ancient history of Kamrup dating several centuries B.C. (references are in article) (see Medieval Kamrup too), while Kamarupa more appropriately Kamarupa kingdom is 4-12th century political entity.

• This pattern of behavior is highly disruptive. The stunted growth of Kamrupi dialect since 2012 is itself an example. In contrary, for a casual viewer Kamrupi dialect grown multiple times as compared to original article in 2012.

• I shall document this pattern of behavior in more detail below sometime later.Indeed, diverting the content dispute to behavior issue suits them. It seems a case of wp:competence on the subject alongside wp:bad faith editing.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 14:05, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

• @Chaipau: I don't disagree with you regarding the past behavior. Our difference perhaps lies in how to deal with it. Since Bhaskar now is willing to take the issue to DRN (and not edit the articles/talkpages in the meantime), I think that is worth a try. Would you be willing to participate in that process if Bhaskar does initiate it? Abecedare (talk) 19:01, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
  • @Abecedare: We could try, but I don't believe this will resolve this issue. Chaipau (talk) 02:46, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
    • @Chaipau: Thanks. Your scepticism is only natural given the experience since 2012. The reason I hold out some hope for DRN is that the volunteer at the board will, hopefully, help keep the discussion focused and not let it devolve into the frustratingly lengthy back-and-forths as has happened in the past. And in case that doesn't work, it will be easier to make the case for community sanctions or discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBIPA.

Unless the participants or another admin have additional input, I'll close this section and log the agreement in a few hours. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 03:05, 4 April 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.

JohnnyStew and TheAmazingJohnnyStew

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.

---

JohnnyStew and TheAmazingJohnnyStew have both edited the The Minimalists articles distruptively. All of JohnnyStew and TheAmazingJohnnyStew's contributions are to this one article and editing behavior seems to suggest that they might be involved in undisclosed paid editing. They have made signfigant number of edits to the article, usually adding content that seems promotional in nature and reverting other editor's changes. Clovermoss (talk) 05:05, 4 April 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.

Rangeblock request for 2601:245:4300:FDA::/64

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.

---

• Special:Contributions/2601:245:4300:FDA::/64
• Craig of the Creek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• GKIDS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Cherami Leigh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There's been a ton of disruptive editing from this range on the above-linked pages. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:54, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Upon further inspection, this seems to be related to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Reggieplata . See [5] vs [6]. Pinging DoRD and Mz7 who looked into this case. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:57, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Obviously still being used for block evasion. Reblocked for 3 months.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:07, 4 April 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.

Legal threat at User talk:IAMFOREVER143

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 appears to be caste-warring - repeated removal of cited information - and has added on their talk page

"I will take this Wikipedia Issue to Court.... Let the Judges make sure which is The Truth"

-Arjayay (talk) 15:48, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Blocked the user. 331dot (talk) 15:49, 5 April 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.

Sockpuppet 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.

---

Xiaoyuankun2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This editor is hiding unsourced and POV edits with deceptive edit summaries (example here), and seems to be a new account of Xiaoyuankun (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) edit summaries, who is apparently banned for exactly this, i.e calling all their edits grammar changes. Eik Corell (talk) 04:11, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Eik Corell I see that you've reported the same user twice in this report, did you mean to report a user as a sock of them and just mistyped it? For sockpuppetry cases, WP:SPI is the more traditional venue. User:Xiaoyuankun is currently indeffed blocked anyway. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 04:23, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Ahh yeah, got confused in the formatting of it. I've fixed it now; The sockpuppet is "Xiaoyuankun2", whereas the original user is "Xiaoyuankun". Eik Corell (talk) 04:26, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

 Done, blocked indef--Ymblanter (talk) 08:11, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

• You gotta hand it to him, that's a cunning name for a sockpuppet. EEng 12:01, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Admit it. You would never have clocked it unless someone pointed it out. ;-) 81.129.194.138 (talk) 15:37, 5 April 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:Majeedthaika

Resolved

Could someone perhaps drop in on User:Majeedthaika, who seems to have redirected their user/talk page to a non-existant user account e.g. User talk:Julianne Holt-Lunstad. Julianne Holt-Lunstad is a psychologist at Brigham Young University - see Julianne Holt-Lunstad. I've been up for too long to be able to deal with this right now. thx. --Tagishsimon (talk) 05:06, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

@Majeedthaika: - FYI. --Tagishsimon (talk) 05:06, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

I've sorted the pages out. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:23, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive Clerking at AfD

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

---

User:Sheldybett will clerk discussions being held at AfD. Unfortunately they seem to have trouble doing this with the competence required for the task. Numerous editors have expressed concerns about their abilities while doing so in the last four months ([7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12])). The concerns in those diffs, each expressed by a different editor, include nearly the full range of options available for non-admin actions at AfD. It is possible that this user has trouble with other aspects of editing, as I notice several declines of speedy deletion tags and at least one file they uploaded itself tagged, and one question of hounding, but I admit I have not fully investigated those areas so I can not speak to their validity.

However, what is clear to me is their repeated inability to clerk at AfD. This suggests, at minimum, that they should be topic banned from clerking at any deletion forum. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:33, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

• Strongly support a topic ban Every few weeks, we get a reprieve and then we are back where we started. It's a waste of time to continue to deal with this and as indicated here here and here. Sheldybett was more than aware of the potential consequence of continuing their disruptive behavior at AFD (and elsewhere, for that matter.) They have repeatedly shown they lack even a basic understanding of deletion policies - outside of AFD - incorrect copyright tagging, speedy decline, speedy decline a7 isn't even eligible for the subject they tagged. And just for ease, here's a list of all the discussions where they were told in detail why they shouldn't be doing what they're doing: [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19]).([20], [21], [22],[23]. Waiting for a response or a promise for them will be useless, per the first three diffs I provided. Praxidicae (talk) 15:36, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

I'll also add that I'd support an outright ban from deletion areas in their entirety, including nominating articles as they do not appear to understand notability criteria. Praxidicae (talk) 15:53, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

• Support ban from clerking AfDs per lack of policy understanding. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:38, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support topic ban – I left my (friendly) message thinking this was an isolated incident and they were unaware of community consensus around this area, but this appears not to be the case. Non-admin clerking at AfD is rarely helpful and frequently disruptive, so a topic ban here is the obvious solution. Bradv🍁 15:39, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. It's clear from the links provided in this discussion and other issues raised on their talk page that they are not understanding the problems with their editing in relation to AfD, despite the number of different people who've tried to explain in different ways. Thryduulf (talk) 15:45, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support The original diffs compounded with Praxidicae's subsequently indicate that the user seems not to actually understand what they are meant to be doing. ——SerialNumber54129 15:48, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support but I must ask the obvious question - disruptive editing is one of the issues for which we block users, why has this user not been blocked ? Do you want me to do it ? Nick (talk) 16:02, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

@Nick: - but if bans really are to be preventative, and we don't think they're editing in bad faith, then escalating beyond a TBAN seems wildly overreacting Nosebagbear (talk) 17:04, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

@Nosebagbear: and where did I mention a ban ? We routinely block good faith but disruptive editors to prevent further damage and disruption, and to permit a suitable resolution of the issue. Nick (talk) 17:18, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

@Nick: - sorry I mis-interpreted your statement, I see it was with regard of preventing an ongoing problem during discussion of longer-term solution. As such, I'll readjust - they've not done any AfD clerking since this discussion was started (or edited at all, I assume they're not around atm). I wouldn't say a block is needed at this point - obviously if we get another poor nac-action (or potentially any) then that would probably be justified. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:21, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

• Support Per all the above. We've given them enough rope, and they still continue. A topic ban is probably the only way to stop this from occurring. The Duke 16:17, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support I've seen several bad closes from them and very few good ones, and I'm not the only one. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 18:10, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support topic ban I have no doubt that the editor wants to help, but the issues are persistent, and the editor seems unable or unwilling to address them. A topic ban will spare the time of other editors and administrators in deletion areas, and perhaps encourage the editor to be more careful in their editing elsewhere. Bakazaka (talk) 18:47, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. Examining the linked examples, I'm seeing a lot of very poor English, sometimes to the point of incomprehensibility, so maybe there's a language problem here? To understand the subtleties of our many policies and guidelines sufficiently well to do clerking/adminny things, you really need a good command of the language. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:51, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support topic ban of deletion matters in general and XfD in particular. User needs to be made aware of the dangers of thin ice. My sense is the user will need to be blocked. DlohCierekim 19:02, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support ban from clerking AfDs. I previously suggested to the user to participate in deletion discussions but to not close them. As the advice hasn't been taken a ban is now required. Schwede66 23:28, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
• I am a fan of allowing everyone to do any job they have the tools to do, but because they lack the delete button no non-admin should be clerking AfDs/MfDs except for SNOW keeps after 7 days and procedural closes where the page has already been CSD deleted. Very experienced users might handle the odd Speedy Keep or odd situation. No non-Admin should be relisting. Legacypac (talk) 00:19, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support Not my area, & I've noticed nothing, but I believe we need to be ready to restrain persistently incompetent editors. From the above it is evident there is a real nuisance here. Johnbod (talk) 01:51, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support TBAN per WP:Competence. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:58, 5 April 2019 (UTC).
• Support as one of the too many users who have asked them to stop. Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:27, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
• I'd like to note since @Boing! said Zebedee: told them yesterday they should avoid any sort of maintenance at AFD, they've gone ahead and NAC'd an article. It's not a bad NAC, but I would think if you're at ANI for a topic ban based on your behavior at AFD, it's ill advised to do anything at AFD other than participate by voting. There's also been absolutely no communication from them regarding all the concerns here or their talk page. And then there's this slew of pointy edits at Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#Proposal:_Removing_non-admin_closures_at_AfD where they clearly demonstrate a total lack of competence in this area, and possibly elsewhere. I know it might appear that I'm beating a dead horse, but perhaps this discussion should be broadened.Praxidicae (talk) 12:54, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

And because of what I outlined above, as well as what is now their fourth request for rollback (and still no communincation or response regarding concerns here) that a lengthy block might be in order. Praxidicae (talk) 13:05, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree. This remark (if I was topic banned from AfD and other deletion areas, I would move on to somewhere else such as WP:AIV, WP:UAA, and WP:RFPP for a change) in particular suggests that they still do not understand; combined with a lack of engagement here, there would indeed appear to be more than just AfD-clerking in the frame. ——SerialNumber54129 13:12, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

I've blocked for a week, to at least make them stop while this discussion is in progress. They can be unblocked the minute they promise to stop all activity at AFD. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:26, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

• As Sheldybett has now said "If I was topic banned from AfD and other deletion areas, I would move on to somewhere else such as WP:AIV, WP:UAA, and WP:RFPP for a change or I just shall quit Wikipedia for good." See diff. That would only shift the problems elsewhere, so alternative proposal below...

Alternative proposal

User:Sheldybett is topic banned from clerking at all admin-related areas, including (but not limited to) WP:CSD, WP:PROD, WP:AFD, WP:AIV, WP:UAA, and WP:RFPP. The topic ban is indefinite and can be appealed after a minimum of six months.

• Support as proposer. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:37, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support I think they have made this decision for us. ——SerialNumber54129 13:42, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support Given the communication cited by BsZ, this seems to be the only option left. Kleuske (talk) 13:45, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
• Strong support per all the reasoning above and per my own above and I'd add the caveat that their block is extended until they demonstrate a willingness to communicate. Praxidicae (talk) 13:50, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

  I've no objection to another admin adjusting the block in any way that seems appropriate. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:54, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

• Support as first choice given their statement at WT:AfD. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:05, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support as we are not helped by the problem activity shifting elsewhere. Schwede66 18:11, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support, lack of competence and language skills are indistinguishable from trolling. Leviv ich 19:01, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support. Per all the above. The Duke 21:59, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support for a willful refusal to accept concerns on competence, despite at least 5 attempts to resolve the issue with lower level assistance, warnings and sanctions Nosebagbear (talk) 22:40, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support per everything written by all the other editors in this thread. This editor simply does not get it, and their English skills seem woefully inadequate. I suggest that they go do some good work at the Wikipedia of their native language. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:09, 6 April 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.

Fake references

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T198456

Thanks to Doug Weller for spotting the pattern here. I think the following search results speak for themselves:

• "Effect of etafenone on total and regional myocardial blood flow"
• "Inhibition of aldehyde reductase isoenzymes in human and rat brain"
• "Digitoxin metabolism by rat liver microsomes"
• "Antidepressant drugs affect dopamine uptake"
• "Action of propranolol on mitochondrial functions--effects on energized ion fluxes in the presence of valinomycin"
• "Inhibition of aldehyde reductase by acidic metabolites of the biogenic amines"
• "Metal substitutions incarbonic anhydrase: a halide ion probe study"
• "Formate assay in body fluids: application in methanol poisoning"
• "Atomic models for the polypeptide backbones of myohemerythrin and hemerythrin"
• "Studies of oxygen binding energy to hemoglobin molecule"
• "Maturation of the adrenal medulla--IV. Effects of morphine"
• "Comparison between procaine and isocarboxazid metabolism in vitro by a liver microsomal amidase-esterase"
• "Radiochemical assay of glutathione S-epoxide transferase and its enhancement by phenobarbital in rat liver in vivo"
• "Effect of chloroquine on cultured fibroblasts: release of lysosomal hydrolases and inhibition of their uptake"

"Atomic models for the polypeptide backbones of myohemerythrin and hemerythrin" is being used to support statements in Alluvial fan, Urban open space, The Arena (Ahmedabad), and Draft:Saudi German Hospital Group, among others. "Formate assay in body fluids: application in methanol poisoning" is being used in Chilik River, Holcomb Fire, Baja California slider, Lolita Lebrón, and >40 other pages. And so on. As far as I can tell from Wikiblame, each time the refs ahave been added by a different ' user. One theory is that there's some "How to create a Wiki page" tutorial that's using these as example refs. But when I Google for the same titles, I find no such tutorial. So what, exactly, is going on here? I'm willing to list some of the users doing this, but before I start leaving scary ANI notices, does anyone have an explanation for why so many users might be doing this? I don't think it's a sockfarm. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 20:09, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

The cited articles have PubMed IDs in order, starting with PMID #1 (Formate assay in body fluids: application in methanol poisoning). I bet there's some citation tool where if you click it, it adds the next PMID that's not already in the article as an example, under the assumption that the article author will fill it in with the desired metadata, and that these are just ones that never got filled in. —{{u|Goldenshimmer}} (they/their)｜😹｜✝️｜John 15:12｜☮️｜🍂｜T/C 20:26, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Random paranoid suggestion - someone doing research on reliability of Wikipedia by adding BS refs and seeing how quickly we remove them? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:31, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Never mind, Goldenshimmer's answer makes much more sense. Occam's razor :P ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:32, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Inserting a reference that's just a number in Visual Editor produces a PMID reference. Peter James (talk) 12:44, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm still confused about how this PMID thing happened, but I'm going to start removing these from articles where they clearly don't belong. Natureium (talk) 15:07, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Every one I've checked seems to have been added by VisualEditor. So I'm thinking it's either:

1. People are just typing random numbers into the from and adding in whatever reference comes up.
2. People are adding valid references, and some bug in VisualEditor is silently replacing the refs with crazy low-PMID ones.
3. Some other tool is interacting with VisualEditor, causing the behavior Goldenshimmer describes.
4. People are trying to reuse existing references. That is, the user wants to reuse reference [4], so they type "4" into VE's form. Something strange comes up about polypeptide backbones, myohemerythrin and hemerythrin, but think think "hey, that's probably just some strange wiki term, I'll learn what it means later" and just click "Insert".

I don't think it's mostly (1), or there would be more hits for PMID 69, PMID 123, PMID 420, etc. (2) wouldn't be shocking, but so far no one's been able to reproduce the bug. I don't know about (3) ... maybe something to do with Wiki Ed? My bet is on (4), unless someone can think of a better explanation. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:31, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

I've created filter 979 (hist · log) to track this. If it's a bug, I expect to see experienced editors doing this as well (that wouldn't show up in the search results, because they probably would have fixed the problem right away). If not, it's probably user error, and the filter can be set to give a friendly warning. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 00:17, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Suffusion of Yellow, Your number 4 is the explanation I was thinking of, but I removed a PMID 11 (I think?) from an article that had fewer than 11 references, so I ran out of possible explanations. Natureium (talk) 00:18, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

@Natureium: Possibility (5): The user doesn't realize that reference numbers are assigned automatically, so they think the first step is to choose the number. So, if they are adding a reference near the end of the page, they try to "make room" for the refs that they plan on adding later. In any case, this problem was reported at phab:T198456 last year. Seems it's a problem on other wikis as well. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 19:43, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Meat socks at Identity Evropa refused to answer COI

Identity Evropa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Student4N (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
SheepDirectory (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
SamSamuel11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Bakken56 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

A continuation of this ANI thread. So after I asked these accounts to clarify their COI on March 30, All of them disappeared, until yesterday when one of them blanked my message and left this angry message at my talk page. A brief look ar their contribs looks like clicking random article or rabbit hole and make small edits eager to get past 50 edits. One of them sneakily inserted "alleged" on a section related to the group before finally reaching 50 edits and jumping onto the main article. This neo-Nazi group has an active, ongoing effort to whitewash their Wikipedia page. A couple of them got indeffed in their campaign last summer. Need admins willing to action.  It looks like a duck to me. Tsumikiria⧸ 🦙🌉 00:29, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Tsumikiria (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has asked the following of multiple editors:

Hi, [USERNAME]. You are expected to answer the following questions in a clear, honest, and yes/no manner:

• Are you a member of the organization(s) known as Identity Evropa (IE) or American Identity Movement (AIM)?
• Are you personally or financially related to IE/AIM or other white nationalist/"Identitarian" groups, or Nathan Damigo, Patrick Casey, and Elliot Kline, in any way?

If so, you must declare your conflict of interest. Undisclosed editing, especially undisclosed paid editing, are serious violations of our policies. You must respond to COI inquiries and cease editing immediately until you have done so.

The detailed notice is below. Thank you. (Emphasis in original)

...followed by the standard Template:uw-coi notice.

To make things worse, he then took these editors to ANI complaning when they blanked the message or posted an angry response. I certainly would have blanked such a message if I had received it.

I have no problem with uw-coi notice, but Tsumikiria's added text seem overly aggressive and accusatory for a first contact with a suspected coi editor. It is also factually untrue. No policy says that coi editors "must respond to COI inquiries and cease editing immediately until they have done so." It is perfectly acceptable for a coi editor to not declare anything and to instead delete the warning and silently stop editing in the area where he has a coi.

None of the above implies that these users do or do not have a coi. That only becomes an issue if they continue to edit the pages where they are suspected to have a coi after receiving a warning. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:39, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Not sure if I'm allowed to post here but this user tried to do the same with me. They seem to prowl articles about radical leftism and when anyone tries to edit or portray them in a bad way, the user goes onto their page and accuses them of rules violations usually without evidence, in a way that implies that the user is a moderator. I was personally accused of being a sock because I (actually what they said) "knew how to use wikipedia". Kilometerman (talk) 01:23, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Kilometerman have a content dispute with me and Doug Weller on Antifa (United States) where they added insufficiently supported and undue material, which has been rigorously discussed and settled in the past months, onto the lead. I dragged them into discussion per standard WP:BRD process and asked them to stop potential personal attacks, but they blanked my message. The full exchange can be found here. Tsumikiria⧸ 🦙🌉 02:16, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

I originally meant to use Template:uw-paid1, but feared that this COI situation may not necessarily involve paid, so I thought I could use uw-coi instead. The "must not edit until respond" clause might fit uw-paid better, I could be under the wrong impression that the same thing apply to regular COI inquiries as well. Sorry if I seemed too aggressive and I'll better my approach in the future. Tsumikiria⧸ 🦙🌉 03:49, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

In general, it is a bad idea to make threats or ultimatums of other editors unless you intend to follow through on them. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:45, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

The reason we don't have a template like the paid editing template for unpaid editing is because the same rules don't apply. It's a TOU violation to engage in undisclosed paid editing. That's not the case for a member of an organization. They have a COI, yes, but it's handled differently and there are fewer bright lines. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:25, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

• Related: Template talk:Uw-paid1#"do not edit further until you answer this message". --Guy Macon (talk) 07:33, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

I certainly do not want undisclosed meatpuppets of the neo-Nazi group Identity Evropa or its rebranded successor "American Identity Movement" editing anything whatsoever related to those groups or American or contemporary or 20th or 21st century politics in general . I suppose that it is hypothetically possible that such an editor might contribute positively about butterflies or stamp collecting. But any inquiries to such editors must accurately reflect our policies and guidelines, and it looks to me like you got over your skis here, Tsumikiria. Tainted evidence is often worse than no evidence whatsoever. Please be careful. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:58, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Diffs

May we have a few diffs showing each of the listed users exhibiting behavior that would support them being meat puppets, please? Nobody wants undisclosed meatpuppets of a neo-Nazi group editing Wikipedia, but nobody wants someone who isn't a undisclosed meatpuppets of a neo-Nazi group being accused of being one either. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:10, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Ah, I shouldn't expect people to read page history or previous discussion. Here's a few:

• 2019-03-26T13:56:41 SamSamuel11 removed the well-sourced info that AIM is a rebrand of IE, as well as IE facing decline in membership, falsely claiming no citation.
• 2019-03-26T16:15:17 SheepDirectory appeared out of the blue to revert on behalf of SamSamuel11.

• SheepDirectory previously inserted "alleged" onto the sentence and the group was renamed American Identity Movement (AIM), [allegedly] as part of a public relations effort to avoid scrutiny on Unicorn Riot. These two edits appears completely unrelated in topic field with their other edits. For a brand new editor they display proficiency such as Twinkle usage. Most of their edits has been small copyedits with no large content addition.

• 2019-03-26T18:50:49 SamSamuel11 revert again, declaring no consensus purely based on number of reverters on their behalf.
• 2019-03-26T18:55:48 SamSamuel11 hitting 3RR with no explanation whatsoever.
• 2019-03-19T14:30:03 SamSamuel11 blanking the redirect American Identity Movement, claiming AIM to be a different organization
• 2019-03-19T21:47:13 Bakken56 appeared out of the blue on this redirect, 3rd edit, adding the promotional sentence "The American Identity Movement was founded by Patrick Casey on March 8th, 2019."
• 2019-03-26T13:56:41 SamSamuel11 blanked the redirect again, claiming that "majority of editors have determined".
• If you read this entire section: Talk:Identity_Evropa#Rebranding_and_reorganization_into_"American_Identity_Movement"_after_discord_leak, it is entirely filled with walls of sea-lioning texts by SamSamuel11, with Student4N and SheepDirectory stonewalling against the 10-year veteran editor Grayfell, obstructing changes. Student4N claimed w/o source that they were removed from all of their old communication channels, but is contradicted by the source given by Greyfell which says that IE and AIM use the same communications infrastructure.
• On March 21, Student4N made a series of disruptive cite-tagging trying to undermine well sourced content supported by SPLC. Also directly referenced AIM website.

Gotta leave my laptop for a while. Will update later. Tsumikiria⧸ 🦙🌉 21:55, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

93.38.65.148

93.38.65.148 (talk · contribs) writes in abominable English, curses in Italian in his edit summaries, and has a long history of bad edits including edit warring. He is being disruptive on Minhag, without engaging in any discussion, either on the article talkpage or his user talkpage. I think a 24-48-72 hour block might be the best course of action. Debresser (talk) 22:51, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP user for 24 hours for edit warring on Minhag. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:28, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Cmt: That IP is blocked on it:wp as a sock of 1ShabElion. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:00, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive editor PearlSt82 - re DogsBite.org article

User:PearlSt82 is engaging in disruptive editing in pursuit of pushing a particular agenda or point of view on the single article Dogsbite.org. This has been going on for two months recently, but PearlSt82's hatred for the topic/target of the article (DogsBite.org) is documented in Wikipedia as far back as 2015.[24]

On 3 Dec 2018, Dwanyewest created the article page 'DogsBite.org' (ending with 3 sentences, 13 citations). PearlSt82 immediately took it over the same day (ending with 5 sentences, 12 citations). I discovered this page in early February 2019 and found it to be a wholey disparaging, critical article.

I recommended for Speedy Deletion-G10 (19 Feb 2019). It was denied.

It got nominated for deletion based on "not notable." Keep.

I attempted to edit the article. For everything I edited, I heavily described/documented on the Talk page, but despite that PearlSt82 continued to revert and/or over-ride my edits, including reverting at least FIVE (5) of my edits in a 24 hour period on 26 Feb 2019. [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] Those examples are rather small, but a lot of larger sections were reverted, too, on other days. I think PearlSt82 panicked when faced with a 3RR report (which I didn't do at the time).

On 25 Feb 2019, Dwanyewest tried to take this to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard, but it was bounced back as not an appropriate avenue.

On 4 Mar 2019, Dwanyewest suggested WP:Thirdopinion.

On 6 Mar 2019, PearlSt82 filed on "Dispute Resolution Noticeboard" but that sat for weeks with no comments and timed out on 24 Mar 2019.

I guess it automatically went to RFC (request for comment) right after that, but no one is interested in joining in this discussion because (a) it's esoteric and unless you're involved in the subject, it's confusing, and (b) the Talk page is LITTERED with voluminous discussions and comments.

Yesterday & today I attempted to re-work the article, bring in new information, and I addressed PearlSt82's most recent complaints he'd made on the Talk page. Nope. He reverted MY ENTIRE WORK. (That's not the first time he's done that.) I confess to reverting it right back, because I considered his blanket reversion to be vandalism. There's nothing in my work that is false, inflammatory or libelous, and everything I wrote was well cited. On the other hand, PearlSt82's edits continuously bring in contentious material (citations that attack DogsBite.org), writes personal opinion, and adds his own original research (some of which has been the subject of at least two libel reports to Wikipedia).

There has been ZERO concensus between PearlSt82 and myself (Nomopbs), and zero cooperation on PearlSt82's part. At least I've tried to bring the article closer to NPOV numerous times, but PearlSt82 keeps destroying my work or involving yet another administrative process. I suppose his intention is to wear me down or plow me under. I don't know. But no matter how softly I word my change-explanations, nothing seems to soften PearlSt82 or get any sort of cooperation whatsoever.

I have probably spent well over 10 times MORE time and effort addressing PearlSt82's complaints, edits, and reversions on this one article than I have spent doing work on the article! I am NOT exaggerating. And that level of disruptive editing is completely unacceptable.

Maybe since PearlSt82 HATES DogsBite.org, and has for so long, he should be prohibited from editing that page. I don't kow what else to do about it.

Nomopbs (talk) 22:21, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

I vehemently disagree my edits are disruptive as I have made good faith efforts to gain consensus through various means. My count for my reverts on Feb 26 is 2, not 5, and I have taken all further edits regarding that series to the talk page and only have edited the article space again today. In none of my edits have I made OR, or expressed my personal opinion, but rather every edit I made has been reliably sourced, and has been a good faith reflection of the sources. Nomopbs' username appears to be an abbreviation of "No more pitbulls", and they are a WP:SPA that is only concerned with pushing an anti-Pit bull/pro-Breed specific legislation POV through various pages, including dogsbite.org and Fatal dog attacks in the United States. I have no idea what they are talking about regarding libel reports. On Fatal dog attacks in the United States they have recently added a list of bulleted cherry picked primary studies without attempting to discuss or gain consensus. Their talk page comments are steeped in numerous bad faith assumptions, WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior, and an egregious misreading of core wikipedia policies. One of the more absurd misreadings of WP policy is this edit to WP:DRN where they state that my proposed wording on dogsbite.org's history section "exposes [my] true WP:G10 purposes". Recommend WP:BOOMERANG as user is clearly WP:NOTHERE. PearlSt82 (talk) 22:39, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

I'd argue that someone with a username like "no more pitbulls" has a WP:COI (not to bementioing being an WP:SPA) in dog related articles and shouldn't be editing them. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 23:24, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Based on a review of their contribution history, I would concur. It's highly unlikely that it represents something else. SportingFlyer T·C 00:30, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

• @Nomopbs: your version of the Dogsbite.org reads more like a promotional piece about the website, that the previous version. I'd suggest reverting the rewrite, and then proposing individual changes on the article talkpage. Secondly, given your username (as CatainEek spotted), and your editing-history, do you have any conflict of interest with respect to the website or the issue it advocates for? Abecedare (talk) 01:47, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
• Wow, you guys are funny. The meaning of my username is personal and private, but I like your version. Maybe I should adopt it as my 'forward facing' persona. Anyone who has reviewed my edits on Fatal dog attacks in the United States could easily see that I give equal attention to fatalities caused by non-pit bull dogs as by pit bulls. If more of the entries are about pit bulls, it's because there are more deaths by pit bulls, apparently. That's not my fault; I report it like I see it. So y'all know, I do not have a website or an organization about pit bulls (pro or con), I do not work for any organization, I'm not paid by anyone to do what I do in Wikipedia, nor even encouraged. I get a lot of flak about it from my friends because I jumped in with both feet, barely come up for air... but I haven't yet drowned. It's how I am with topics I'm intensely interested in. I've been using Wikipedia for years but didn't know anyone could sign up to be an editor until last fall. I've been through some learning curves and feel pretty confident about my grasp of the policies at this point. PearlSt82 has been a trial by fire, though. No one should have to fight a diehard like that as a novice wiki editor. I got interested in the deaths and discovered that the wiki page Fatal dog attacks in the United States was missing about half of the fatalities. I set about locating information on the missing ones and adding them. I wanted a complete list. I liked that the wiki page was a summary of everything all in one place. (Should have been, if for the fact it was missing half the deaths.) I didn't realize I was going to get sucked into an entire world of controversy. Sure, I used the website dogsbite.org as a research tool, but it isn't the only resource I used. Now I've moved on to the academic/scientific/medical studies in order to identify the causes and possible solutions to the problem. At least I'm trying to move on but keep getting sucked back into this. Nomopbs (talk) 02:46, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
• While revisiting the talk page and the glut of new comments, I did notice something interesting that may provide some insight into COI. On February 25th, I pointed out that the term "science whores" was still on a dogsbite.org branded website, which at the time contained a large banner at the top that says "The Maul Talk Manual is endorsed by dogsbite.org and authored by members of our community", a the "dogsbite.org term" metatag as well as a "sponsored by dogsbite.org" banner on the right side. Nomopbs responded here by saying that the comment was "posted 9-years ago by someone else on a blog that is now an archive and not active". If you now look at the live version of the site, all mentions of dogsbite.org have been scrubbed - the top banner, the right nav, and the "dogsbite.org term" metatag are all gone. As the site was inactive for 9 years, I find it very hard to believe that its just coincidence this material was removed just a few weeks after the discussion about the term and how reliable sources discuss the term took place. Its certainly circumstantial, but would suggest to me some form off-wiki coordination and COI. PearlSt82 (talk) 22:51, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Looking over this for fifteen minutes, This edit suggests basic misunderstanding of Wikipedia policy. It removes citation of a news article that details problems with the site's data collection (to be sure, the nitpicks do sound minor - if they hand-pick half a dozen cases and they include things like somebody getting killed by a car while fleeing from two pit bulls, I don't see that as tremendously wrong. Also inevitable selection bias) The edit summary says Opinion piece cited violated NPOV and directly refutes actual facts in the case. See http://www.rd.com/your-america-inspiring-people-and-stories/two-pit-bulls-maul-a-helpless-man/article49136.html. Now it should be totally clear that sources cannot violate NPOV, only editors. And editors violate NPOV when they play at saying "this source is wrong, this source is right" rather than including both sources and describing their contradictions! This one is not much better, deleting a newspaper's editorial in its own voice saying "WP:RS". The dispute apparently began on Pit bull, where in June 2018 PearlSt82 made this reversion of this edit by User:Michaelandsandy (pinging in case they can tell us more about the past history here) and reinserted a blanket statement that pit bulls are not any more dangerous than any other kind of dog. [31] This may be one of the reversions mentioned by Nomopbs on the dogsbite talk page. Odd part is PealSt82 ended up removing a very old but relevant page of statistics to support his own argument (i.e. the CDC found that Rottweilers caused more fatalities in the mid-90s) here because it was in the wrong place in the article. I am suspicious that this was indeed a dispute predating the article, with strong opinions on both sides, however, those two edits by Nomopbs clearly misinterpret policy. Wnt (talk) 11:03, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

@Wnt: Re dispute predating the article: I don't follow the pit bull article and have never edited it. Nor have I bothered to check revisions of the pit bull article. I didn't join as a wiki editor until Nov 2018, so anything that went on over there last summer was never on my radar and was not anything I was referring to in Talk:DogsBite.org. Neither did PearlSt82 come on my radar until I discovered the Dogsbite.org article (Feb 2019). Indeed, the entirety of the Talk:DogsBite.org page is only 38 days old. Nomopbs (talk) 06:08, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

@Wnt: As for the lowellsun.com citation, it was removed by me once and also removed by another editor, or maybe two. I think for a total of three times. Nomopbs (talk) 06:08, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

I looked over PearlSt82's edits again, and I didn't see anything really problematic. There doesn't appear to be a WP:3RR vio, nor does it seem like an edit war. They have been civil, and they have interacted on the talk page thoroughly. I think that the more problematic editor here is Nomopbs. Take for example this edit, showing a less than civil interaction. Or Talk:Dogsbite.org/Archive 1#Article_lacks_Neutral_Point_of_View, where Nomopbs seems to have a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. I don't forsee this ending with a censuring of PearlSt82; I think their conduct has been admirable considering the situation. Rather I say that this matter either boomerang on Nomopbs with probably a topic ban, or the matter dropped. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:27, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

And yet, Captain Eek, you fail to notice that PearlSt82 obtained a Template:Uw-3rr WARNING on his Talk page for EDIT WARRING on said Dogsbite.org page on February 27, 2019. [32] I, myself, didn't notice it was there until recently. Nomopbs (talk) 23:26, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

• If anything, this should boomerang on Nomopbs. Their characterization of the situation strikes me as completely disingenuous. This seems to be the event they refer to where PearlSt82 'destroyed' their work. However that work involved deleting (one might say 'destroying') what appears to be a meticulously sourced 'Criticism' section. PearlSt82's reversion was equal parts removing newly added content and restoring previous content, which is not the impression given by Nomopbs's statement.

Looking at the talk page, the only incivility I see is from Nomopbs. Thrice they accuse editors of "wasting everyone's time". Their responses in discussions often come off as combative or sarcastic: "OMG, are you kidding me?", "LOL. There's nothing untrue about that statement", "I guess you can't be assuaged. Unless it's YOUR words, you're not going to like it." The other editors involved in the article have behaved with what seems to me an admirable level of patience and cool tempers. Colin M (talk) 00:38, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Nomopbs' edit history on Wikipedia (versus PearlSt82's ad hominem attacks)

Let's look at wiki's statistics (editor contributions), instead of simply jumping on PearlSt82's bandwagon and adding to his smearing my wiki reputation with an ad hominem attack.

Ad hominem: is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.

PearlSt82 asserts that I'm anti pit bull, however...

• PearlSt82's wiki statistics [33] show that PearlSt82 has made 108 edits to the Pit bull page, 44 to Dogsbite.org (whom P considers is anti-pit bull), and the rest mainly to "men's rights movement" type pages.

• Nomopbs' wiki statistics [34] show I have made 290 edits to the Fatal dog attacks in the United States page, 40 to Dogsbite.org and a bunch of miscellany. I have made ZERO edits to the pit bull page, and just 6 edits (link maintenance) to the American Pit Bull Terrier page.

So tell me... Which editor is looking like a pit bull advocate? And which editor is NOT looking anti-pit bull?

Destructive editing:

• Going backwards in time, the last 8 edits PearlSt82 made to the pit bull page were REVERTS, earlier was 2 contributions, 3 reverts, 1 contribution, 3 reverts, then 2 contributions.
• PearlSt82's last biggest contribution on that page was the removal of 11,612 characters,[35] an entire section of 'studies about pit bulls', the majority of which pointed to them being dangerous and implicated them in a higher percentage of attacks than their population percentage indicated.[36] That was in 2016.
• PearlSt82 did the same thing in 2015. [37]

That's a lot of destruction and not a lot of construction.

Whether or not the reverts were warranted isn't my point. What I'm saying is that in the last three years, PearlSt82 destroyed/removed/reverted more than he contributed (on the pit bull topic). Why? Are the majority of his 108 edits even more years back when he established the page and now he's taken ownership of it (WP:OWN) and is guarding the pit bull article against all comers who might say something unflattering about pit bulls? Scroll further to see the full extent of PearlSt82's reversions on the pit bull page:[38] What you'll see is a long series of reverts. Why these edits? What is he protecting? Does he work for one of the organizations that promotes pit bulls as family pets and pays for research to show they are "no different than any other dog"?

The article Dogsbite.org, though created by editor Dwanyewest, was immediately taken over by PearlSt82. Every single one of his edits contributes only to "criticism" of DogsBite.org as an organization. He has contributed nothing constructive or even neutral. He has railed against all of my contructive or neutral edits on that page. A little bit about DogsBite.org (based on what I see in their website and have read about online): they collect information on fatal dog attacks, they post statistics about such attacks, post that pit bulls are the majority breed involved, post proposed solutions to the pit bull problem including breed specific legislation, and it could be said they are anti-pit bull. Considering PearlSt82's edits on the pit bull page, and the POV you can conclude from those edits, I can see why he must only write criticism on the DogsBite.org article. But that doesn't make it right. And it doesn't excuse his reversions, nor his disruptive editing against me.

Constructive editing:

On the other hand, I have been a heavy contributor to the Fatal dog attacks in the United States article. My edits have been "constructive" (adding text), rather than "destructive" (removing text) or "inhibitive" (reverting). And I don't discriminate between incidents with pit bulls versus non pit bulls. Here [39] is my log of edits to the fatalities pages, just search for "added victim" (from the edit summary column). The last 10 additions I made of victims (in reverse chronological order) were deaths caused by the breeds Rottweiler, Rottweiler, Unspecified, Pits & mixes, Presa Canario, Great Dane, American Bulldog, Pit mix, Pit bull, and German Shepherd. I have added 158,203 bytes to that article and deleted 9,666 bytes (less than 1% of my addition count). Now THAT is a lot of work. If I hated pit bulls, wouldn't I have been adding only fatalities caused by pit bulls (to increase the percentages)? Wouldn't I have quit spending so much time researching, getting citations and writing new entries for fatalities caused by non-pit bulls? It takes about 30 minutes of work for each single fatality I add, and I've added dozens, maybe even a 100 by now. I have been a valuable contributor to Wikipedia on this topic. The fatalities page got so long, someone split it in half (made another page). And then later split it again. So now there are three wiki pages to cover all the fatalies by dog in the USA.

Anyone who spent 5 minutes looking into (not 'at') my contributions/edit history would have seen my neutral POV with respect to pit bulls. If my agenda was to push an anti-pit bull POV, then I would have been done with my work on the Fatalities page long ago. This disruption by PearlSt82 re Dogsbite.org is just a sideline distraction that is keeping me from my real work.

Disruptive editing:

PearlSt82 only used an ad hominem personal attack to get me out of his way, to try to get me banned for WP:SPA or WP:COI, and to try to get sympathetic support for his viewpoint against me (to obtain a false concensus; not based on facts). PearlSt82 accused me above of being "a WP:SPA that is only concerned with pushing an anti-Pit bull/pro-Breed specific legislation POV through various pages." However, there is no evidence that I have made ANY anti-pit bull edits, NOR ANY pro BSL edits. He has failed to support his claims. His 'smoke and mirrors' contribute to my claim that PearlSt82 has been WP:DISRUPTIVE (as he was in 2015 on this very same subject!).

Four years ago, PearlSt82 displayed in great detail his disruptive behavior about DogsBite.org in a 2015 discussion on the Reliable Source Noticeboard. [40] It involved EIGHT OTHER wiki editors (User:Epeefleche, User:AndyTheGrump, User:EvergreenFir, User:Blueboar, User:DrFleischman, User:GRuban, User:Arkon, User:RightCowLeftCoast) and no one took PearlSt82's side. PearlSt82 was combative, refusing to get their points, continued to argue "content" instead of RS, and wasn't interested in concensus. For whatever reason, or for no reason whatsoever, PearlSt82 is rabidly opposed to DogsBite.org, and has been since at least 2015. Which is why I groan when PearlSt82 posts (for the umpteenth time) about trying to get concensus on the issue today, when his opinions and behavior towards THIS PARTICULAR SUBJECT hasn't changed in four years despite other editors chiming in.

When is enough enough? When will the disruption end?

Nomopbs (talk) 06:26, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

This is exactly the WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior I was referring to in my initial response. I find this bit: Why these edits? What is he protecting? Does he work for one of the organizations that promotes pit bulls as family pets and pays for research to show they are "no different than any other dog"? particularly telling, as this is the exact same line of thought Dogsbite.org has been criticized for by RS, and is what Nomopbs has objected to, in part calling it libel. In light of this libel accusation on the talk page after the ANI report was filed, I'm a bit concerned by this phrase in Nomopbs' initial ANI filing: PearlSt82's edits continuously bring in contentious material (citations that attack DogsBite.org), writes personal opinion, and adds his own original research (some of which has been the subject of at least two libel reports to Wikipedia) - what do they mean when they say "at least two" reports? How do they arrive at a figure of multiple filed reports, but an indeterminate number? Are they saying that they themselves have filed multiple reports? Or do they know of others that have filed reports? If the latter, how do they know this? PearlSt82 (talk) 11:26, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

The evidence, the proof

Apparently I have been unable to adequately explain what is going on, because of the esoteric nature of the "content". So today, I undertook research to identify the types and patterns of edits made by PearlSt82, without getting involved in specific content issues. The primary patterns I saw were "revert or remove" and "state critical opinions about DogsBite.org on Talk pages".

Reverts/removals in general:

On PearlSt82's top 9 edited pages,[41] P totaled 286 edit. 163 (57%) were reverts/removals.

• Pit bull: Out of 108 edits, at least 53 (49%) were reverts/removals.
• Dogsbite.org: Out of 44 edits, at least 12 (27%) were reverts/removals.
• Men's rights movement: 32 edits, 28 (88%) of those are reverts/removals.
• Roosh V: 25 edits, 15 (60%) are reverts/removals. One "Nominated for deletion".
• Fatal dog attacks in the United States: Out of 20 edits, 13 (65%) were reverts/removals.
• Masculinism: 17 edits. 14 (82%) reverts/removals.
• A Voice for Men: 17 edits. 11 (65%) reverts/removals.
• Breed-specific legislation: Out of 13 edits, 10 (77%) involved reverts/removals.
• Manosphere: 10 edits. 7 (70%) reverts/removals.

This pattern of heavy reverts violates Wikipedia's editor policies about reverts (why, why not, when, and how). In summary, reversions are considered to be hostile, drive away editors, and make editing Wikipedia unpleasant. WP:ONLYREVERT There is a whole slew of wiki guidelines on how better to make changes than to revert, including Alternatives to reversion.

Deliberately seeking out mentions of DogsBite.org in Wikipedia (to remove):

• On a single day (Jan 18, 2017) PearlSt82 made exactly 7 edits. ALL of them were to remove references to DogsBite.org from all around Wikipedia, including 5 removals from Fatal dog attacks in the United States [42] [43] [44] [45] [46], 1 from Greyhound [47], and 1 from Dog fighting [48].

• One of those 7 removals [49] had been there for 9 months, created on April 18, 2016 [50].

• On the Fatal dog attacks in the United States page that PearlSt82 had made 20 edits and 13 were reverts/removals, 9 out of 13 were in order to remove DogsBite.org as a citation or when it was mentioned.

• Three of the reverts on the pit bull page were remarked as being to remove DogsBite.org as a citation.

Talk pages, vilifying DogsBite.org:

Considering the dearth of actual constructive edits, on the other hand the Talk pages are filled with lots of commentary about why this or that should be removed or this or that should be a certain way. According to WP:TALK "Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject."

• On the pit bull Talk page, PearlSt82 vilifies DogsBite for the last SIX YEARS: 31 January 2013, 17 February 2014, 20 April 2015 X 3, 25 January 2017, 2 July 2018.

• On the Talk page for Fatal dog attacks in the United States, PearlSt82 vilifies DogsBite.org: 22 April 2015, 28 September 2015

• The entirety of P's discussion on Talk:Dogsbite.org is critical of DogsBite.org. In fact, the article was created as a criticism piece,[51] and it wasn't until I came along that anyone tried to bring it towards NPOV.

PearlSt82 publishes his opinions of DogsBite.org:

Do you really think someone with these opinions could possibly maintain any sense of NPOV while editing the Dogsbite.org article?

• "Dogsbite.org is a anti-Pit bull, pro-Breed Specific Legislation advocacy group. They have a vested interest in skewing statistics regarding dog bite fatalities in order to make pit bulls look more dangerous than they are" [52]

• "I disagree that my views on dogsbite.org is personal opinion. It is a fact dogsbite.org is not peer reviewed. It is a fact that it is self published. It is a fact that Colleen Lynn, the sole operator of dogsbite.org has no credentials in veterinary science, animal behavior or other related matters that would make her reliable for quoting these kinds of statistics from. It is also fact that HuffPo wrote an article which I quoted above that labels Lynn and Merritt Clifton as academic frauds. If you look at the data on Lynn's website, its mostly circular citations with Merritt Clifton." [53]

• "Yes, what DBO is doing here is tabulating their own research based on the media reports they've surveyed." [54]

• "My labeling of dogsbite.org as fringe is absolutely NOT POV." [55]

• "... Lynn's lack of credentials, stating Colleen Lynn is a menace; she's a web designer who was once bitten by a dog, and has been on a vicious campaign to eliminate the pit bull type ever since. Still, she makes no pretense to academic credibility." [56]

• "... a fringe and discredited organization like dogsbite.org" [57]

• "a pro-BSL site which intentionally skews dog bite fatality statistics" [58]

• "dogsbite.org ... is a self published source run by non-veterinary professionals who intentionally skew statistics." [59]

• "... these statistics are impossible to outline with any degree of certainty" [60]

• "their conclusions are refuted by reputable organizations" [61]

• "Other organizations do not make such statistics, because such information is unknowable." [62]

• "Colleen Lynn and Merrit Clifton have no professional or academic experience in animal behavior, statistics and epidemology, Clifton intentionally misrepresents his academic credentials, and DogsBite.org and Clifton are given false balance by many media outlets as their opinion carrying the same weight as the CDC and AVMA" [63]

• "... and its citation of unreliable and biased sources such as dogsbite.org" [64]

• "How is this not a fringe organization?" [65]

• "I think this is absolutely not reliable information. Dogsbite.org is a self published source which has been known to skew its statistics. It is run by a single person, Colleen Lynn, who has no professional experience in animal behavior. It is not peer reviewed. All of their dog bite statistics come from media reports" [66]

• "How would we approach without running afoul of NPOV and BLP when discussing Lynn?" [67]

Does anyone still think the author of the above statements could possibly edit the Dogsbite.org article with a neutral point of view? I can only conclude that this person must have some sort of vested interest. No one would spend six years making absolutely sure that nothing is ever said positive about a single small organization unless they saw themselves as some sort of competitor (like National Canine Research Council) or they work for one of the large pit bull advocacy organizations such as Animal Farm Foundation, Best Friends Animal Society, etc. Not even someone with a personal grudge against Lynn could cook up the lengthy and detailed arguments against her work like PearlSt82 has done. The hours and weeks P must have spent on this over the years. Oh my! (And I had to go get myself sucked into the quicksand of this rivalry. Beating myself up now for getting involved.)

To sum it up:

I accidentally encountered PearlSt82 when I tried to edit the Dogsbite.org article. Working with, or around, PearlSt82 has been excruciating. Apparently I could not adequately explain to others what was going on. I hope that this summary of P's edits has sufficiently shown that P has been engaged in DISRUPTIVE EDITING for a very long time, and specifically on the subject of DogsBite.org — though not disruptive exclusively towards DogsBite, but also as a general pattern of his type of editing. Considering P's documented focused attacks on the target DogsBite for an extended period of time (six years) without break, PearlSt82 should be banned or blocked from editing the Dogsbite.org article.

Nomopbs (talk) 08:08, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

This strikes me as a WP:STICK wall of text, misunderstanding policy and mischaracterizing my edits. I again strongly disagree that any of my edits constitute as being disruptive. PearlSt82 (talk) 19:09, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

I somewhat agree with PearlSt82. This is a true wall of text, and this horse feels pretty well flogged. I did go through however and read this large block of text. While reverting shouldn't be the main way of editing, many editors still do revert a great deal. Why you brought up Pearls non-dog edits seems to be confusing the issue. Deliberately removing DogsBites mentions? Thats no crime, and in fact I support Pearl's edits in that area: per WP:BLOGS, a website like DogsBite is hardly a reliable source. On talk pages: reading through the talk page, I see no egregious problems. If you'd like to provide specific diffs or sections, please do. I hardly find evidence of them "villifying" DogsBite. And from what I can see, they don't seem wildly or unfairly prejudiced against DogsBite. They claim that its a fringe source, and I think they may be right. Its certainly not a reliable source. Perhaps that issue would be better raised at the RS noticeboard. Their view that DogsBite isn't reliable seems backed, or at least not just their opinion.

At this point, I see that there is a clear issue between PearlSt82 and Nomopbs. Perhaps an WP:IBAN is in order? Otherwise, I say that Nomopbs should probably step back from Dog articles (with a topic ban if necessary). PearlSt82 could also step back, but their edits do not seem overly problematic to me. That, or per WP:STICK, this horse is well and truly flogged, you should both accept that this thing is over, and maybe stop editing the article and go find another article to work on. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:52, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

@CaptainEek: That you think "heavy on the reverting" is okay as an editor's pattern of activity shows a weak grasp of the wiki guidelines about reverting and how repetitious and heavy-handed reversions do represent disruptive editing. Nomopbs (talk) 05:06, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

@Nomopbs: I didn't say that. I agree that reverting should not be the main way of editing, and I would warn PearlSt82 to familiarize themselves with the ins and outs of reversion, and to revert only when necessary. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 05:23, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

You cannot simply say that because >X% of a user's edits are reverts, they're being disruptive. You need to consider the actual content of their reverts. For example, you could have an editor who chooses to do nothing but watch for vandalism and revert it. Their article-space edits could be 100% reverts, and yet, their contributions to the encyclopedia would be very positive. Colin M (talk) 16:04, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Comments: I see a lot of smoke but no fire.

• That someone's edits are largely reverts is not a problem per se, especially on troll magnet pages like Roosh V.
• The removal a non-RS websites used as sources is a positive thing, not something we should chastise Pearl for.
• A discussion about HuffPo from 4 years ago seems reaching. I'm sure that if Pearl has a negative view of dogbites.org, challenging its mention from a low-to-middle tier source is logical. But that Pearl challenged it is not an issue.
• The website in question, dogbites.org, is not a source that should be used on Wikipedia. That Pearl hates it or that Nomopbs loves it are irrelevant. Both parties should be reminded strongly of NPOV, especially on a topic that has become a moral panic. Perhaps temporary WP:DISENGAGE from the topic would be best.
• I'm not convinced that Nomopbs' user name is referencing pitbulls. Perhaps they are against PBS as purveyors of muppet smut.
• Five brownie points awarded to Nomopbs for using "rabidly" in this discussion.

EvergreenFir (talk) 16:39, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Nomoskedasticity on Eliezer Berland

I have WP:TROUTed both Nomoskedasticity and Debresser for edit-warring. Extra trout to Debresser for not respecting WP:BURDEN, repeatedly adding WP:SELFPUB promotional material, and for bringing to ANI a false claim that Nomoskedasticity was refusing to go to the talkpage when they had in fact done so over 24 hours before the that claim was made. Blocks would have been well-justified, esp a WP:BOOMERANG for Debresser, but I'm feeling charitable.
The rest is a content dispute which is now being discussed at Talk:Eliezer Berland and doesn't need ANI attention. Both editors are experienced enough to know that blocks with prior warning are likely to follow any resumption. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:26, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Um.. you mean without prior warning? EEng

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

---

Nomoskedasticity (talk · contribs) is being his usual unpleasant self on Eliezer Berland, edit warring to remove sourced information with crap arguments and refusing to go to the talkpage. Debresser (talk) 17:03, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

"Refusing to go to the talk page"?? [68] Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:18, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Nomoskedasticity very clearly did go to the talk page well before Debresser came here, and just as obviously the information in question was not cited to an independent reliable source, so it should be removed unless and until such a source is provided. But, anyway, that's all a content issue. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:47, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

The conduct issue is that both Nomoskedasticity and Debresser are edit-warring.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:11, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, both editors were edit warring. The dispute is about a promotional phrase that Debresser is determined to add to the BLP, namely, "he has counseled and guided tens of thousands of Jews from secular backgrounds to draw closer to the Torah path", in Wikipedia's voice. The source of that information? The website of the school that this rabbi used to run. Taking Phil Bridger's advice, I will revert it and advise Debresser to stop edit warring to keep such poor content in the article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:14, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Following allegations of sexual misconduct, Berland fled Israel traveling from country to country to avoid extradition to Israel. He was eventually extradited to Israel, where he confessed to having committed rape, and was sentenced to 18 months' incarceration for his sexual attacks on two women, as well as his instructions to assault the husband of one of the women he sexually assaulted. – Doesn't sound very close to the Torah path to me. EEng 20:45, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Which is however completely unrelated to the sentence in question. Debresser (talk) 20:54, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Well, since the Torah-path source says nothing about it, one wonders how balanced and detached is its coverage of him. EEng 21:01, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

@Phil Bridger My bad, I wrote this before I saw the talkpage, and was going to remove that part. Debresser (talk) 20:54, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

@Cullen328 The website is definitely not the best site, but 1. it is not run by the rabbi 2. the info is definitely true.

I could understand somebody would ask for a better source, we even have a template for that, but why remove this? Debresser (talk) 20:54, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Because it's overly promotional to state this in the wiki's voice? Valeince (talk) 20:59, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Where is the evidence that this rabbi does not control everything on that website, Debresser? "It is not run by the rabbi" . He ran that organization like a cult of personality for decades, lying to his followers about his crimes and sending them on quixotic journeys around the world to defend him against the truth. What leads you to believe that he does not control that website? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:16, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

@Valeince I don't think it is overly. Although I would have written "thousands" instead of "tens of thousands", for that purpose.

@Cullen328 You are right that I don't have any proof of it. I however sincerely doubt an 81 year old rabbi from Israel updates websites much, in English. Debresser (talk) 22:21, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Does it matter whether he controls the webpage (either directly by updating himself or dictating updates to someone fluent in English and html)? A school's website doesn't seem to meet the requirements of a reliable secondary source for itself or its employees. TelosCricket (talk) 01:05, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Since there seems to be consensus that this source is not reliable, I will have to acquiesce to the umpteenth removal of true information from Wikipedia for reasons of bureaucracy. Please feel free to close this thread. Debresser (talk) 01:07, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

• I think the article is exceptionally disparaging of Berland simply by virtue of the detailed depth into which it goes about Berland's international peregrinations prior to eventually serving 18 months incarceration in Israel. Bus stop (talk) 01:34, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

• "Exceptionally disparaging", Bus stop? This man confessed to multiple rapes and was convicted for them. He has stated that according to the "Torah Path", he should be stoned to death. Note: I oppose the death penalty. The content about the international peregrinations simply makes it clear how monumentally deceitful he was to his own devoted followers for years. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:49, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

• There seems to be an unusual amount of information on his every move. Every country is detailed as well as every living arrangement. Yes, he travelled far and wide to avoid extradition and a day of reckoning. But there seems to have been little editorial effort expended in summarizing his efforts to avoid extradition and effort seems to have been expended to detail every avoidance technique. We know he is a criminal but a way of writing can accentuate or play down that facet of a personality. I actually don't advocate for the removal of detail in articles including this one. I actually favor detail in articles, as a general rule. But I can easily imagine at another article editors crying "undue weight". Bus stop (talk) 02:23, 7 April 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.

BLP ban lift

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

---

I'm not blocked per se, but there is a ban from editing BLP pages. 10 months ago I was told I could appeal in 6 months.

I remember being told that it would be a good idea to edit pages within that restriction before appealing. I've done that a little.

When I appealed on my talk page 2 months ago (which was not place to appeal) I was told that some of my edits flirted with BLP violation because although the pages being edited weren't BLP pages, they were connected to some. I accept that criticism.

On my talk page I was told to appeal via email (to arbcom), which I did, and the replying email said to appeal here.

I request the BLP ban be lifted. I've done a lot of very good editing before, but then I got into edit wars which led to the ban. Iistal (talk) 01:54, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

To provide some context to other visitors, the ban is an WP:ER/UC issued here. After being unblocked with those restrictions in September 2016, Iistal was checkuser blocked in November 2016, before being unblocked in May 2018, having accepted the WP:SO block log. The topic ban was "restated" and the user was blocked for a month in June 2018 for violating it by editing Barbara Streisand. Iistal has made 9 mainspace edits since that most recent block was released.

Iistal: What evidence would you give, or what would you say to convince us, that allowing you to resume editing BLPs won't result in the same issues as in the past? ST47 (talk) 02:36, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

(also) Before this gets too involved, should this be moved to WP:AN? ST47 (talk) 02:37, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, typically individual topic bans are appealed at WP:AN or AE. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:59, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

This [69] seems to be a violation of the topic ban. It's not a BLP,article, but the largely unsourced edits are certainly controversial BLP edits (claims that various actors lied about their ages). Meters (talk) 03:03, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

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

User:ClueBot NG is malfunctioning

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

---

What is written here it is not true. The app is a scam and the fact the wikipedia is covering this allowing for this bot to overwrite the corrections someone allegedly reports it is really disappointing — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.3.231.223 (talk) 11:24, 7 April 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:Kilometerman

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.

---

Kilometerman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Milewoman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This editor has been trying to insert "far-left" onto Chapo Trap House since last September under the alt account Milewoman (ownership declared here on Apr 1), nearly completely unsupported by sources. Initially countered by Drmies, the user seems to completely reject community advises and input on the talk page, even take great offence at the slightest warning or inquiry. My initial resolution attempts went nowhere and got blanked, and I was left with this angry message calling me "despicable" for "using the fact that WP's editors are mostly left-leaning to push your personal politics". User page declarations suggest that this editor is a WP:POVFIGHTER here to fight perceived leftist POV and leftist editors, and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Briefly reviewing their edits, this edit summary suggest they clearly understand RS and UNDUE, but they nevertheless inserted "committed war crimes including extrajudicial killings and attempted ethnic cleasing" with both sources mentioning neither word. I originally intended to file this to AN3, but ANI appears to be a better venue for these problems. My original draft report is pasted below. Actions may be required for this rigorous IDHT listen problem, POV pushing and WP:NOTHERE. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 01:44, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Kilometerman reported by User:Tsumikiria (Result: )

Page: Chapo Trap House (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kilometerman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 2019-03-27T21:07:41

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff 2019-04-01T13:02:49
2. diff 2019-04-01T13:08:29
3. diff 2019-04-03T21:13:12
4. diff 2019-04-04T17:29:54
5. diff 2019-04-04T17:32:57
6. diff 2019-04-05T20:12:04
7. diff 2019-04-05T20:12:39

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: NPOV, 3RR

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Chapo Trap House#"Far-left"

Comments:

This editor has a blatant public bias involving politics and continues to violate POV and basic wp guidelines in an obvious effort to ignore primary sources and create biased articles. He continues to spam me and countless other's talk pages with nonsense warnings for no reason, and complains when they get blanked (although interestingly when the same is done to him, he's.apparently fine with blanking...) He tried to start an edit war over the Chapo Trap House article and rather than discuss it on the talk page, continually reverted edits without consensus. They have made no attempt to come to a consensus on the article.

Even now, you can see the editor continue to froth at the mouth about everything I do, stalking my profile. They mentioned the warcrimes edit and said "none of the sources contain either word". At this point I'm assuming they aren't very good at English since they clearly can't read a source well enough to make an accurate assessment.

This user has harrassed me and countless others, pretending to have moderator authority and is a general nuisance. Someone needs to stop them before they continue harrassing and spamming their POV nonsense over what are supposed to be objective articles.Kilometerman (talk) 03:16, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

I should also add that this user seems to be a single purpose account--exclusively editing on political articles to push for a more biased perspective. Kilometerman (talk) 03:23, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

"He tried to start an edit war over the Chapo Trap House article and rather than discuss it on the talk page" — Point of fact, Tsumikiria opened the most recent discussion on the issue at Talk:Chapo_Trap_House#"Far-left". This was long after a general consensus had been reached not to include the term "far-left"; check Talk:Chapo_Trap_House#Far-left label and attempted trimming and Talk:Chapo_Trap_House#Political descriptors again. Kilometerman has relied on two things to keep the label on the page as long as it's been there: (1) their own interpretation of anything associated with left-wing politics as "far left", rather than merely "left", and (2) inertia when other the attention of other users turns elsewhere. —BLZ · talk 04:28, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Please check the time of the edits and when that page was createdKilometerman (talk) 04:41, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Whatever edits Tsumikiria made prior to opening the discussion, Tsumikiria was nonetheless the person to open up the dialogue on the issue again. And their prior edits would be justified by the prior general consensus not to include the term. Incidentally, I invite you to respond at the talk page if you feel you can still defend your viewpoint about inclusion of the term "far left" on the merits. —BLZ · talk 04:48, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

• Kilometerman warrants a block at the very least for edit warring and disruptive editing over the course of more than half a year in complete rejection of consensus and community input, in which 7 editors, including one admin, all specifically explained why their edits are unacceptable.

The fact that Kilometerman is willing to resort to their own idiosyncratic interpretation of sources ([70]"All the sources don't need to say "far-left" verbatim in order for an objective article to list them as so", [71] both sources do not mention the words "extrajudicial killings" and "ethnic cleansing" at all) against their perceived ideological enemies, despite knowing full well of relevant Wikipedia policies would prevent them from doing so, is appalling.

If not for the sake of this discussion, their rant above could be entirely removed as personal attacks and casting aspersions. I'd love to see the "countless others" I've harassed and stalked. "Froth at the mouth" and what now? Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 05:35, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

• I'd be good with an indefinite block for POV editing. Their attitude is clear from their user page, and a combination of POV and incompetence is demonstrated on Talk:Intifada and edits such as this, where this strange document, and maybe a link to a primary document (unnecessary since the Prague Declaration was already linked), are enough to remove a POV label, without making their case on the talk page. I think Tsumikirias's diffs indicate well enough that the user is more interested in POV-ing than in proper sourcing. Maybe Doug Weller has a thought too. Drmies (talk) 21:40, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

explain to me how a document stating that Communism and nazism are equatable is not a good source for the statement that Communism and nazism are equal? Is this for real? And how is my page more "pov" from theirs which publically states their support for the groups they're editing articles about? Am I the only one who doesn't see a huge bias here? And can you explain how the sources that say the YPG committed mass deportations against Arab villages don't support the statement that the YPG committed mass deportations against Arab villages? Now I know these questions aren't going to be answered but I want you to think about them the next time you try and act like WP is an objective website that promotes free unbiased knowledge. I already cancelled my annual donation because of you Drmies, I began to reconsider until encountering the blatant biases and POV pushing by Tsumikiria and apparently now backed up by you.

This is why the co-founder of wp was so appalled by the state of some articles that showed a very clear bias in favor of progressive leftism. And the admin staff who do not give two shits about it and actively encourage it while instabanning anyone who tries to put in sourced material as long as it's not supporting the leftist narrative. No wonder so many editors are leaving. Why would they want to stay if this is the fate of those who want an unbiased and informative platform?

Have fun with your dying website, Drmies. It was an interesting experiment, but people like you just couldn't handle having objectivity, could you? Kilometerman (talk) 22:31, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

• Concur; user is clearly only here to right the great wrongs and cast aspersions. Indef, per NOTHERE.--Jorm (talk) 23:15, 6 April 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.

SPA

• 11a5f0041b8542aaac71fb3f45cc60 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Apart from having a meaningless username, this user's sole purpouse is to discuss various left-wing U.S. politicians on their article talk pages and push a certain agenda. Should be blocked per WP:NOTHERE and violating WP:BLP. funplussmart (talk) 01:56, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

I like my 'meaningless' user name. I am suggesting edits which are objective and factual. Its comical that factual events that occurred and have similar prominent headlining on the pages of other public figures/politicians are being hidden on other pages. The point of Wikipedia is to be objective. All public figures/politicians should be treated equitably and objectively despite "power users" personal political bias. 11a5f0041b8542aaac71fb3f45cc60 (talk) 02:58, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

funplussmart and 11a5f0041b8542aaac71fb3f45cc60, you should know not to cast aspersions without proof (diffs). Whether you are talking about editors you think are disruptive or "power users" (whoever they are), you have to provide evidence to back up your claims or this complaint will be closed very soon. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:30, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

• I see nothing actionable here. My first few edits weren't very productive either, but I learned. Bradv🍁 03:35, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

• A user who comes to Wikipedia to to post about an imagined sexual assault controversy surrounding Joe Biden involving minors [72], and then making a similar post after being warned[73] is not someone who is going to help build an encyclopedia.

11a5f0041b8542aaac71fb3f45cc60 tried to connect Kamala Harris with murder[74]: "Its a reference to a family being murdered as a direct result of her support and enforcement of sanctuary city policies by shielding illegal aliens from DHS while District Attorney of San Francisco."[75]

How about posting that Ihan Omar "has received support from white supremacists such as David Duke"? 11a5f0041b8542aaac71fb3f45cc60 is here to even the score because Donald Trump has been so unfairly treated by Wikipedia. Multiply that by a few dozen, and that's what the editing environment is like in the American politics topic area because more admins aren't stepping up, and a few are actually standing in the way.- MrX 🖋 11:14, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

My proposed edit is to treat Rep. Omar and Donald Trump equitably in an objective manner. I don't really understand why this get your worked up. If you are going to treat one public figure/politician in one manner, then all politicians should be treated in the same manner. That is what objectivity is all about. 11a5f0041b8542aaac71fb3f45cc60 (talk) 18:08, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Meanwhile back at the ranch....I've seen way too much of this far right trolling in the past couple of weeks years which was preceded by [76].--MONGO (talk) 14:33, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

As usual, MONGO appears out of the ether at just the right moment to discredit/distort/distract. I stand by what I wrote. If you have an issue with it, kindly start a discussion on my user talk page, open a new section here, or take it to some other complaint venue. - MrX 🖋 15:33, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

You discredit your complaint by attacking the plantiff. The edits they made speak for themselves so no idea why you have to make personal attacks.--MONGO (talk) 17:27, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

• I agree there is nothing actionable. The talk page posts do not rise to the level of posting contested text on actual article space, and such proposals for changes to articles are fine. People are free to respond to such proposals with "no, we shouldn't make this change because...", but unless and until outright disruption to article text starts happening, I don't see anything actionable coming of this. --Jayron32 17:42, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl

Would someone mind speedy-closing the first discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 March 30 and sanctioning the nominator? Two editors, including me, have demonstrated that the nomination and initial supporting votes are in error (the nominator misunderstood a category for a region as being a category for a single city in that region, and the other voters thought the same), which is the basis for requesting WP:SKEEP #3. Moreover, in response to my saying that the whole nomination is in error, the nominator has proceeded to attack me for one of the most risible and disingenuous exercises in wikilawyering I have seen in a long time and bad faith, timewasting and wordplay of deliberately-missing-the-point crap. We block newbies for such attacks; there is no room for tolerating it in anyone else. Nyttend backup (talk) 18:07, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

• Agreed it "is very sad to see an admin indulging in such blatant disruption" BHG should take a deep breath and not get so worked up about categories. Legacypac (talk) 18:18, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

• @Legacypac, The reason I am angry is not because of the categories. Some nominations gain consensus, some don't, and I'm used to that. What angers me here is the disruptiveness and blatant bad faith of Nyttend's attempt to wiklawyer a speedy close over a difference of interpretation of ambiguous category titles which — no matter which interpretation is chosen — do not alter the fact the UAE categories are too small to split, per WP:SMALLCAT and WP:NARROWCAT. The fact that Nyttend says below that they actually agree with this substantive issue on which my nomination is based makes the the disruptiveness of the wikilawyering even more risible. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:49, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

• PS, if this is speedy closed, I'm happy to open a new nomination for the same categories on the grounds that these categories are too small without reasonable chance for expansion. (The nominator said such a thing in discussion in the middle of the nomination.) I don't have an opinion on this question, so the nomination would be procedural/neutral. Nyttend backup (talk) 18:25, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

• Reply More nonsense from Nyttend, and a blatant misrepresentation of the nomination. The size issue is the very basis of my nomination, and it is explicitly set out in the first two paras of the nominator's rationale, which I reproduce here in full:

Nominator's rationale: per WP:NARROWCAT, upmerge year and decade categories for Abu Dhabi to the equivalent category for the United Arab Emirates or its predecessor the Trucial States.
The merge targets are all quite small. AFAICS, the biggest category after the merge will be Category:2013 establishments in the United Arab Emirates , which will grow from 14 to 18 articles ... and most of the merge targets will still have less than ten articles.

I don't know whether Nyttend has somehow failed to notice that per "WP:NARROWCAT" is the first two words of the nomination, or is trying to misrepresent it in the hope that others will not check.

But either way, Nyttend's claim that I only said such a thing in discussion in the middle of the nomination is plainly false. What on earth does Nyttend hope to gain by coming to ANI and asserting falsehoods? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:37, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

• Wow! Nyttend escalates the wikilawyering to a new level.

My CFD nomination at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 March 30#Years_and_decades_in_Abu_Dhabi is based on the categories being too small. The point about Abu Dhabi being a city is not mentioned until the 8th sentence of the nomination, and it is a subsidiary point to the main thrust of the nomination.

In hindsight, there is ambiguity about whether the intend scope of the categories is the Emirate or the city; it could be read either way, and I would be happy to clarify that in the nomination.

However, as Nyttend is very well aware, it is almost irrelevant which view is correct. This is a distinction without a difference, for two reasons:

1. The city has a population of 1.8 million, out the Emirate's total of 2.3 million. So expanding the category to the whole Emirate makes little difference to the number of articles in scope, esp since most notable events are linked to cities
2. regardless of which definition is used, the fact remains that these are all smallcats. Only 5 of the 72 categories nominated for merger contains five or more pages; and the largest single category which will be created by the merger will contain only 18 pages.

For whatever reason, Nyttend has chosen to ignore the sound numerical basis for the nomination, and to engage in a bout if disruptive wikilawyering with the explicit intent of derailing an entire well-founded nomination on the basis of difference of interpretation of an ambiguous title. Instead of engaging with the substantive issue of the UAE categories being too small to split, Nyttend has chosen to engage in obfuscation through petty point-scoring.

I applied WP:SPADE, and I stand by description of Nyttend's conduct as bad faith, timewasting and wordplay of deliberately-missing-the-point crap.

I repeat that is shameful for an admin such as Nyttend to disrupt a consensus-forming discussion in this way. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:29, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

• Whilst agreeing that BHG should tone down the rhetoric, when looking at the CfD itself I am in agreement that the categories are ambiguous and could possibly do with being split. As such, continuing the CfD may be useful in order to gain some sort of consensus about what should be done with the category(ies). Incidentally, there's something awry with our population estimates; as BHG says, the article says that 1.8m of 2.3m live in the city, but Al-Ain says that the population of that city alone is 766,000. Something doesn't add up there. Black Kite (talk) 18:36, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
  • What would be the point of splitting the UAE categories? Even if merged as proposed, the largest would only have 18 pages, and most would have less than ten. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:41, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
    • Yes, that was unclear. See Fayenatic's comment, in that the "city" articles could simply be in the already existing "Abu Dhabi" category whilst the wider one may or may not be necessary. Anyway, this isn't the page to discuss the technicalities of the actual cats, so I'll comment at the CFD later. Black Kite (talk) 18:46, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
• Previous history. I have had little interaction with Nyttend, but I just recalled WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 February 16#North_Macedonia. Nyttend was quick off the mark there with a bunch of unfounded procedural objections about that mass nomination of ~650 categories would have terrible procedural effects. All of Nyttend's objections there were misplaced; nobody speedy-closed the discussion, and the discussion concluded after 16 days with an overwhelming consensus to rename the lot.

Is it just coincidence that this is the second time in 7 weeks that Nyttend has tried a convoluted procedural argument to derail a group nomination by me?

It is especially odd that it is happening here, where Nyttend now says that they agree with my substantial analysis, and explicitly wants to reopen the discussion under their own rationale, which it turns out would basically be rewrite of the first 8 sentences of mine.

I can speculate about many possible reasons why Nyttend would want to do this, but I can't see any credible explanation which would be part of a good faith effort to assist consensus formation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:06, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

• Boomerang. I'm sorry, am I missing something? Sure BHG could have been a touch friendlier and avoided the accusations of bad faith, but this sort of hair-trigger sensitivity seems totally inappropriate for an experienced admin. We block newbies for such attacks - my ass we do. R2 (bleep) 20:42, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Ahrtoodeetoo. I went two rounds of friendly before the wikilawyering and misrepresentations became too extreme to sustain AGF. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:10, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
• Comment I see no reason for speedy closing anything since there still seems to be valid issues of discussion. The issue over whether the category is for the city or the emirate seems to be under active discussion. This may entail a move. Ideally probably WP:RM should have been used for that. But there also seem to be some who feel it doesn't matter and the category should be deleted regardless. Hopefully these can both be resolved in the CSD. If the CSD only comes to a consensus on whether to keep the category and that decision is keep or keep for the emirate only, then an RM can be started if people feel it's necessary. While I don't hang out at XfD, AFAIK it's hardly uncommon that discussions are started with imperfect opening messages. But even when that happens, we don't normally close them provided there are valid issues to discuss. People can clarify any points of confusion in the discussion, and any unclarified !votes based on misunderstandings can be ignored. I'm actually even more confused about the purpose of the suggestion since Nyttend seem to explicitly acknowledge that there were still valid issues to discussion when they suggested re-opening. Frankly I can understand the boomerang suggestions unless Nyttend can explain better WTF the purpose of this thread is. (And I'm sorry but whatever the problems with BHG's language, it's difficult for people to care when the discussion starts off with what seems to be a completely pointless suggestion.) Nil Einne (talk) 10:22, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Nil Einne. This doesn't need to be here. Deb (talk) 10:38, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Whops I obviously meant CfD not CSD. Nil Einne (talk) 13:02, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Also I wasn't that aware of the norms for CfD. Based on other comments and having looked into it more, it seems it's the norm to use CfD for renaming categories anyway. So I see even less reason why the CfD should be closed. I would note that even in WP:RfCs where the opening comment is required to be neutral, it's not necessarily a good idea to close it just because the opening statement was imperfect. It can sometimes be better to just reword it and notify anyone who has already participated. Nil Einne (talk) 13:33, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

• I do not see a need of closing (an particularly speedy closing) the nomination. CfD means categories for discussion (in contrast e.g. to AfD being articles for deletion), and it is not uncommon that discussions provide some good alternatives not though of by a nominator. If anybody feels there is a better solution that what was proposed by the nominator, they should just add their arguments and explain why their solution is better. Closing a CfD and then renominating the cats usually does not make much sense, it is easier to keep the discussion in one place. Having said that, I would kindly ask both Nyttend and BHG to tone down a bit. It is highly unlikely that this thread would result in personal sanctions against any of you, and we have already enough accusations in disruption and bad faith in the air and do not need new ones.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:45, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
• Comment - it is not unusual for cfd discussions to become fractious but it is most unusual for one editor to urge closure and relisting on the grounds of superior understanding of the issues involved. This reminds me of M Thatcher, who would find herself more logical than anyone else in the room. Oculi (talk) 11:28, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
• It's exceptionally poor form to drag a monumentally experienced editor to AN/I over a contested XfD, suggesting that their nomination is so erroneous that the only possible explanation is that they have no idea what they're talking about, and that they need to be force-closed and sanctioned. I can't find any actual grounds for this request, and this seems to be the sort of petty "run to ANI" behavior that we expect from immature newbies. BHG is clearly providing nuanced refutations that show there is a legitimate disagreement stemming from the ambiguity of the intent of the categories, so to frame her as being objectively in error is fairly insulting. Swarm– ^{Sting · Hive} 🐝🐝🐝 22:30, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Willy on Wheels and BMX on WheeIs (and Cruizir too)

I really don't see any action, admin or not, coming out of this, so hatting per WP:DENY. Feel free to remove the section entirely if that's better. ansh666 21:34, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
A couple of months ago, while patrolling recent changes for vandalism as normal, I spotted a disruptive vandal by the name of “Wolly on Whools”. Attempting to convince this user to stop his vandalism, I gave him a few warnings, and then promptly reported him to AIV when he would not listen. Having not previously known about the WP:DENY policy, I also opened an SPI for him under Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BMX On WheeIs and tagged him as a suspected sockpuppet. Within a few minutes at most, Wolly was globally locked, and the SPI was closed per WP:DUCK. But later, when I took a closer look at BMX On WheeIs’s long-term abuse page, I noticed that I shouldn’t have reported him to SPI or tagged him at all, per WP:DENY. At this point, I figured that the damage had been done; although I wasn’t entirely comfortable with blanking an entire section of his SPI page, I did the best I could and nominated Wolly’s user page for speedy deletion under the G7 criteria, thereby removing the tags. The speedy deletion nomination was successful, and Wolly’s user page was no more. I forgot about the whole pizzazz until recently, when I noticed that Wolly’s userpage had somehow been fully restored by another user by the name of Kirbanzo. Everything that had been previously present before the deletion was now up again, tags and all, and I didn’t know why. I got the userpage deleted again and warned Kirbanzo. While what he was doing was technically against Wikipedia policy, he has always been against vandalism, having been actively removing it in a constructive manner. Still, I find it quite unusual that he’d restored the userpage for a long-gone user out of practically nowhere. Therefore, I am confused as to whether he happened to stumble upon Wolly randomly (either by scrolling through BMX’s SPI page, entering BMX’s suspected socks category, or some other method), or whether something a little more fishy is going on, to say the least. However, when I came to look at BMX On WheeIs’s LTA page for a third time, I noticed a banner at the top saying “Not to be confused with Willy on Wheels.” The link leads to a personal essay written by TheBuddy92 about a vandal named “Willy on Wheels”. The essay characterizes Willy in a vivid manner, providing numerous examples of his naughty stunts (including but not limited to posting graphic images on highly visible templates, attempting to hide recent changes to stall the trailing administrators’ progress, and high-speed page move vandalism). There were also theories that he was a rogue admin. Curiously, there were no mentions of Asia, fuerdai, or cross-wiki vandalism. Did I miss something? Have I had been confusing the true identity of Wolly’s sockmaster all along? Yeah, it seems; it turns out that there have actually been two different abusive vandals and sockmasters who just happen to be similar in name and behavior! Willy and BMX started their careers over 13 years apart from each other (Aug. 2004 and Dec. 2017 respectively). As evidenced from old revisions of the WP:DENY page, such as this, Willy had been a very notable long-term abuser and a very famous part of wiki culture; several templates had even been created specifically to keep him in order. Eventually, virtually all of these templates (as well as his LTA page) were deprecated in lieu of the policy’s goals. It worked too well; I never had the slightest clue of Willy’s very existence, much less his former notability across the community, until recently. Given the evidence, it seems that BMX may very well have been attempting to impersonate Willy through the adoption of similar username patterns, similarly high patterns of LTA, and so on. What further complicates the situation is that BMX himself is impersonated by a third long-term abuser named Cruizir, who behaves more-or-less identically on the same level. Ergo, Wolly on Whools might actually be Willy, not BMX as Kirbanzo and I were originally led to believe. It might seem like I’m being hypocritical by writing this and breaking WP:DENY, but I think it’s very important that we set things straight and ensure that we don’t get confused like Kirbanzo and I when dealing with future instances of sockpuppetry and vandalism from either Willy or BMX. Contrary to older community discussions like this one, Willy still appears to be active, with the above essay even being vandalised on several occasions by him, rendering protection necessary. Or was that BMX? Or Cruizir? I have no idea, but I feel like those three disruptive editors should be straightened out once and for all, possibly using a CheckUser (or the CheckUser results should be publicly posted if they’re already there but private). Chronic vandals and trolls like them really make our head spin, and it’s annoying how they cause us to waste time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymuss User (talk • contribs) Anonymuss User, I think that any admin looking at this would like an executive summary that says in a sentence or two what admin action you would like to be done. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:09, 9 April 2019 (UTC) @Phil Bridger: TL;DR: What's going on here? Are BMX and Willy the same or not? Who is Wolly on Whools? ᴀɴᴏɴʏᴍᴜᴤᴤ ᴜᴤᴇʀ (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 20:14, 9 April 2019 (UTC) No, it's not a case of "TL;DR" because I did read what you said above, but I couldn't find anything saying what you would like to be done about this. Vandals get blocked, or at least should, but in that case it doesn't really matter whether they are the same people as other vandals or not. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:58, 9 April 2019 (UTC) What administrative action are you asking for here? This page is for reporting "urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems", not a general chatroom. ‑ Iridescent 20:17, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

wikihounding

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 User:Chris troutman has threated me on my talk page to hound me User talk:86.191.95.230 —Preceding undated comment added 06:49, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Whilst the message on your talk page seems unnecessarily confrontational (in effect "I will revert anything you do")), and yes does read like a threat to hound you (especially as there seems to have been only 2 edits of yours he has undone, in the last two months). Without diffs as to what it was he reverted of yours it is hard to judge if it was valid (for example if you just insert the word "Twathammer" in every article). Also you should have informed him of this ANI (I have done it for you).Slatersteven (talk) 07:15, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Unless I miss my guess, this has to do with the edit war the two are engaged over at the IP's talk page: [77], [78]. While presumably the issues originated in mainspace, at some point the IP started removing the criticisms made against them by Chris at the talk page and Chris began reverting these removals; although he never states it expressly anywhere, Chris's rationale for these reverts seems to be that this is not an autoconfirmed user removing comments from their own personal talk page (which is of course permitted by policy), but rather these are messages left on a public IP user talk, which may over time be shared by numerous editors, and therefore should not be altered by any one person editing from that IP at a given time. This argument has clear merit, and while I am not sure if this principle is codified anywhere in policy, it certainly should be, and is the only logical way I can see the community ever treating this issue--and I'm sure it must have come up in some context before on this noticeboard.

All of that said, Chris isn't 100% in the right here either: there are a few comments in those exchanges that are just not acceptable, no matter the context or the level of frustration: no contributor or member of this community is empowered to tell another that they need to just leave the project, and it's not our preferred method for dealing with even openly disruptive editors, as an initial matter. The IP has very few edits total and we should be trying more constructive forms of engagement starting with more measured language. To be perfectly fair to Chris, there's at least a couple of occasions where the IP has removed content without explanation in the edit summary and this may be where the vexation is coming from--it's also possible Chris is aware of other IPs/socks working toward common ends, so I don't want to judge too harshly without hearing his response first, but if there's not further such context, I'd urge that he could stand to ratchet back the needlessly confrontational/indeed threatening tone just a tad. Snow ^{let's rap} 07:59, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) User:86.191.95.230, what happened in the thirteen days between when CT left you that message and you opened this ANI thread, and what admin action are you requesting? Saying "I will revert you because I think your edits are bad" is not hounding, and it isn't even, technically, a threat of hounding. "Hounding" is only hounding if it is done for the specific purpose of harassment. And this was two weeks ago -- do you have diffs of him actually carrying through on this "threat"? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:11, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
• I know nothing about the background to this, but must say that I find it refreshing that Chris used proper human communication rather than a bland, cryptic, template as most editors do. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:27, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

A user threating me with "Whatever you think you're going to edit is going to get reverted" and "I get to keep reverting you, like I've been reverting other editors for six years, and it just adds to my edit count" is clear as day Hounding and he has admitted doing it before for just to add to his edit count. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.191.95.230 (talk) 12:49, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

A user threating me ... is clear as day Hounding No, it is not, and if you continue to show this unwillingness to accept the clear word of policy then this thread will be heading to WP:BOOMERANG territory quite fast. he has admitted doing it before for just to add to his edit count (emphasis added) Umm ... diff please? The quote above has him saying that it adds to his edit count, not that he does it for that purpose. And you are contradicting yourself, insinuating that he is doing it to harass you and then that he is doing it to increase his own edit count, when in fact (per his own explanation below, which we are obliged to accept lacking evidence to the contrary) he has apparently valid content-based for what he is doing. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:13, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

• So here's what happened: First, this IP from Britain has repeatedly inserted (on 17 March, on 24 March, and on on 5 April) content about Harry Dexter White's death. I reverted each time because no citation was added with the content. This is the sort of drive-by semi-automated editing I do anymore, since the angry crowd doesn't want me at XfD and other meta locations. It turns out it doesn't matter: the IP added content to the lede that was already sourced in the body. Despite my repeated corrections the IP didn't bother explaining their edits and we should have discussed why this should be in the lede. Second, as I reverted and issued the templated warning, I also added the IP talk-header template, since I don't know how many people are behind that IP. If issuing more than one warning I want to specify the warning isn't for everyone using BT Group. Further, sometimes geo-locating the IP will reveal outright conflict of interest and could point to socking. The IP involved repeatedly removed the talk-header which I reverted multiple times per WP:UP#CMT. I did this a bunch because I thought the talk-header couldn't be removed. I had filed at EW but was informed that I was wrong. That was my mistake. This IP has refused to discuss the matter and now complains that I'm hounding them, despite the fact that I haven't reverted their many edits to other articles. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:04, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

@Chris troutman: The message still on the IP's Talk page is obnoxious. As for White's death, the information added to the lead is sourced in the body - it doesn't have to also be sourced in the lead. I think it's unnecessary in the lead, not to mention ungrammatical, but it shouldn't have been removed for the reason you stated. I'm not trying to make excuses for the IP's behavior, which has often been disruptive (he's already been blocked once for a week for disruption, hence the gap in his editing), but, as an experienced editor, you should learn to control your tongue.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:13, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

@Bbb23: The IP in question has again re-inserted the text into the lede, with no explanation or effort at discussion. You have the convenience of blocking difficult editors. Unless they go on a vandalism tear, I have to convince them to quit. Also, being "obnoxious" doesn't violate NPA. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:51, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

I've just reverted that, it's not in any way sifficiently sourced (see my edit-summary). If the IP wants to carry on trying to insert it, I suggest simply semi-protecting the article. IMO the IP also doesn't appear to comprehend the definition of "hounding". Black Kite (talk) 15:03, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Then why did you leave it in the body?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:06, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

The claim that the subject died of overdose is accurate based upon the cited source. Some may want to push that item into the lede as evidence that the subject committed suicide or was murdered before he could testify before Congress. And yet my honest effort to come to consensus has been refused by this IP somewhere in Britain. Why this thread examining my conduct is still open has yet to be explained to me. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:17, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

• Edits that looks like improvements to an article were reverted, first as "sloppy prose"[79] then as rollback without explanation[80] restoring a typo and names in brackets instead of in proper sentences. Also in SIG MCX there's a difference between countries where it is used by police or military forces and one-off use by a member of a terrorist organisation - the "consensus" version now has "Islamic State" in the list of countries although it would have been better to move this elsewhere in the article than into incorrect alphabetical order. And the talk page template isn't necessary as it's an ordinary IP address belonging to an ISP, and MediaWiki:Anontalkpagetext is visible whether the talk page exists or not. Lack of communication is a valid criticism but the only messages on their talk page are templates or unhelpful comments from an editor opposed to unregistered editing. Peter James (talk) 16:18, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

• I caught the typo.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 17:33, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

A previous IP address of his was 86.191.95.136 which was checkuser-blocked twice. I have entered a couple of his accounts in the cu log for 86.191.95.230 which other checkusers may see here. Behavioral comparison of those accounts and these IPs make it clear that this is a sock. I've now cu-blocked 86.191.95.230 and this thread can probably be closed.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 17:33, 8 April 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.

Northamerica1000 at MfD

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.

---

Northamerica1000 is a strong portal advocate who persists at posting identical useless comments like this [81][82] [83] over and over at MfDs. Over the last few days NA1000 has done this with other canned comments. [84]. (Scroll through and see many identical or near identical sized posts to MfD) Is this ok or is inappropriate?

NA1000 and her portal friends demand individual discussions and detailed unique deletion rational for pages that were mass created at rates of 5 or 6 pages a minute, sometimes over 100 pages a day, and yet several of these users are copy pasting canned votes ("meets WP:POG") is my favourite) and other comments in response to handcrafted deletion rationals. If people can't contribute constructively to MFD they should stay out of MFD. Legacypac (talk) 09:38, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

• My comments in MfD discussions are not disruptive whatsoever, and are intended to provide factual accuracy, particularly for closers of the discussions. The op herein has used WP:X3 as a qualifier for deletion in some MfD discussions, but WP:X3 is not a guideline or policy, it is presently a discussion. As such, it is entirely equitable for closers and other potential MfD participants to be made aware of this matter in a neutral, impartial manner, as I have performed. Also, the closer of one MfD discussion may not be aware of my post in another discussion, hence the multiple comments. I have violated no policies or guidelines whatsoever. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:55, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Nope I and others use WP:X3 as shorthand everyone understands (or can click to understand) to differentiate mass produced crap portals from one user from limited production crap portals by other users. No Admins who closes a discussion and deleted the pages (or any other editor) has expressed any confusion yet. Legacypac (talk) 10:08, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Legacypac, if I understand your concerns, you believe it is disruptive for tto clarify with a comment what X3 is. Looking at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Andy Gibb, you invoke X3 in your nomination statement but offer no explanation or link as to what it means. Northamerica1000 makes that explanation and explains their stance that it is not a valid qualifier for deletion. I do not see how offering an explanation for something that is stated with no explanation is disruptive. ~ GB fan 10:38, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Not just on WP:X3 but on other issues. Posting [85] on many discussions for another recent example. If someone does not know what X3 is how would that influence them in any way to vote up or down? However NA's comments are an obvious criticism of the nominations repeated over and over. Legacypac (talk) 10:44, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Again, that is a clarifying comment about something you said in your nomination statement. How is it disruptive to comment on points that have been made? Using the same comment on multiple MFDs is not disruptive if the comment is pertinent to each discussion. ~ GB fan 11:05, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

• Legacypac, this is not the first time you've had it pointed out that referring to X3 as a reason for deletion before it has gained the consensus of the community is at best misleading and at worst deliberately disruptive. Even if it were currently accepted as policy It is unreasonable to assume that everybody who interacts with an MfD discussion will be familiar with all the jargon, so adding links and explanatory context is useful, not disruptive. Portals are not a battleground, and having a different opinion to you about them is not disruptive. Those not familiar with the see also the history of Template:db-x3, the various proposals at WP:AN#Thousands of portals (including WP:AN#Proposal 4: Provide for CSD criterion X3), [86] where Legacypac added X3 to WP:CSD long before the discussion about it was over, and #Legacypac and portals and its subsections on this page (this discussion really should be a subsection of that as it's part of the same dispute). Thryduulf (talk) 12:00, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

  Suggestion to combine sections struck following a comment on my talk page. Thryduulf (talk) 12:08, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Have to agree with others that neither of the 2 examples I've seen (the X3 one and the ref one) seem to be a problem since they seem sufficiently relevant to the points made. Nil Einne (talk) 13:00, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

• Add me to the list of those who don't see any problems with Northamerica1000's comments shown here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:03, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
• I don't really have a problem with the comment in question, just that its being spammed on every MfD that mentions "X3". CoolSkittle (talk) 13:20, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

  So it's OK for them all to state X3 as a reason for deletion, but not OK for someone to challenge that? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:58, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

• Boomerang please, up to and including a topic ban from Portals. This is yet another example of Legacypac's heavyhandedness causing issues again. Legacypac is moving waaay to fast on an issue in a sloppy manner, which requires clarification on several different fronts, which NA1K has helpfully provided. As shown above, anyone who stands in the way of Legacypac's "clean-up" efforts is the enemy, and that is completely antithetical to the process in which Wikipedia makes decisions. Portals are such a low trafficked area that cleaning up that area is simply not the emergency that Legacypac is making it out to be. -- Tavix ^(talk) 13:29, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I'd support a boomerang, including a topic ban, per my comments above and in the thread about him at the top of this page. Thryduulf (talk) 13:58, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
    • Given @Thryduulf's repeated bogus accusations about me at RFAR (see here), I am very surprised to see Thryduulf advocating WP:BOOMERANG. If we're going to launch boomerang's there's a big and heavy one head straight for Thryduulf.

It's also noticeable that Thryduulf now has a long history of trying to skew discussion in his area by advocating sanctions against those who disagree with him, even on the most tenuous, misrepresented or fabricated grounds. I suggest that Thryduulf step back a long way from this partisan gaming-the-system approach, because sooner or later it will lead to that boomerang. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:17, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

I fully responded to BHG at RfAr, those who are interested in the full story rather than a misrepresentation of it should read the RfAr. But a TLDR version is that BHG initially misunderstood my partially sloppy wording and then doubled down when I didn't withdraw everything they objected to. BHG isn't as bad as Legacypac, but neither are they entirely without blame for the current situation. Thryduulf (talk) 14:36, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Amazing, @Thryduulf. You have had multiple opportunities to fully withdraw your comments, and you didn't.

And here you are, still at the same game of trying to smear me without any evidence of any misconduct, just by making vague unsubstantiated allegations. The single point of substance you could identify is that I was one of many dozens of editors who support the X3 proposal. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:04, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

• Both sides are way out of line. It is very unhelpful that the nominator @Legacypac cited X3 when that is still a proposal under discussion. I support adopting X3, but that hasn't happened yet, and it's wrong to proceed as if it has happened. Legavcypac should demonstrate good faith by promptly amending any MfD contributions which mention X3 without explaining that it remains a controversial proposal.

I also note that the "keep" votes continue to resemble an attrition strategy. There is a crew of editors who splat-paste dubious keeps on scores of MFDs of driveby-created portsalspam, even when the portals don't even meet the minimal criteria set by portal fans. These same editors are doing nothing to assist in cleaning up the portalspam ... and while I cannot mindread and would like to believe that they are acting in good faith, it's hard to avoid noticing that their actions are wholly compatible with an attrition strategy of making it too time-consuming for other editors to clean up the flood of dross with the portals project sprayed out at high speed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:05, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I also note that it is hard to avoid noticting that the actions of those who are nominating large numbers of portals for deletion every day, including batch nominations of sometimes several dozen pages not all of which are closely related or of a similar standard, are wholly compatible with an attrition strategy of making it too time consuming for other editors to stop good portals and those that only require some cleanup getting deleted and preventing time being spent on cleanup rather than firefighting to prevent a fait accompli. Copy-paste comments in MfDs are only required because of the volume of portals nominated at MfD. Thryduulf (talk) 14:18, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

The volume of portals nominated at MfD was only caused by the volume of portals created with no thought given to their necessity nor any thought given to providing for their maintenance. The large volume of MfD nominations are in response to the large volume of creation of unmaintainable portals. --Jayron32 14:40, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

As is repeatedly explained every time this is brought up, yes too many portals were created too quickly but that doesn't mean that we need to rush to delete them. There is no deadline and two wrongs do not make a right. WP:CONSENSUS and WP:FAITACCOMPLI are both things. Thryduulf (talk) 14:47, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

It's not rushing. MFD is a deliberative process, and each discussion is open a week. MFD, in Wikipedia terms, is a process that moves at a glacial pace. --Jayron32 14:50, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Each individual nomination is not rushing, it's the combined volume of them that is the issue. Each discussion taking a week is not actually a problem anyway - and I don't know why you describe it as "glacial" as that's the standard length of time for all deletion discussions - it is intended to allow for all interested parties to become aware of the discussion, review the nomination and (if possible and they want to) improve the nominated page. The sheer number of similar nominations defeats that as it overwhelms the availability of editors. Excessive nominations in the name of cleanup was one of the main things that led to user:SimonTrew getting topic banned from RfD (although it was not the only one). Thryduulf (talk) 15:10, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

The "sheer volume" argument is a dead end because it was created by a "sheer volume" of creation of inappropriate pages. Unless you are genuinely suggesting that we establish, in our will and testament, that our children should carry on nominating these inappropriate articles into the 22nd century, the pace of nomination needs to match the pace of creation, or it gets VERY QUICKLY out of hand. Yes, two wrongs don't make a right, but what's good for the goose is good for the gander, and while we can quote utterly meaningless platitudes at each other all day, we're still faced with a mess of portals that need to be deleted, and we've got to do it sometime. No time like the present. --Jayron32 15:14, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

The point is that there is no consensus that there is "a mess of portals that need to be deleted", let alone consensus that it needs to happen now. So what if it takes time? There is no evidence and/or consensus that following the usual processes at a more sedate pace will cause any problems for anybody, other than those who dislike the existence of all portals. Thryduulf (talk) 15:38, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

More of the same obstructionism. Thryduulf and the other defenders of the portalspam did nothing to restrain the spamming, nothing to build a broad consensus for portal criteria, nothing to remove even the most pointless portals, nothing to identify marginal cases ... yet are happy to devote their time and energy to force the community to spend vast amounts of time slowly scrutinising each one of the spam page which were crated in literally 1 to 2 minutes each. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:11, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

I have seen zero evidence that any person at all "dislikes the existence of all portals", much less any group of people that could be described as "those". Given that the central point of your argument seems to be based on a mischaracterization, I don't know why anyone should place any value on the rest of your argument. If you can retract that, and more accurately describe the position you are refuting, you would do yourself a better service. When you create false arguments no one but you has stated and then refute your own imagination, it does you no credit. Stop that, if you want to be taken seriously here. --Jayron32 16:46, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

@Jayron32: Wasn't part of the reason for WP:ENDPORTALS because some people disliked the existence of all portals? I mean it's true that many !voters felt there were other reasons like the lack of editor interest and maintenance, but reading that discussion (and I'm sure I've seen it expressed in followup discussions) it seems clear that some dislike all portals.

Okay technically there appear to be very few, if any who feel Portal:Current events or the Wikipedia:Community portal and Main Page should go. And a smaller number (which still means a massive number) felt stuff like Portal:Science were useful. But it's clear some, like Legacypac, rejected even those. (I'm unclear whether Legacypac supported or oppose Current events and the Community portal. I assume they support keeping the Main Page, some people don't consider it a portal anyway.) But frankly as much as I like to nitpick, all except 2-15 vs all is a very minor point of difference.

Whether there's enough to refer to them as "those" I don't know, but my read of some previous discussions is it's probably not unreasonable.

Of course, the consensus was against ending all portals, and I'm in no way accusing those who supported, and still think we should just end them all, of failing to abiding by the community consensus. They may very well have done their best to abide by it, while still trying to cleanup and improve things in manners they reasonably feel are supported by the community consensus or to achieve consensus in areas where there's currently none.

It's perfectly reasonable for someone to have a certain view, but recognise the community consensus is against the view and to act accordingly. (For example, I still personally believe Main Page should be moved to Portal:Main Page or maybe Wikipedia:Main Page.) And the existence of a small number of people who do want to end all (or all except 2-15) portals in no ways means everyone advocating for changes and cleanup dislikes the existence of all portals. Clearly many support a number of portals. And as I've said before, there were major problems with the mass creation which is a big part of the reason we're now in a mess. If that had been stopped very early on, were would be in a far less of a mess.

Nil Einne (talk) 18:22, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

I may have overstated that no one in the world things that all portals should be eliminated, but clearly that is not a widely-held position. The characterization that the only people trying to rollback the massive creation of unneeded portals were doing so because they were trying to delete all portals is the issue, however. It is still setting up a strawman to knock down. The vast preponderance of people who are arguing for the deletion of this specific batch of ill-thought-out portals are not saying that portals are bad, just these portals are bad. --Jayron32 18:34, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The second "side" you described is "a crew of editors who splat-paste dubious keeps". This section isn't about keep votes. Literally none of the diffs in Legacypac's post here are about keep votes, but about NA1K's comments. If there were consensus that these portals are "spam" or constituted a "flood of dross" (and should treated as such), X3 would've been enacted. It didn't. That's not to say there's not consensus that there's a problem with the mass creation of portals, but that there's clearly insufficient support for treating them in the way you're describing. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:19, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

(ec) @Thryduulf, the portals fans had months to stop the crapflood or driveby portalspam, and did nothing even when there was a community outcry. You and the other portals fans have had months to start your own cleanup process, but have done absolutely nothing about it.

Even when the most blatantly useless portals (e.g. Univ of Fort Hare) are nominated, the portalspam defenders won't come along to support deletion of a portal-to-absolutely-nowhere.

In practice what you and other portals fans are doing is objecting to every single approach to cleanup. When portals are nominated individually, you claim that there are too any nominations. When they are nominated in batches, you object that the batches are too big. When a speedy criterion is proposed to save community time, you denounce that. And you, Thryduulf, have repeatedly attacked anyone who supported any part of the cleanup.

In short, you are trying to maintain the flood of portalspam against the clear RFC community consensus that it was disruptive, and you are doing so by impeding every single path to cleanup, and offering no assistance even in the most blatant cases. You have proposed no alternative mechanism for review, no alternative deletion process ... and you have even used Arbcom proceedings as a venue to make bogus allegations of misconduct[87]. So don't accuse anyone else of an attrition strategy. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:31, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

I can't speak for everyone of course, but I am certainly not trying to "impede every single path to cleanup". I'm simply doing my best to restrict cleanup to an appropriate pace that waits for consensus about what actually is cleanup, what needs cleaning up, what is and isn't a good portal and to limit deletions to those pages that actually need deleting rather than any other action. Some bundling is appropriate (e.g. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Saguenay–Lac-Saint-Jean (6 clearly related portals of comparable scope and quality) and some is not (e.g. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Crabapples, loosely related and of significantly differing scope and quality). However this is all detracting from the scope of this thread, which is about Legacypac's objections to NA1K's comments. Thryduulf (talk) 14:44, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I've copy-pasted keeps on several MfDs and made it clear I was doing so, but I've also cleaned up several portals. There are over 100 nominations to remove portals as of several hours ago, when I last counted. Many of these nominations should be deleted, many of these nominations should not be deleted, but the overwhelming number of nominations makes it very difficult to review, the rules for what constitutes deletion remain flagrantly unclear, and many of these portals can be saved with a small amount of work. A copy-paste vote can be effective for reviewing a lot of articles in a short period of time. For instance, Portal:Tashkent was significantly improved since the nomination but is likely to be deleted based on the discussion. I also clearly see a problem, but it appears as if nominations like [[88]] has been effective so far in cleaning up a lot of the mess. I'd personally like to see a moratorium on nominations that weren't clearly bot created, or to at least have the flow reduced significantly, as this cleanup process has turned into a massive battleground and been one of the least pleasant experiences I've had on Wikipedia. SportingFlyer T·C 14:52, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Frankly I'm not particularly sure if this is a useful avenue of discussion in this thread but I have to say while it would be nice for those largely supportive of portals to comment in support of deletion in clear cut cases, I don't really see it matters much if they don't.

I mean I'm sure I'm not the only one who is often less likely to comment in some discussion if the outcome seems clear cut and my view is largely in concurrence with what's already been said. A bunch of pile-ons is often unnecessary and I assume particularly in the portal deletion discussion, based on the recent community consensus deletions normally happen even with only a few supports provided there's no opposition, rather than bothering to relist let alone make it a no consensus.

And of course, you should only comment if you've sufficiently examined the evidence to be able to offer a reasoned view. So I can understand those who are mostly supportive of portals not bothering with cases where they believe a deletion is justified but can't be bothered confirming just letting others comment. I mean sure, maybe they will save someone else's time when they see enough keep !votes that they don't bother. So in some ways it's a good demonstration of their commitment to cleaning up the problems that have been created. But ultimately it's hard for me to care about what happened in the Fort Hare example you cited since it looks like the right outcome happened without much fuss and no one actually !voted keep.

I'll be more concerned if there are no delete !votes in more borderline cases rather than clearcut ones. For example, with SportingFlyer's copy and pasted comments they've noted above, it seems to me sometimes the result of their analysis should be !delete so it's impossible to be right all the time from guesses beforehand. An exception may be if SportingFlyer only bothers to look into cases where there's a very high probability of it being keep.

Nil Einne (talk) 17:37, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

• Agree with Tavix. There's no problem with NA1K's messages. You can't rush to delete as much as possible, citing fake rules and creating tons of parallel nominations while expecting other people not to respond to recurring themes in your nominations. I find Legacypac's aggressive approach to other editors that get in the way of his pet deletion projects of self-defined "clutter" more problematic than the nominations themselves. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:13, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
  • That's a good way to put it. This exchange on Patar knight's talk page is a good example of aggressiveness towards those who don't agree with his fake rules. "What is wrong with you today?" is never a good way to start a good-faith discussion. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:29, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
• I have no problem with the message. Leaving a single comment on a discussion, even a canned comment, is not disruptive. It also doesn't necessarily mean anything, the closing admin is not required to abide by any one comment, and if they don't find it relevant to the overall consensus of the discussion, aren't required to give that one comment any particular weight. --Jayron32 14:40, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
• comment For goodness sake. Why create pages that are subject to deletion if it is not manipulation of normal deletion process of 'content'? Is this an online war game in the minds of those engaged in portal creation. The appropriation of wikipedia for a mass of contributions—that draw in and isolate users from the process of legitimate content creation—is disruptive and creepy; fighting it out on talk pages is a sub-tribal response in an imagined territorial dispute. The objections to portals (and other cruft) a decade ago envisaged all this and I only see one winner, the champion of reuse of wikipedia within wikipedia according to their transcendent concepts of 'navigation'. This approach is a recipe for a disaster, granting several users the latitude to grant others the latitude for the liberal creation of pages: forget articles and join our club? The bad users are trying to delete what we do! [Sits back and watches fur fly, detached and silent] cygnis insignis 15:25, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Almost all of this is directly contradictory to the community consensus in the RfC about ending portals, and all of it is irrelevant to the topic of this thread - other than to provide more evidence that some people who dislike portals have a battleground mentality towards them. Thryduulf (talk) 15:38, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

• @Thryduulf and his allies could save everyone a lot of grief if they actually read WP:ENDPORTALS rather than repeatedly misrepresenting it. It showed a clear consensus not actually delete every single portal; but it also showed a widespread (and probably majority) view that there were already way too many portals.

Instead of following that up with an RFC to define which portals the community does want, a small group set about bizarrely interpreting "don't delete every single portal" as "create thousands more low-quality, narrow-scope portals". That blatantly disruptive behaviour is why this became a battleground ... but even at this late stage vocal editors like Thryduulf remain in verbose denial about how the obvious lack of community consensus for the portalspam is what created the reaction which they complain about. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:21, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Remarkably it doesn't seem to make a difference how many times I say that I don't support the creation of low quality portals I still get accused of exactly that. It is really <expletive omitted> tiring to see exactly the same misinterpreations of my comments despite correcting them every <expletive omitted> time. There was indeed no community consensus in favour of the creation of those portals. That does not mean that there is a community consensus in favour of deleting them all either. Thryduulf (talk) 17:15, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

There's a continuum between ending all portals, and creating too many portals. The difference is largely about letting portals develop from groups of editors who are actively using and maintaining each portal, versus creating portals at a pace and rate that makes it clear that the person creating them isn't capable of doing the necessary work to have a useful portal. As a navigational aid, well-maintained portals can be wonderful. But creating shell portals that have no hope of being maintained is not useful. --Jayron32 16:52, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

The rate at which portals was created was too fast - I've said this many times - but that doesn't mean that those portals that have been created must be deleted without any thought either, the two are independent. Thryduulf (talk) 17:15, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

That's a false equivalence though. Just because two positions are in opposition doesn't mean the two positions are equivalent. In this case, there is a clear spirit at Wikipedia that it is always the burden of the person wishing to create or keep something to establish that it is justified. The default is "shouldn't be here". Even without citing similar policies, that makes sense: Otherwise, people could just create things at near randomness and without any effort or thought, and to demand that the position that those things shouldn't have been created is equivalent and requires an equal burden is silly. There's a near infinite number of pages I can create at Wikipedia; the idea that not creating something is equivalent to creating it is simply not true. The burden should always be upon the person who thinks that something needs to be at Wikipedia, and the default should be "don't make it". Our thresholds for burden are relatively low, but not zero, and especially in the case of non-content based navigation aids (where we aren't basing decisions on source text), it shouldn't be an equivalent burden upon those who say "we don't need this" It's the case of "proving a negative". It should be the burden of a person asserting "this navigational aid is needed because..." to establish positive evidence that it is needed. WP:BURDEN is about referencing content in actual articles, but in general greater burden should always exist for people who establish something as necessary rather than who simply hold that it is not. Null hypothesis is the similar position from logic. --Jayron32 18:21, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree it's a false equivalence, and I agree lots of these need to be deleted. The issue in my mind is that too many portals are being discussed simultaneously (I'm including the bulk nominations as one discussion, I think those do a good job of addressing the problem), making it harder for users who want to bear the burden of keeping the content. SportingFlyer T·C 18:29, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

I think that's a fair point, we really should be having two different discussions because we have two different situations. 1) What do we do with the entire batch of portals created during the recent event of bad portal creation and 2) What do we do with any other portals that weren't part of that. I think the first set should be fair game to be deleted as fast as they were created. The second set, portals that had nothing to do with the recent mass creation, I could at least hear the argument that such nominations should proceed slower, because those older portals were probably created in good faith by an active Wikiproject that was, at one time, maintaining them. Still, if the argument is that moribund or unmaintainable portals should be deleted, then if there aren't enough people to keep up with the deletion discussions, then how can those same people be able to maintain those portals? Certainly, the work needed to maintain a portal is far greater than the work needed to make a comment at a deletion discussion... --Jayron32 18:40, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

• I still haven't read that discussion, just the predictions and evidence of the outcomes, eg. your singular focus on a creating the potentially objectionable pages and undeniable skill-set acquired at insular and questionable sub-projects, reading notice boards, and debating talk-page discussions in defence of the same. Quelling the battleground is what provokes my observations, I don't expect it to be welcome by the combatants who are doing happily what they whatwant to do. cygnis insignis 16:32, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
  • @Cygnis insignis: It's unclear who you are referring to here, but I haven't created any portals (good or bad). Quelling the battleground is exactly my aim in proposing discretionary sanctions below and the many pleas to get people to slow down and actually listen to one another (which usually seems to result only in being accused of things I didn't actually say, do or advocate). Thryduulf (talk) 17:15, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

• @Thryduulf: You haven't created any portals? That was presumptuous of me. Why are you vehemently supporting a process that causes so much disruption, waste so much of the community's time, and behave in such a partisan manner? Why so fiercely protective of what is going to cause users to get deletion notices? … as I said elsewhere, this is not doing anyone any favours, just a recipe for aggrieved users and clever trolls to exploit goodwill. cygnis insignis 17:44, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

@Cygnis insignis: My overarching goal is to prevent the deletion of content that should not be deleted (the X3 proposal being transcluded to WT:CSD was when I first became aware of the issue). Yes many of the rapidly created portals should be deleted, but not all of them should be - and I would support a speedy deletion process that discriminated between those that should clearly be deleted and all others (X3 as proposed would not have done this). You seem to suggest that people getting deletion notices when their creations are nominated for deletion is a bad thing, but I don't understand why that would be? Time spent discussing whether pages that neither meet the criteria for speedy deletion should be deleted nor should clearly not be deleted is not time wasted. Time spent in those discussions making arguments that are not relevant to the page under discussion (such as those that relate only to portals as a class, for or against) is wasted and wastes the time of those who have to point this out and refute them though. Thryduulf (talk) 18:00, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Receiving a deletion notice is not good, you would need to convince that has no effect on a creator when the evidence is otherwise. Creating content to have a discussion about the page specifically, and portals in general, would be strongly discouraged, obviously time-wasting in comparative situations, yet there is an admin turning up to make announcements that contradict the known outcomes and willingness of the community to maintain their creations, which is <0. At least that is how it works in main-space. What is the content that you are preventing from being deleted? You've been misled I think, there are good reasons why the portals were never created in a decade, or deleted if they were, an ongoing experiment that I would prefer was deprecated for the discontent it creates. Have the creators demonstrated some profound insight into navigation that is somehow absent from the myriad of creations that harvest content to present themselves as "content". cygnis insignis 18:48, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

In response to several comments above: I support ending Portal space as it exists but I'm not seeking deletion on everything at this time. My nominations fall into four areas: 1. fails existing portal guidelines 2. thoughtless mass creations with obvious errors 3. unfinished abandoned junk 4. A few topics that are unsuitable for special reasons like Portal:Incest. I've never sought deletion of the community or current events portals or the mainpage because readers actually use those pages, so they serve a purpose. I'm interested in Wikipedia having useful informative pages that give the readers good information. I volunteer to help people access correct verifiable curated info they want in a form that makes the most sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Legacypac (talk • contribs) 00:29, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

• Boomerang with a tban from portal space, per Tavix. It's particularly interesting that, given the way this portion of the thread has gone, Legacypac still thinks it wise to mention the possibility of an MfD tban for NA1K below. The aggressive behavior needs to curtailed and Legacypac doesn't seem willing to curtail it voluntarily. As has been noted several times above, Legacypac never had a valid reason to open this thread. But Legacypac doesn't seem to be getting that message. Lepricavark (talk) 00:42, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

MfD nominations

Since this thread started NA1000 has started bringing normal random declined AFC Draft submissions one by one to MfD. WP:POINTy, though I'm not clear on what the point is dipping into random pages from the 23,000+ at Category:Declined AfC submissions when WP:G13 is a thing. Legacypac (talk) 00:29, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

• Interesting how my MfD nominations are deemed as existentially problematic, that is, problematic simply because they exist, while after going through the MfD archives, the op in this sub-thread has very recently engaged in the exact same behaviors they so strongly object to. Below are some examples. The hypocrisy is just, well, glaring.

• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Book Music & Lyrics – created by Legacypac on 19 March 2019 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Mher Khachatryan (artist) – created by Legacypac on 18 March 2019 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Tron (cryptocurrency) – created by Legacypac on 28 November 2018 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Daniel Mark Harrison – created by Legacypac on 18 November 2018 (UTC))
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Dr. Marcel Saucet – created by Legacypac on 15 November 2018 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Abdul Quadir Amin (3rd nomination) – created by Legacypac on 26 October 2018 (UTC)

The drafts I recently nominated at MfD were found by using custom searches in draft namespace. Some are quite promotional, but may not quite qualify for WP:G11, so I initiated MfD discussions for wider community input, as is customary. I also use such searches to find problematic pages that I nominate for speedy deletion.

Furthermore, a clear precedent already exists that drafts are commonly discussed at MfD. See the following examples below:

• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates/March 2019 – 61 Draft namespace nominations
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates/February 2019 – 67 Draft namespace nominations
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates/January 2019 – 103 Draft namespace nominations
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates/December 2018 – 116 Draft namespace nominations
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates/November 2018 – 145 Draft namespace nominations
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates/October 2018 – 192 Draft namespace nominations
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates/September 2018 – 206 Draft namespace nominations
• See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates for more

Conversely, I also appreciate that per the existence of WP:G13, some potential nominations may not need to occur, something I have known for quite some time. Ultimately, if a moratorium for Draft namespace content being nominated at MfD is desired, this should be proposed and discussed at Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion. It is my hope that Legacypac will consider abandoning their ongoing battleground stances and perform in a more civil, respectful manner toward others. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:59, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

It is just weird that someone without much interest in draft space MfDs until now, suddenly nominates 13 drafts for MfD in one day (about one fifth of the number of drafts MfD saw per month from all editors together the last two months), for pages without in most cases glaring problems beyond what most rejected drafts have, and in at least one case actually defeating what draft space is for and why we have a 6 month delay between rejection and deletion (Draft:WEN ZHONGLIN 温忠麟, a Chinese professor with lots of citations, was nominated for deletion just two weeks after rejection). Many other MfD nominations may be equally unwarranted or pointless (we have G13 to get automatically rid of them after 6 months anyway), but in most cases people didn't nominate this many at once, and when it includes drafts which should get a respite, not a sudden death because they are not acceptable in their current form (which we already know, that's "rejection"), then it becomes problematic. You still haven't really explained why it is important that these 13 get deleted now and not after their 6 months are over, seeing that they are not indexed and not linked to from the mainspace. Fram (talk) 13:17, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Deletion is a significant part of what I do. One could say it's weird that I have nominated many pages for speedy deletion at times in a succession, or several articles at AfD in a succession, but that's how I edit sometimes. With several users above stating that they have no concerns with my MfD contributions, it didn't cross my mind that nominating drafts would all of the sudden be perceived as problematic. Lately I've been finding content that qualifies for deletion using custom searches in user namespace, and simply performed this for content in draft namespace, because it crossed my mind to do so, to improve the encyclopedia. There's actually a lot of highly promotional, non-main namespace content all over Wikipedia that exists in a grey area regarding whether or not to tag for WP:G11 speedy deletion or to initiate a wider community discussion. Sometimes, posting for wider community input is a proper, conservative approach to better determine, by consensus, whether or not content meets Wikipedia's guidelines and policies, an approach that also provides time for creators and contributors to respond to concerns. Regarding the Zhonglin Wen draft page, in its present form (permanent link) it qualifies for deletion per WP:NOTRESUME, and arguably could have been tagged G11 which would have quite likely led to it being routinely deleted. Instead, I initiated a discussion. It is also important to keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a webhost for the publishing of WP:PROMO content for six full months, waiting for WP:G13 deletion and leaving pages that violate WP:NOT indiscriminately in place. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:30, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

I've brought plenty of problematic drafts to MfD - stuff that needs deleting now or where the draft is being disruptively submitted usually. Occasionally an enthusiastic newer editor starts nominating random drafts and we explain G13 and CSD and they stop. NA1000 is an Admin who nominated Draft:List of Australian cheeses consisting of "Bfer cheese: cheese made of birb milk." which can only be seen as a WP:POINTy disruptive time wasting move. Taken in context of having an ANi open about their MfD participation, an MfD topic ban should be considered here. Legacypac (talk) 15:25, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Taken in context of having an ANi open about their MfD participation... you conveniently neglected to much that it has been conclusively established by the participants in that ANi than NA1K had done nothing wrong. And that conclusion had been reached by the time you posted this comment. How can you possibly use a thread which vindicated NA1K as justification for considering a topic ban? Lepricavark (talk) 05:07, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Several users above stated they have no concerns, so as I stated, it didn't cross my mind that nominating drafts would all of the sudden be perceived as problematic. Many users did not address the matters stated in the top post at all. Now, since there's a thread stating the word "disruption", a topic ban should immediately be considered, irrespective of the actual content of the thread? Seems way overly draconian, and highly agenda-driven. After all, Legacypac has been running around recklessly for quite some time, casting insults and taunts all the while, continuously posting negative comments about anyone and everyone that disagrees with them. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:40, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

How about you stop with the cow manure? We deserve better from an Admin. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Colonny Legacypac (talk) 16:05, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

For Shame Clearly someone needs to read the WP:POINT riot act at NA1K as they are weaponizing MFD, Draft Space, and ANI in an attempt to gain the upper hand against editors they disagree with. Hasteur (talk) 02:26, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

• Could someone explain why these MfDs are disruptive? I'm frankly don't see the problem. It seems like Legacypac is just looking for another reason to have a go at NA1K. I'll reconsider that interpretation if someone can explain why these nominations are a problem, but it isn't really helpful for Legacypac to expect the rest of us to connect the dots. And, given that this thread was completely frivolous when it began, I see no reason to conclude that this second complaint has any more merit than the first one. Lepricavark (talk) 04:53, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
  • @Lepricavark: I'll take the ball.
    1. Legacypac gets involved with a great many cleanup efforts (WP as a whole needs Janitors to clean up items that nobody really cares for).
    2. Legacypac got involved with the process of nominating portals created in a automated manner that may or may not have community consensus.
    3. Legacypac was using the argument that "proposed CSD X3 would cover this" on portal MFDs indicating that there could be a consensus argument that the portal was created by a specific editor with little quality control or useful scope. This may have been percieved as an end run around the consensus discussion about authorizing the CSD rationalle by showing that portals are frequently deleted with this being a contributing argument.
    4. NA1K is standing opposed to the deletion of these automated portals.
    5. Spontaneously NA1K moninated 13 pages from Draft space for MFD.
    5. Legacypac takes exception to this as there is the appearance that NA1K disruptively nominated for deletion these drafts as one of Legacypac's interests in some sort of revenge/sorched earth strategy.
    6. Draft namespace is granted much more latitude than main namespace as these are "in progress" and potential future articles or ones where there is the belief that some level of normal editing can fix the cited issue.
    7. From my brief analysis, none of the drafts nominated by NA1K require the "immediate" deletion (copyright, attacks, negative BLP, etc.) and therefore the CSD:G13 Any pages that have not been edited by a human in six months found in: Draft namespace, Userspace with an {{AFC submission}} template, Userspace with no content except the article wizard placeholder text. would clean thes up in 6 months if no editor provided even a single byte update.
    Hope this helps you connect the dots. Hasteur (talk) 13:25, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining the reasons for objection to NA1K's actions. While I can understand why the MfD nominations might appear a little odd, and while it would probably be best if NA1K refrained from taking any more drafts to MfD for the time being, I must confess that I don't see how Legacypac will be personally harmed by the deletion of these declined drafts. I also don't agree with the assumptions made regarding NA1K's motives. In particular, the claim that she is opposed to the deletion of automated portals is untrue, as NA1K has demonstrated below. Legacypac is not accurately representing both sides of the portal dispute, so please don't take his word at face value. Lepricavark (talk) 15:46, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

No Shame. Well, most of the treatise above is just a bizarre personal conspiracy theory, with no basis in truth. I've already stated why I performed the nominations above, and that's why. There's no ulterior motive.

For starters, the theory of my philosophy stated above about me as supposedly "standing opposed to the deletion of these automated portals" is just false. I have actually !voted for deletion for many of the portals nominated at MfD. Apparently you didn't bother to actually check, instead just stating some idea you made up. Furthermore, upon consideration of community concerns regarding portals, I nominated several that I created for WP:G7 deletion, which resulted in their deletion. These are listed below:

• Portal:Ahold Delhaize: CSD G7 ({{db-author}}) 23:43, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
• Portal:Waffles: CSD G7 ({{db-author}}) 23:48, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
• Portal:Tomato sauces: CSD G7 ({{db-author}}) 23:52, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
• Portal:Alaska Airlines: CSD G7 ({{db-author}}) 00:26, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
• Portal:Salad dressings: CSD G7 ({{db-author}}) 00:30, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

This does not correlate with the false premise of my supposedly standing opposed to deletion of automated portals at all. It's like people will just say anything. It's a real time sink to have to spend my time responding to false accusations such as this here, having to state how I have !voted, etc. to correct these false claims. Stop casting aspersions.

Additionally, there are now several additional draft articles nominated at MfD (by other users) that occurred after my nominations, yet these have received no scrutiny herein. It's a real double standard.

• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:BROOKLYN FROST
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Tron (cryptocurrency) (3rd nomination) – Started by Legacypac on 20:18, 5 April 2019 (UTC), about 20 hours after they started this subthread
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Backup guitar
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:GPV International A/S

Lastly, nobody has actually addressed my post above regarding drafts and MfD, and the blatant hypocrisy of the matter, as stated above, instead just engaging in finger pointing and hand waving.

I tire of this smear campaign against my personal character, complete with bizarre conspiracy theories and a battleground desire to shame, along with the phrase "for shame" in bold, so this may be the last post I make here regarding these bad-faith accusations. If people don't want drafts to be discussed at MfD, it should be proposed at Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:04, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

No one has a problem with uniquely problematic drafts being brought to MfD and I have brought hundreds of them to MfD myself, but that was clearly not why NA1000 brought 13 random Drafts in quick succession. From her posts here and at her talkpage it is obvious she did it just so she could yell hypocrite at anyone who called her out for the WP:POINT behaviour. It was a childish setup and now she is throwing up strawmen like suggesting we discuss banning drafts from MfD (say what?) Experienced editors know the difference between drafts that are likely UPE, crypto-spam that will not die, weird letter to your mother social media link farms (noms she points to by other users), and a harmless maybe abandoned 8 word attempt at building a list of Aussie cheeses (one of her nominations). If forced to hold an RfA such ignorant behaviour would sink it. Legacypac (talk) 01:03, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Still waiting for an explanation on how any of this was harmful to you. Still haven't gotten one. Lepricavark (talk) 01:58, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Where did I ever say it was harmful to me? Disruption to prove a WP:POINT is harmful to the community. Legacypac (talk) 02:00, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

How is it harmful to the community? It couldn't possibly be more of a timesink than this frivolous thread. Lepricavark (talk) 02:27, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

The nominations were not created to illustrate any sort of point. Please try to assume good faith. The ludicrous, beyond far-fetched theory directly above from Legacypac that nominations were performed in anticipation of others then using specific language, so I could then use specific replies to some sort of anticipated, crystal balled replies directed toward me after performing nominations, and all of this to make some sort of point, is absolutely ridiculous. I would never waste my time on such nonsense. I'm here to improve the encyclopedia. For example, in this discussion I initiated concerns about potential copyright infringement, which is certainly a serious matter that merits discussion.

The above is just more of the same ongoing, long-term pattern of negative ranting toward others by the user. Phrasing above such as "you stop with the cow manure", "childish", "throwing up stawmen" (sic), "experienced editors" (implying that I am inexperienced, which is untrue), and "ignorant behaviour" is intentionally performed in attempts to taunt and portray others in a negative manner, for whatever reasons, and possibly to WP:BAIT others in hopes to then obtain some sort of desired response. If one responds, the user seems to receive gratification from then having a reason to make more attacks.

As such, it appears that the user has no intention of actually engaging in functional discussion with those they decide to dislike, because those with this mindset have nothing to gain by doing so. Instead, it appears that the user continues with the same pattern of casting WP:ASPERSIONS, taunting, scolding and harassment because they seem to enjoy and are gratified by doing so. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:01, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

User concerns about Legacypac's alleged ongoing WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior

Several users have expressed concerns that Legacypac (talk · contribs) has engaged in ongoing WP:BATTLEGROUND and disruptive behavior, including personal attacks and the casting of WP:ASPERSIONS toward other users. Per concerns raised by some users in the top discussion in this thread, posting some diffs below regarding this matter.

• Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents § Legacypac and portals – Ongoing, present discussion at ANI (permanent link)
• Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Crabapples – diff
• Arbitration/Requests/Case § Portal Issues – diff 1 • diff 2 • diff 3 • diff 4.
• Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Starbucks – diff
• Miscellany for deletion/Portal:English language (2nd nomination)
• The user's talk page: diff • diff
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Smartphone – diff • diff
• Wikipedia talk:Portal/Guidelines – diff
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Alhambra, California – diff
• Furthermore, the user's block log demonstrates an ongoing pattern of disruptive editing and harassment – Block log.

– North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:51, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Other people's opinions are anecdotal. This should be filled with diffs of Legacypac's behavior.--v/r - TP 20:57, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Addendum: I'll just leave it at that at this time, with the addendum that the diffs provided above serve to provide examples of several users who have expressed ongoing concerns about the user's approach and actions. For clarity, when making this post, I added the phrase "Several users have expressed concerns that" to my initial post and added "User concerns about" to the header of this subsection (diff). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:04, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Here's a diff of Legacypac's behavior. There is nothing remotely disruptive about the comment with which Legacypac takes issue. The accusations of bad faith against NA1K are quite tiring, especially when it is clear that Legacypac is the chief aggressor. Lepricavark (talk) 00:56, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Read the nomination statement and then the post I replied to. User:Lepricavark Context matters. Legacypac (talk) 03:47, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry, are you somehow under the impression that you get to use the nomination statement to determine what rationales other editors may use? You don't think the portal's wide scope is enough to save it. NA1K does. Reasonable minds may vary on such a matter, yet one of you accused the other of acting in bad faith. Lepricavark (talk) 04:47, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

There are plenty of accusations of bad faith and worse being thrown at me by NA1000. [89] is exactly on point as is [90] and [91]. This whole section is a purely retaliatory filing. Anyway. my tolerance for games is over. Other users can call out the nonsense, and NA1000 can continue to discredit themselves. Legacypac (talk) 08:00, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

This entire thread (which led to this section) began as a retaliatory filing against NA1K by you. It was quickly established that you had no grounds for a complaint against NA1K. As noted at the top of ANI, This page is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Your filing certainly did not meet those standards. Yet even after NA1K was vindicated in the initial thread, you refused to drop the matter and continued to act as though you actually had a valid reason for bringing this complaint in the first place. You say that your tolerance for games is over, but it is you who has wasted the community's time by using ANI as a weapon against an editor who disagreed with you in good faith. Lepricavark (talk) 15:23, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Nb. After this subthread began, the user nominated four portals I created for deletion:

• Portal:Cheese dishes: link • diff • diff • diff • diff
• Portal:Mondelez International: link • diff • diff
• Portal:Kroger and Portal:Albertsons: link • diff

This is being posted because the user's behavior is being discussed in this thread. These discussions are not being posted here to go off topic and discuss the merits of the portals, which the MfD discussions are for. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:57, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

In light of Legacypac's willingness to make broad assumptions about your motives regarding the draft MfDs, he certainly can't object to the claim that these portal MfDs are a retaliation that warrants some kind of sanction. It's surprising that this user has gotten away with so much bullying. The initial thread above was a frivolous complaint. After this complaint was dismissed, it was followed by a subthread in which Legacypac employed mental gymnastics to try to find another way to portray NA1K as acting in bad faith. He then labelled NA1K's reasonable self-defense as "cow manure" and attempted to weaponize NA1K's admin status against them. Now we have these portal MfDs, which must be retaliatory according to Legacypac's logic. It's time for a one-way iban to prevent Legacypac from continuing to hound NA1K. Lepricavark (talk) 18:35, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

NA1000 needs to stop making accusations. There are close to 2000 portals in Category:MFD right now and she is in the top 5 for portal creators. No one is nominating her portals in retaliation, they are being nominated by various editors for being autogenerated junk just like the hundreds deleted already at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal MFD Results I can assure everyone I'm nominating WP:POG failing pages regardless of who created them. Legacypac (talk) 08:51, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

You're the one who needs to stop making accusations. NA1K is a long-term, good-faith contributor and you have treated her like someone who is not here to build an encyclopedia. Lepricavark (talk) 19:21, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

• See also Legacypac's comments regarding OhanaUnited at #Admin OhanaUnited behavior above, where they derailed an earlier thread looking at their own behavior. Thryduulf (talk) 09:31, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

• In fairness, I'd put the majority of the blame in that situation on OhanaUnited for choosing their words extremely poorly. If someone accused me of xenophobia in such a fashion, I doubt I'd react much differently. Lepricavark (talk) 19:21, 8 April 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.

Tyler Rogers, hijacked 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.

---

Hi, I don't know how to undo the damage and restore the original article and its talk page. Thanks, 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:42, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

• Done. 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:48, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm sure 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 appreciates your help. EEng 16:13, 7 April 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.

Did you guys so much as glance at the article before mocking the IP and closing this? I history split the hijacked article the first time, and the IP helpfully marked this as done before someone else had a chance to look and get confused. (Then it got hijacked again, and another admin helpfully speedied it without, apparently, so much as glancing at the history to see it'd been hijacked.) —Cryptic 23:04, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

I have restored it. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 02:36, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Need advice on how to proceed

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.

---

Not specifically an admin issue, but I'm stuck for ideas here.

Drug user is an old article that was linked to a DYK hook on the main page, before I edited it out of the hook. The article title itself is antiquated with old ideas of what is a drug and who is a drug user. If you're taking any non-prescription medication you're taking drugs. Aspirin is a drug. The article was written in 2009 by someone who is no longer very active, and the scant history speaks for itself. I consider it useless to post on the article talk page, as the stats (which is iffy today) say that talk page has had only one view in a long time. The article itself does not have many views. Tagging it won't do much. The article is embarrassing in its inaccuracies and outdated information. Not all drugs are illegal, and some of most known celebrity drug deaths got their stash from their local doctors. The embedded list is just a random scatter-shot of famous names. With marijuana being legalized in more and more nations, the list is embarrassing. So ... can I put this up for deletion, and how would I classify it? — Maile (talk) 21:27, 9 April 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.

Legacypac and portals

I am growing increasingly concerned that Legacypac (talk · contribs) is becoming obsessed with deleting portals to the point they may be trying to prevent users who might have opinions differing from theirs from finding out about their existence. As just the two most recent examples, they left a message on my talk page [92] suggesting that my listing MfD discussions on deletion sorting lists was against policy, and reverted my tagging a portal nominated for deletion for relevant WikiProjects as "disruptive" - my goal with starting with those portals nominated for deletion is so that they appear in article alert lists so potentially interested editors get to see the portal and/or the deletion nomination (whatever their opinion of them). Note that I believe some but not all of the nominated portals should be deleted (and that some others should be merged), and I'm not restricting my tagging to portals I have one particular opinion about. My choice of projects to tag is those I see as the most relevant of those projects who tag the portal's main article (e.g. the Wisconsin and University projects for universities in that state).

This is in addition to ad hominem comments - see as just one example the most recent against me at WT:CSD [93]. There are plenty of others on that page and in the majority of his MfD nominations (usually but not exclusively against The Transhumanist, whether they were the creator of that portal or not). There are several examples of bad-faith and ad hominem arguments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Crabapples. Thryduulf (talk) 21:26, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Discussion of portals is also pending at WP:AN. The particular comment for which Thryduulf provided the diff was a minor lapse in civility by Legacypac, who has been civil and has been focusing on content rather than on contributors. The real problem is the thousands of portals that have been created for no obvious reason other than, perhaps, that creating portals is fun. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:31, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Is User:Thryduulf requesting any sort of administrative action against User:Legacypac? I do not think that any administrative action is warranted except for closure of the MFDs for portals and the deletion of unnecessary portals. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:31, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm asking for uninvolved administrators to take a look at the situation and decide whether any administrative action is warranted because I'm concerned that their behaviour is degenerating. Asking admins here to bypass the ongoing discussion in several RfCs and MfDs is certainly not what I was asking for and I sincerely hope that my reading your comments as asking for that is a misinterpretation on my part. Thryduulf (talk) 22:38, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm glad User:Thryduulf brought this to AN so that their conduct can be examined. As an Admin this user should exercise better judgement then we see reflected in their posts to MFDs and the WP:X3 thread. They are making strange statements that suggest an unclear understanding of policy, and have started to vote for mergers of portals into nonexistent portals. How can a closimg Admin interpret a vote to merge Portal:The Ohio State University into Portal:Universities in Ohio or any page into a nonexistent page. I'm also curious to see a deletion sorting effort at MFD when I've never seen deletion sorting before there. It seems like an Admin's time at MFD would be better spent closing the list of MfDs that are well beyond closing time instead of deletion sorting. Legacypac (talk) 23:00, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

The administrative action that I was requesting above is to close those MFDs for which the 7-day period has passed. I did not refer to RFCs because the RFCs are still running. I see no deterioration of behavior. On the contrary, Legacypac has been patient, especially in view of the absurdly large number of portals that have been created without consideration of their maintenance, and the civil obfuscation of the issues by the advocates of portals. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:14, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Also this Admin has misrepresented this question [94]. as "suggesting that my listing MfD discussions on deletion sorting lists was against policy" Kindly don't post misleading things at AN. Legacypac (talk) 23:02, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I have not intentionally misrepresented anything. You however have mischarcterised my merge vote at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:The Ohio State University (note not Portal:The University of Ohio) despite my explaining to you in that discussion why that exact characterisation is wrong (and I think I've done the same in another discussion as well, but don't immediately recall which one). I know you strongly disagree with my views regarding X3, but that does not make my opinions (or those of the people who agree with me) "strange" or an "unclear understanding of policy" or any of the other negative descriptions you've repeatedly thrown at them. Thryduulf (talk) 00:04, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

This is now at Arbcom, WP:ARC#Portal issues, so it might be better to close this? Thryduulf (talk) 09:19, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

When you fail to get supporters for your harassment at ANi, cite the thread at ArbComm as evidence. Comedy gold. Legacypac (talk) 16:37, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Admin OhanaUnited behavior

I just closed Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Bottom Importance Portals as keep as Legacypac wished to keep the comments section open for full 7 days. Yet as soon as I closed it, Legacypac challenged my close result stating that it should be "withdrawn" and not "keep" because he withdrew it as nom (which defeats the original purpose of keeping the MfD discussion open after withdrawing) as well as considering me as "involved" because I'm a member of the Portal Project. Furthermore, he said he would pursue DRV just to overturn the decision from "keep" to "withdraw by nom." (Are we truly wasting editors' time on wikilawyering?) I explained my reasoning and his logical fallacy in his reasoning. Then he became hostile and said he considers myself as involved because I signed up Portal newsletter and don't see me around at MfD... OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 04:27, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

WP:FORUMSHOP and it's pretty odd to see an Admin who never shows up around MFD jump in on a controversial early close. I'm not hostile - you are just wrong and your activity is very odd. There are a bunch of completed MfDs to close but you jump on one that is half way through? You already know it is at DRV. Legacypac (talk) 09:40, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Not forumshop when you're the subject of the ANI that discusses your behaviour. Your repeated xenophobic comments at multiple pages questioning why an admin would close an MfD (on your talk page and at DRV) are also worrying. What your comments suggest is that admins who don't regularly close MfD shouldn't bother with (or even stay out of) MfD, pitting against one group of admins against others. This bullying behaviour has to stop. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 04:52, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

I should file an ArbComm case against you for accusing me of bullying and xenophobic comments. That is a serious civility breach and unbecoming an Admin. Legacypac (talk) 05:07, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

I've requested the statement above by OhanaUnited be removed and the edit summary revdeled. Legacypac (talk) 05:15, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

That's ridiculous. I don't have diffs, but having read a number of comments, it really does feel like you're personally attacking everyone who doesn't agree with you recently. SportingFlyer T·C 05:48, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Read his accusation and edit summary and check his diffs. Completely inappropriate. Legacypac (talk) 05:59, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

User:OhanaUnited, those diffs you include do not back up your accusation of "xenophobia".Please look the word up in a dictionary,the only explanation I can see for the use of that term is that you don't know what it means.Smeat75 (talk) 19:36, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

The dictionaries won't have the correct meaning, i.e., fear of Xeno.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:42, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

While I agree that the behaviour is inappropriate I'm not seeing anything to support "xenophobia" in the most common meaning (fear of foreigners), Wiktionary also gives a secondary definition of "A strong antipathy or aversion to strangers or foreigners.". The foreigners part is almost certainly not relevant, but the comments about admins who don't regularly close MfDs could be construed as "antipathy towards strangers", as could (at a stretch) the general "if you don't agree with my opinion you are being disruptive" attitude. Even if that is what is being meant (clarification would be welcomed) I don't think it's a useful label for the current situation as it will divert attention away from the actual issues. Thryduulf (talk) 19:50, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Calling me a racist is a failure of WP:ADMINACCT - it is uncivil, incorrect, demoralizing, a personal attack, and was done in response of me questioning an MFD close and, when rebuffed, taking it to DRV where other users agree the close was wrong. I've asked for the statement to be removed on the Admin's talk but that has been ignored. Legacypac (talk) 20:04, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't know which dictionary you use, Legacypac, but I didn't call you a racist. So I pulled up Merriam-Webster dictionary which says xeophobia is "fear and hatred of strangers or foreigners or of anything that is strange or foreign". My perception is somewhat closer to what Thryduulf said above. I said you're xenophobic because you portrayed me as an admin who don't normally close MfD as a justification to question my close. And you repeatedly convey that message. First, you directed your response towards me You are an Admin? Never seen you at MfD or take any other Admin action ever.[95] and then you said it again on DRV in a more thinly-veiled way I also find it interesting an Admin with so little MfD experience choose this one weird MfD to close out of process [96] Your comments, to me, says that you perceive me as a foreign individual who don't frequent MfD and view me as a threat. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 23:23, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

A very "creative" and inappropriate way of using a term that is almost exclusively a synonym for racist. Yes, I was surprised to learn you are an Admin. Yes I am surprised to see soMeone who turns out to be an Admin with a connection to WikiProject Portals come to MfD to close one single weird MfD. None of that merits you calling me xenophobic. Instead of trying to justify your outlandish incivility you should have retracted your statement and revdel'd it. Such poor judgement is inexcusable. Legacypac (talk) 23:39, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

"Xenophobia" is commonly used to mean "hatred of foreigners", not necessarily on a racist basis. The diffs supplied by User:OhanaUnited do not justify that WP:PA, yes it is a slur and should be retracted.Smeat75 (talk) 01:14, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

I disagree. I appreciate OhanaUnited's response and I believe the edit summary to be accurate and not a personal attack. The fact Legacypac brought this up on OhanaUnited's talk page under the tile of "One Chance" [97], calling other users who are interested in portals as biased [98], and continuing to nominate portals for deletion even though the community's now discussing exactly what to do with them, I think there's a serious WP:OWN/battleground mentality issue on the topic of portals here, and this discussion just moves us away from the topic at hand. SportingFlyer T·C 04:23, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm not of fan of Legacypac's conduct by any stretch of the imagination and I can understand why other users are frustrated. Nevertheless, it was absolutely inappropriate for OhanaUnited to use the term 'xenophic' in this context. Such use of the term is insensitive to those who experience real xenophobia and is a plainly wrong representation of what Legacypac actually said. That much should be made very clear. Lepricavark (talk) 17:28, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

This Admin has not backed down on the use of this slur, and has doubled down at ArbComm. They exercise very poor judgement. Done in the context of a request for WP:ADMINACCT makes this especially offensive. Legacypac (talk) 16:37, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't usually subscribe to "there's one law for ordinary editors and another for admins" conspiracy type theories on WP but I think if this had not been an admin who made a grotesque personal attack on another editor they would have had to retract or at least receive a rebuke from an admin. I still think User:OhanaUnited didn't actually know what the word "xenophobic" means and has had to flail about to try to find some ridiculous, unconvincing rationale for its use. Those diffs User:OhanaUnited supplies do not justify the accusation of "xenophobia", it is an absurd and offensive slur.Smeat75 (talk) 17:44, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Indeed. I suggest that, for starters, OhanaUnited re-reads WP:ADMINCOND, andthen perhaps explains how accusing editors of xenophobia represents an appropriate standard...of courtesy and civility. ——SerialNumber54129 17:56, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

I still disagree. It's not as if it were a random word choice - it was commenting specifically on the editor's perceived fear of the fact the discussion was closed by someone other than a "normal" moderator. We're making too much of this. SportingFlyer T·C 23:22, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

We're making too much of this indeed. OhanaUnited has clarified what they meant, and that they are not accusing Legacypac of being racist. OU could and should have used a different word, but by continuing to focus on it we're just taking attention away from the actual issues with Legacypac's behaviour (oh, and that OU is an admin is completely irrelevant here - a non-admin making an inadvisable word choice that was understandably misinterpreted as a person attack but actually wasn't one would not be treated any differently). Thryduulf (talk) 23:58, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

I disagree that a non-Admin would have been treater the same. Even when the offensiveness of this slur was explained to this Admin - who used the slur in context of WP:ADMINACCT, they stand by the slur and have not apologized or retracted it, nor even admitted they used the wrong word. This shows very bad judgement for any editor, and especially for an Admin. Do we have open season to broadly accuse editors of anything we feel like? Legacypac (talk) 21:06, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

The DRV overturned User:OhanaUnited's close which proves their complaint against me here is invalid. Now - what are we going to do about their conduct? Free pass because they are an Admin? Legacypac (talk) 07:23, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

• Legacypac posted this diff on my talk page accusing me of supporting a personal attack. As I've described above, I do not believe OhanaUnited called Legacypac a "racist" as Legacypac claimed on my talk page, nor was the DRV technically "overturned" Wikipedia:Deletion review#Portal:Bacon (closed). I'm very concerned with Legacypac's behaviour here, not necessarily the posting on my talk page (which I found quite odd) but more specifically this battleground mentality against OhanaUnited and portals generally, specifically because the DRV closer mentioned the nomination itself, led by Legacypac, was defective. SportingFlyer T·C 07:39, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
• The admin has responded by saying that when he called Lpac "xenophobic", he wasn't saying that Lpac was racist, just that he has a fear and hatred of strangers or foreigners. A fellow admin calls this "clarification"; I call it "doubling down on a personal attack". Tomato, tomahto, eh? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Leviv ich 17:03, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

I assure everyone I do not have a fear or hatred of strangers or foreigners. SportingFlyer continues to support this smear against me even when I pointed out they should not be doing that. Indeed I withdrew the Mfd nom because the underlying article assessments by WikiProject Portals were screwy. SportingFlyer seems to have missed there is a big cleanup job around portals going on and nothing in my conduct in the cleanup rises to any kind of problem worth discussing. A non-Admin might have been blocked for making a personal attack like this, and this Admin did it in the context of WP:ADMINACCT. I want the attack removed by RevDel and an apology. Legacypac (talk) 17:14, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Demanding an apology never works on Wikipedia. It doesn't result in a sincere apology and what are the consequences if an apology is not given? Is OU going to get a block for not apologizing about a slight? It doesn't happen, to admins or regular editors. This is all deflection from the talk about portals. 209.152.44.201 (talk) 21:31, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

I still insist on [WP:ADMINACCT]] attacking me instead of dealing with the error the Admin made is wrong. Using a synonym for racist to discribe me is wrong. Legacypac (talk) 16:48, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Let it go. OU choose their words poorly, but nothing more is going to come from that. Please stop trying to divert attention away from the real issue, which is your behaviour in regard to portals. Thryduulf (talk) 07:41, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Deletion Sorting of MFDs

I see no reason why MFDs should not be deletion-sorted in order to publicize them more. There are fewer MFDs than AFDs, and the volunteers are able to sort the AFDs, which helps to publicize them to volunteers who are interested. It is true that MFDs have not been deletion-sorted in the past, and implementing deletion-sorting for them now should not be used to re-open any that have been closed or to slow down those that are active. Maybe sorting should also be a way to publicize the creation of portals or proposals to create portals. However, any discussion of whether to deletion-sort MFDs can be done at a policy talk page rather than here. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:28, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I have no intention of reopening any discussion using deletion sorting (I don't know how it could tbh). My goal, as stated above, is solely to make potentially interested editors aware of the discussions - it's not my aim to slow them down, but if it does then so what? There is no deadline and a stronger consensus will have resulted (a good thing for all concerned). 00:04, 23 March 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thryduulf (talk • contribs)

Except it is your aim to slow down deletion of portals as you post at the WP:X3 discussion and at MfD. It appears you want us to discuss 4500 portals one by one because even bundling gets your panties in a bunch. Anyway, I hereby award you the "lamest AN this week" barnstar. Find something better to do then mass tagging projects onto portals that will be deleted within a few days. Legacypac (talk) 00:49, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

As I've repeatedly explained (and others have too) I do not think they need to be discussed one-by-one and sensible, considered bundling of similar (in scope, topic and quality) nominations is a Good Thing. It would be nice for a change if you dind't keep prejudging the outcome of discussions that are still ongoing, and cease with the ad hominems ("because even bundling gets your panties in a bunch" above, this at WT:CSD, etc). Thryduulf (talk) 01:02, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

I vote on specific topics of AfD I feel competent on and would participate at MfDs if properly notified. I'm not sure this the place to change policy, but I personally see no issue with deletion sorting MfDs. I also want to express a general concern with Legacypac's conduct. I'm not sure it's uncivil, but the diffs certainly read disrespectfully. SportingFlyer T·C 01:29, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

NOTE: Listing Portals does break the outline structure, but that's probably just a software thing. See Portal:Albany, California at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Geography SportingFlyer T·C 03:06, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Is there a technical reason why MfD can't have deletion sorting? I don't see the rush to delete all of these portals. It makes sense to consider related pages in a deletion discussion but what is the problem with further publicizing deletion discussion and getting more participation? It's not like we are working against a time deadline. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:54, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Deletion sorting might be ok or maybe not. I don't know. I've never seen it at MfD before. That is why I asked about it. The creations were done in a race against time [99] so efforts to slow down the deletion of poorly conceived pages that the creator spent one or two minutes on are disingenuous. Legacypac (talk) 11:01, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Note that despite Thryduulf's repeated requests to "merge" some of these portals, there is absolutely nothing in these portals which even can be merged, as they are utterly devoid of any content, simply pulling text (at best, they also tend to pull things like long-deleted images and the like) from articles. They can be redirected of course, in the few cases where this may be warranted. As for The Transhumanist, they claim that no older portals can ever be deleted, as the consensus at the previous portals RfC was they should not be deleted en masse. It is hard to deal with such outlandish claims (and it isn't the first instance of TTH making unreasonable claims and demands to keep any and all portals) without getting exasperated.

The community has spent countless hours debating these portals, which were created without any care or thought (as evidenced by the many utterly botched ones), and which now slowly get deleted one by one (or at best a few at a time) at MfD. All of this could have been avoided quite easily if the proposed speedy deletion had not been objected to on rather spurious or wikilawyering grounds, considering that absolutely nothing of real value is lost by deleting these. The few topics which could support a portal can have their portal recreated (with care and in a much better fashion), the speedy deletion is not a "verboten" on the portals themselves but a way (the best way by far) to deal with the mess created over the last few months by the TTH (and a few others to a much lesser degree), where TTH has gone to great lengths to defend portals, but has made little to no effort to actually check his creations and get rid of the most blatant problems, which are easily found when opening a few portals at random. Why anyone would defend these in good faith is completely unclear. Fram (talk) 11:08, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

You say "spurious or wikilawyering grounds", I prefer "civil obfuscation of the issues", from earlier in the discussion, but that's semantics I guess. Anyway, the point is that anyone seeking to cause a huge amount of community time to be wasted on these pointless, embarrassing items, when little to no time or thought appears to have been invested in their creation is, either deliberately, or by missing the point entirely, advocating an extremely misguided course of action. -- Begoon 11:39, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Just as you are free to have your opinions, so are other people. Just because our good faith opinions do not support your desire to delete good content along with bad does not mean that we are being disruptive. Thryduulf (talk) 19:05, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

• Ah, so just "missing the point entirely", then. That's something of a relief in a way, despite not reducing the unnecessary, unwarranted burden on community time, because I was starting to wonder if it really was deliberate rather than just horribly misguided. Phew. -- Begoon 10:06, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
• That is almost an empty statement, almost … When creation of the content in question is based on personal opinion then any contribution is done in good faith, or to make a point about that as a rationale, this is not desirable in this community. And clearly the user is acting in good faith when they point the shortcomings of portals, that it is "good content" is only an opinion, accusing someone of having a "desire to delete good content" is an inch away from stating they are vandals, I am reading this wrong @Thryduulf:, or will any objector to the namespace be vulnerable to similar assertions on their motives. cygnis insignis 10:33, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

The fundamental difference we have is that I do not see distinguishing good pages from bad pages to be a burden on community time - it might not be something you enjoy doing, but as we are all volunteers and there is no deadline that is not a problem in the slightest as you don't have to do it. Thryduulf (talk) 10:42, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't, and I won't. However, once you bureaucratically force a situation in which someone has to you have diverted potentially productive community time to /dev/null. That you don't see that is why I say you are "missing the point entirely". I'm sure it's not deliberate, though... -- Begoon 10:54, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Since Thryduulf is so keen on sorting the good from the bad, when will we see them launch some MfDs on the bad ones? Legacypac (talk) 11:02, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Don't be so cynical. "as we are all volunteers and there is no deadline that is not a problem in the slightest" See? Platitudes are easy. Accepting responsibility for spearheading a massive waste of community time - not so much. -- Begoon 11:08, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Why am I not nominated bad portals for deletion? I haven't got enough time to fairly assess all the portals nominated for deletion by others, let alone spend additional time assessing portals they haven't yet nominated. Thryduulf (talk) 16:47, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

The 'fundamental difference' between portals and articles is ____ ? cygnis insignis 11:19, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Can I phone a friend? -- Begoon 11:47, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

• Portal issues now at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case. CoolSkittle (talk) 23:23, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

"your desire to delete good content along with bad" was claimed above. As these portals don't contain content, just code to republish content in an unsupervised way, there is no content deleted when any of these new portals is deleted. All that gets deleted is a rarely-viewed, automatically created presentation of existing content (related or unrelated to each other, the latter especially in the DYK sections), all content remains where it was. Fram (talk) 08:19, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

This Barb is aimed straight at ya'

EEng

But Madonna's aim is far more pointy. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 14:57, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

And so's her wardrobe. EEng

Yeah, I believe that barb was aimed at me. Perhaps the aimer can clarify where I ever advocated such a thing, or, you never know, just apologise. Sheesh. -- Begoon 13:56, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

If by "aimer" you are referring to me, then I don't see a need to apologise for stating something which is true: You desire to see portals deleted without regard to quality. Portals contain content (that it is republished content is the whole point of portals). Some portals you wish to see deleted contain content that is bad and/or badly organised, some portals contain content that is good and/or well organised (and others contain content that is between the two, it's not black and white). Therefore what you desire is the deletion of both good and bad content. You are perfectly entitled to have this opinion, but those of us who do not share that opinion are not being disruptive simply by disagreeing with you. Thryduulf (talk) 16:47, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

The TTH portals don't "contain" any content, contrary to your claim. They "display" content which is kept elsewhere. No content is deleted by deleting these portals. Twisting words to suit your purpose (like you did as well with your novel definition of "merging" at the CfDs, or like OhanaUnited did in a much worse way with their version of "xenophobic" as a synonym of "neophobic") is not a good thing, and seems to match the kind of comments and votes you argue to be stricken and sanctionable at the arb case request. Fram (talk) 08:32, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

@Fram, the very basic misunderstanding of the nature of portals which you explain so well there is quite fundamental to this whole debate, and the issues being considered. It's alarming that it should need to be set out at all, and even more so that it needs to be explained to an admin ... but it certainly does need to be explained.

It seems to me to be a central part of the issues being considered in respect of a possible arbcom case, so please may I urge you to add something to that effect to your statement at WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Statement_by_Fram? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:46, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Long term warring at Australian legal articles

• Australian Law Students' Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• UNSW Faculty of Law (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• New Zealand Law Students' Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• JJCaesar (talk · contribs)

Mostly this has been over the maintenance of lists of non notables. Persistent warring, reconfiguring article talk pages, and spurious accusations of vandalism. At New Zealand Law Students' Association, restoring content after the article had already been protected against just such edits. [100]; [101]; [102]; [103]; [104]; [105]; Drmies, you'll like this--[106]; [107]; [108]. The article talk pages give a fuller picture. Then these recent WP:POINTY edits: [109]; [110].

The editor has made constructive contributions, but in this area an apparent conflict of interest has caused difficulty. 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 13:38, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

• These articles are horrible (the student association articles really should be deleted as promotion for non-notable things), and yes, that editor has been very problematic. Drmies (talk) 21:19, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying me of this discussion. It's great to meet this chapter of the Wikipedia Exclusionists Club. (1) Now that you are all here, can one of you please explain to me why it passes without comment when Melcous targets pages I have contributed to, specifically removing my contributions? See: UNSW Law (removal of content without reference to the Talk Page where the discussion had been ongoing for some time, despite this policy: "Reverting any part of any single page more than three times in twenty-four hours, or even once if long-term edit-warring is apparent, can result in a block on your account."), Jean Pictet, and NZLSA. (2) What is the basis for alleging "conflict of interest"? (3) Drmies, it's funny, I have considered you and Melcous problematic. Rather than explaining yourselves in the Talk Page, you delete swathes of content from pages and leave a reference to a Wikipedia policy, eg "Wikipedia is not a directory" or "we don't do clubs" - in the last 24 hours. The latter edit is yet another example of a breach of the Edit Warring Conduct policy quoted above. JJCaesar (talk) 23:24, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

For clarity, you've come here to demand we block you for edit warring? Nil Einne (talk) 04:35, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

User:AngloSaxonPride is 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.

---

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

This user has inserted unsourced info into several African American musical artists. Think about the user name "AngloSaxonPride". One of the hoaxes they generated immediately after the death of Nipsey Hussle, spread like wild fire in media sources. See Talk:Nipsey Hussle#Birth name. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 06:15, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Ghits for "Ermias Davidson Ashgedom" demonstrates the damage done.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 06:20, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

• I've indeffed the user for BLP violations. Seemed like the best rationale, although NOTHERE, VOA, disruptive editing, any of those would have done as well. He has already been indeffed at sv.wiki for what I believe means "recurring nonsense and stupidity" - that's kinda cool.--Bbb23 (talk) 10:10, 8 April 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.

Deleting sourced content, pushing a personal opinion, ignoring assessed warnings

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 anyone judge recent edits were made by Dean12065? This user was already blocked by Oshwah on March 11, 2019 for a short time for “Removal of sourced info”. After serving the sentence, the user has started to do such Vandalism-like/Original research-like things by pushing a personal opinion on music genres, styles, and such rather than following conclusions were made by reliable sources across multiple music pages (to name just a few recent affected ones: The Candyskins, Jitters, Hair Peace Salon). Seeing that his Talk page is being constantly blanked, it is enough to determine that numerous assessed warnings put there have been seen and read. This Is Where I Came In (talk) 18:32, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it seems the previous 2 week block had little effect on this user aside from perhaps prompting him to make the very occasional edit summary in his more recent edits. I too have had to warn him several times recently about his non-collaborative editing; removing or adding info based on his personal opinions, reverting editors without summaries and generally just edit warring until he is threatened here and here with being brought back to ANI. Even though he has received final warnings from different editors on several occasions as well as personal pleas here, here and here from editors, he removes them immediately thereby showing the finger to any collaborative efforts attempted. Given his only reply during the last ANI, I'm inclined to say perhaps this user needs more "off" time to do some reading up on various Wikipedia policies. Robvanvee 19:59, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

I blocked them for 6 months. --Jayron32 12:55, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Jayron, appreciate your assistance. Robvanvee 15:10, 8 April 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:Helene1982 making legal threats

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

---

Helene1982 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has threatened legal action against me and other unnamed editors in connection with editing at Greg Kadel. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:58, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

The threat has been removed in what I will accept as a recantation. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:05, 8 April 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.

Natalie Wood review requested

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 please review this edit to Natalie Wood's bio? The obvious problem, besides the fact that it's from a SPA with only this one very large edit, is that it's based on an "allegation", "speculation" and an "anonymous blog post." Even tabloids don't go that low for stories, and this is an encyclopedia. Thanks. --Light show (talk) 08:04, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Phil has taken care of the pure speculation. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 08:28, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

I have reverted, but will be out for the rest of the day (COME ON YOU 'ORNS) so it would be good if I'm not the only one with this on my watchlist. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:04, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

The IP reinstated it, so I have reverted again and blocked for 31-hours. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:57, 7 April 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.

Hate to continue on but is El Universal a good enough source for this? It's one source and, while I removed it from the Kirk Douglas article, it's been in the Sexual abuse in Hollywood article for a year. spryde | talk 21:43, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

• @Spryde: This sort of concern is best raised on the article talk page or the Wikipedia:Reliable sources noticeboard. Thryduulf (talk) 11:30, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Discussion regarding edit-warring / BLP policy at WP:AN3

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.

---

Would any other admins care to weigh in at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Netoholic_reported_by_User:NorthBySouthBaranof_(Result:_)? I'm a little reluctant to use the tools here for reasons that you can see in the discussion (after all, I may be wrong), but equally I think it needs more opinions - and also it's 1.30am here. Black Kite (talk) 00:29, 9 April 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.

AfD cleanup 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.

---

Can someone have a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shane Easson and clean up ? Aoziwe (talk) 13:40, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

@Aoziwe: Done. I have added the AfD headers and transcluded the log. Although the nomination was created on 5 April, I have put it in today's log as people need to be properly aware of it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:39, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Aoziwe (talk) 11:59, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

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

Continued reversions after recently finishing block sentence for edit warring.

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

---

User in question: D92AL (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user edit-warred on Greeks in Albania and was blocked 72 hours because of it. Just on day later after being released, the user continues to revert edits, even though he was warned not to do it again. I already gave a warning to the user. INeedSupport ^:3 14:33, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

User was already blocked, for 1 week. ST47 (talk) 17:01, 9 April 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.

217.92.132.253 POV/edit-warring

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.

---

217.92.132.253 (talk · contribs) seems to be editing articles from a very particular (in part pro-Stalin) POV, and edit-warring with anyone who disagrees with their changes. I first noticed these edits, which appeared to whitewash the antisemitism of Stalin's "rootless cosmopolitan" campaign, and this edit in particular, which, in my view, deceptively misrepresented and selectively quoted the author as saying exactly the opposite of what he says. I then noticed a pattern of similar editing in other articles; introduce a particular POV, then revert anyone who disagrees. I attempted to fix this in a couple of the other articles, but was reverted too, so I've brought the issue here. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:10, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Lol what? I added academic sources. Are academic sources now pro-Stalin? You're being ridiculous and hysterical. Also what edit warring has taken place? You cant just make vague generalised assertions without even presenting examples.217.92.132.253 (talk) 17:41, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

At Rootless cosmopolitan you completely misrepresented the source you brought (Pinkus), having him say exactly the opposite of his thesis. Compare the before and after. As for evidence of edit warrring, here are a few links of you reverting various people on various articles (there are many more).[111][112][113][114][115][116] In pretty much every case you either add material that defends Stalinism/Marxism, or remove negative material about Stalin/Marxism, and then simply revert anyone who objects to your edits. In your brief time as a Wikipedia editor (under this IP address), you've gotten into a remarkable number of conflicts. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:00, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Oh, and I think this diff is pretty telling; when you are restoring a "longstanding version" you tell editors to "follow WP:BRD". But when it's you changing the article from longstanding versions, then you just revert away, ignoring WP:BRD. Explain that. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:07, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Oh so its edit warring to revert people? Well in which case you are edit warring as you have reverted me! With regards to me making edits that "in pretty much every case you either add material that defends Stalinism/Marxism", perhaps you could explain how adding information cited to academically-published books and written by academics themselves is pro-Stalinism? Why don't you send an email to the academics I have cited telling them how they have it all wrong and are defending Stalinism? I'm sure that will go down well lmao!217.92.132.253 (talk) 19:13, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

217.* It is not a good idea to continuously keep reverting other users without discussing the changes on the talk page of the article, and gaining consensus. A cursory assessment of your edits over the last couple of days shows that you have been reverting other users in a manner that might seem combative and unhelpful towards achieving Wikipedia's goal of producing an objectively-written encyclopedia. You seem well-acquainted with the project, so I am going to ask you to please take your disputes to the talk page and hash out a policy-based consensus? — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 19:33, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Ok. 217.92.132.253 (talk) 19:50, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

What does "OK" mean? After writing this, your only edits have been to revert three different editors on five different articles[117][118][119][120][121], without even once opening up a section on a talk page for discussion. When you (yet again) advised User:7 qz to "follow BRD", was that intended to be ironic? Nearly Headless Nick, is this what you anticipated 217.* meant by "OK"? Jayjg ^(talk) 12:48, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

217.* This is your final warning. If you continue to edit-war, your editing privileges will be revoked. Jayjg, I would have blocked on this occasion, but since they have not edited for the past few hours, I am going to give them another chance to make amends. In case the requested change in behaviour does not materialize, then I do not think that anyone would complain if another administrator were to take action. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 13:10, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Nearly Headless Nick you are being manipulated by a bad faith editor. I was going to post the following in response to the other user but there was an edit conflict so I will post it now "Stop beating a dead horse, stop WP:HOUNDING and stop misrepresenting my edits. Its quite honestly bad faith. Do I need to discuss on the talk page vandalism? The answer is no of course. Vandalism should be reverted on site. Regarding the other two edits, per BRD the onus was not on me to create a talk page discussion so as to gain consensus, the onus is on the others."217.92.132.253 (talk) 13:14, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Nearly Headless Nick, he's clearly around and watching this thread, but still insists he does not need to discuss his edits; apparently others must follow WP:BRD, but he need not do so. 217.*, BRD quite clearly states that the onus is on you to create the discussion, rather than continuing to edit-war. You keep referring to it, so I advise you read it. Jayjg ^(talk) 13:26, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Also, User:Jayjg, you may want to look at my talk page. A Dolphin (squeek?) 13:34, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I've taken a look. 217.* seems quite free with his warnings and threats; I'm not sure why he thinks he can edit-war with impunity, and that only others will be sanctioned for this. Jayjg ^(talk) 13:53, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Jayig, per BRD the onus is on those challenging the longstanding version of the article which I was not doing.217.92.132.253 (talk) 13:38, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

So when you changed the longstanding versions of Great Purge, Criticisms of Marxism, Rootless cosmopolitan, European Day of Remembrance for Victims of Stalinism and Nazism, Eucharistic Congress of Dublin (1932), 1986 West Berlin discotheque bombing, The Black Velvet Band, and many others, and ruthlessly reverted anyone who objected to your changes to the longstanding versions of those articles (without even once opening up a talk page section), you were actually abiding by BRD? Jayjg ^(talk) 13:53, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Since I was informed to stop (and agreed) by Nearly Headless Nick I have only edited two of the articles above that you have listed. it is very dishonest of you to prevent the information that way. On The Black Velvet Band I was reverting vandalism and on Criticism of Marxism was reading longstanding material removed by you.217.92.132.253 (talk) 13:57, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

And because I reverted him, he's threatening to take me to ANI and accusing me of WP:WIKIHOUNDING. Oh boy, what fun! A Dolphin (squeek?) 13:56, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Stop hounding me and spitefully reverting my edits for no reason and there will be no issue between us.217.92.132.253 (talk) 13:58, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

"Spite"? When did I ever act out of spite to you? I was just reverting your edits because it contradicted what the sources said! A Dolphin (squeek?) 14:00, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Ok then please explain to me how for example my edit on Black Velvet Band contradicted the sources? lol do you really want to go down this road? Just own up lol.217.92.132.253 (talk) 14:04, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

(there was an edit conflict.) People make mistakes, OK? I forgot to check, but I knew most were contradictory due to your behavior. Also, you act like WP:BRD only applies to people besides you. A Dolphin (squeek?) 14:19, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

User:7 qz Then what are you waiting for? Self-revert already.217.92.132.253 (talk) 15:48, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

217.* you added the text to Criticisms of Marxism on March 31 and April 6: see here. Do you really imagine this makes it "longstanding material"? Jayjg ^(talk) 14:17, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Jayjg Ok fair enough. I recognise I am in the wrong on that occasion and will (in fact already have) stopped.217.92.132.253 (talk) 15:48, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Also, repeating what Jayjg said,

When a section is opened at WP:ANI, generally the behavior of all participants in the incident are examined... Along with reviewing WP:BRD, you should review WP:HOUND, which states: Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles. In fact, such practices are recommended both for Recent changes patrol and WikiProject Spam. When an editor makes a series of edits that clearly violate WP:NPOV (and in the case of your treatment of Pinkus, seriously and deceptively violate it), then the practice is highly recommended.

A Dolphin (squeek?) 14:23, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

• No idea why this is still languishing here...217.92.132.253 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) deserves a block to prevent further disruption.--MONGO (talk) 14:15, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

I strongly agree. This is getting me annoyed. A Dolphin (squeek?) 14:20, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

• This is concerning. By my count, 14 of the IP's last 15 edits have Tag: Undo, and several of them have Tag: Non-autoconfirmed user rapidly reverting edits. Looking at just the five edits from today (April 10), three (diff, diff, diff) restore content sourced to IMDB, a non-reliable source. From what I can tell, these three edits are the only recent edits that don't involve a pro-Soviet POV, and came after this ANI thread was opened. The other two edits today (diff, diff) revert Jay and Dolphin (WP:pointy), change the content to a more pro-Soviet POV, and are continuations of slow-motion edit-warring (clearly the editor is avoiding a 3RR violation but still edit warring). Same thing at European Day of Remembrance for Victims of Stalinism and Nazism. This is without even getting into the "rootless cosmopolitan" issue laid out by Jay. For those that may not be aware of the general background, words like "cosmopolitan", "intellectual", and "bourgeois" were sometimes used as euphemisms for "Jewish" during anti-semitic purges, so it matters whether our article says that a purge was "anti-intellectual" or "anti-Jewish"–indeed, it's the subject of much media and historical writing over the last century, particularly "rootless cosmopolitan" (a euphemism for "a Jew with no nation", first said by Stalin in 1946, between the holocaust and Israeli statehood). This IP account strikes me as a pro-Soviet-POV SPA. The "warning" on Dolphin's talk page post was basically a naked threat and shows a serious WP:battleground mentality, possibly rising to the level of harassment. (Related question: Does one give a dolphin a trout to say thank you for taking the time to clean all this up?) Thanks also to Jay for raising this matter. Pinging Ymblanter and My very best wishes who I think understand these issues better than I, in case they want to share their opinions. Leviv ich 15:52, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

"From what I can tell, these three edits are the only recent edits that don't involve a pro-Soviet POV" Substantiate that or recant it. Also lets not WP:CANVASS, shall we? Regarding you saing "The ;warning; on Dolphin's talk page post was basically a naked threat" - that's exactly what warnings are! Warnings on wikipedia are "stop this behavior or I will take this to a noticebaord". In what way is that objectionable?217.92.132.253 (talk) 15:56, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

217.92 has posted a canvassing template on my talk page. Leviv ich 16:07, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

The fact that Levivch has refused to back up his assertions speaks for itself I think.217.92.132.253 (talk) 16:09, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

217.*, anyone can look at your contributions, and see the pro-Stalin/Marxism bias in them. Do you think people here won't do that? Must Leviv actually bore everyone and waste his time by adding the diffs? Are you actually claiming that your edits (on relevant topics) have not been pro-Stalin/Marxism? If that's what you believe, then please say so outright, rather than just saying "prove it". Jayjg ^(talk) 16:24, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

 Done, blocked for a year, blocked proxy. Could be our globally banned friend Tobias Conradi, but I am not 100% sure. In any case, even if it were not a blocked proxy, a clear-cut case of disruptive editing: Blank reverts without any attempts to discuss at talk pages.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:28, 10 April 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:Sabeeh butt

Hi admins! This user is continuously adding WP:PROMOTIONal material on Jawani Phir Nahi Ani 2, along with copy paste from the content (and references) of the same page with no WP:ES. There are also many warnings on User talk:Sabeeh butt, still no response. Please deal with their disruptive edits, and check what to do with the pages they have created (with duplicative edits too). Thanks! M. Billoo 18:19, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by Αντικαθεστωτικός

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

There is a history with disruptive editing and personal attacks by Αντικαθεστωτικός against me and today this kind of behavior resurfaced. History was reported here (permalink) at Bishonen's. talk Page

Today, Αντικαθεστωτικός,

• violates BRD: once, twice
• claims that I am censoring him (and Galassi apparently) [122] (more todays diffs: [123] and [124]. Older diffs: (me and Czar this time) [125], [126] . I have asked him to stop this accusation before [127]
• Associates me with "anarchist rape denialism" (a term I was not familiar with) which I feel it is a moral stigma. (But please tell me you are fact denier of the rapes of anarchist army? i feel that in 2019 holocaust deniers and katyn massacre deniers must have not place in Wikipedia. Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 12:56, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[128] and goes on with i feel so sorry for that and i apologize. but i don't like to discuss with fact deniers. Katyn massacre deniers/holocaust deniers/ anarchist rapes deniers are very exhausting to discuss. So i dont find a reason for that. I saw that you wrote "rapes" and i feared that you denied the facts of anarchist rapes. But, for sure i was wrong and i sincerely apologize. Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 13:29, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[129].

This is not a major breach of WP conduct policies, but it has been going for a while (since Nov 2018). Cinadon36 (talk) 16:42, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Completely agree with @Cinadon36.--Galassi (talk) 18:16, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

In bibliography, the correct term is anarchist apologist or if you prefer much worst terms: page 42. I am haunted by this user, who keeps tracking me for months -i don't- and keep reverting for months everything that i wrote in the topics of anarchism. My only purpose is to add the other view and i am not aiming to delete the fringe & black/white theories of anarchists or Ukranian ultra-nationalists who present Nestor Mancho as a Saint. I can't participate in EN:WP in such terms, so even you ban me it's the same result. So feel free to do as you will. I can't even put historians in the articles, and so many excuses (POV pushing, DUE etc), but the result is the same: Censorship.

I won't write here anything else, except a admin want to ask me something. Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 21:25, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

I do not quite understand the meaning of the first sentence, so I will give a short answer for the rest of the text. I am not reverting everything you add to anarchism related articles. It is a fault statement. Have a look at the history of pages like Mikhail Bakunin [130] Durrutti [131], May Days [132] , Andres Nin Perez[133], Mikelis Avlichos [134], Christos Tsoutsouvis [135], Kostas Sakkas [136], Camillo Berneri[137] (there are more but I guess I 've made my point). The reasons of reverting some of your edits is mentioned in edit summaries. You should use Talk Pages in a constructive manner, not attacking everyone else (ie that there is an attempt to censor you or imply that they are rape-denialists (next to holocaust denialism). Cinadon36 (talk) 08:42, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Minor edits most of them. Deletion of uncited material etc. Also in one article of above you keep haunting me with a blind revert! So these are your proofs that you are not haunting me. Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 23:56, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Minor or not, your highlighten comment was that I am reverting everything. Clearly an incorrect statement. I have noticed a pattern of the mistakes you keep repeating in many articles. That is ok, all of us are entitled to make mistakes. The problem arises when you do not use Talk Page to discuss those mistakes but to attack other users. So it is only natural that the same mistakes go on and on. It has to stop though. It is very tiresome. Cinadon36 (talk) 09:04, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Now, i am also haunted from the other user. Look here. I just asked from a single(!) source for an uncited claim and i was blind reverted at once. I provided a source from a up-to-date historian, reverted again, and now the other user claimed that a writer has the same meaning of anintellectual! Ok i am de facto banned. I can't do anything i suppose. It's 2 users vs one that keep tracking me, and reverting me. Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 23:10, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

@Αντικαθεστωτικός, why am not surprised. Pulling the same schtick i see with WP:TENDENTIOUS editing once again. Disappointing.Resnjari (talk) 04:25, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Do you  refer here [138]. where you wrote about an axis collaborator : You need some academic sources that specifically use collaboratorin this instance and then we can take it from there, otherwise it stays as it is. So you used the word "collaborator" in quotes as other users used the word "rapes". Its 2019 if i cant write simple facts just ban me permanent. Sorry to bother you.Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 06:45, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes indeed. I stated that because reliable sources are needed, not personal opinions especially when it comes to issues of that nature regarding Balkan topics (which are covered by WP:BALKANS). In the end your editing is in the range of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and really your not here to build an encyclopedia.Resnjari (talk) 09:30, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

You asked for a R.S. I provided two. It's common knowledge what is Collaboration with the Axis Powers and not alliance. I think native english speakers can easily undestand the difference. Note that in 2014 i was the first person(!!!!) in English Wikipedia who add that he was an axis ally(my bad english, select this wrong word). Then from Albanian POV users i get -whatelse?- reverted again and again. User wrote to me the same blame with this paragraph: Intentionally denigrative editing, As far as the NAZIs, he fought against communists just like Zerva did. After WWII he cooperated with the Western block, not really a NAZI. This user, also talked about Napoleon Zervas, as you excatly did some years after with a whatabout matters. So i can't contribute. I am here to write an encyclopedia, but if i can't write simple facts as the fact a collaborator was a collaborator then i am for sure in a wrong place. I can't fight history denialism that's for sure, also from the 2 other users in other topic: From user Galassi he wrote Mennonote mythology is not very reliable so he probably don't believe what scolars wrote about Ukranian anarchists rapes/plunder. From user Cinadon36 he wrote "rapes".

Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 10:08, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Looks like you have an axe to grind and your trying to divert the discussion through a strawman that no one brought up in here but yourself about your past editing. Anyway Wikipedia is not about WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and its shows that your not here to build an encyclopedia. @Cinadon36: posted examples of your recent problematic edits and administrators ought to take a look at your disruptive editing.Resnjari (talk) 14:36, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Ok feel free to ban me. But admins should check aslo who is promoting Historical negationism inside the articles of English Wikipedia. Who forbid to write simple facts and making edit war at once. Who promotes nationalists theories etc. If i failed to participate in English wikipedia, this is a small thing, wikipedia can kick me off me permanently and everything is solved. But Historical negationism is a major issue. Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 14:59, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

No-one is talking about any bans in here. As for denialism, negationism etc, these are issues to be addressed at Talk Page. What is discussed here is that you can not attack other users if they do not agree with you at certain points. More, you should not use sensational wording (ie "censorship", "rape-denialists" to add further weight at your arguments) because you are not addressing the issue with these kind of words. You are effectively turning WP into a battleground. I am not sure whether it is harrasment or not, but it is surely irritating for anyone involved. Cinadon36 (talk) 11:27, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Αντικαθεστωτικός is editins simply tendentious. Jingiby (talk) 17:10, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Jingiby Apparently you are referring to these discussions.Cinadon36 (talk) 17:49, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Ops, yes, that is the issue. Jingiby (talk) 18:50, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

‎Onel5969/Year in Radio links/Possible Script Misuse

‎Onel5969 has been removing (and edit-warring to remove) Year in Radio links (ie: 1996 in Radio) which have been shortened to show just the year on 19 radio station pages. Why 19, no idea. First the user claims they are in violation of WP:DATELINK. When proven that there was an exception for these kinds of WikiLinks within DATELINK, the user once again reverted (I believe he is at 3RR, haven't issued the warning) and is now claiming something regarding WP:LINKING. If the user is going to remove the links from just 19 pages, he is going to have to do so from ALL radio and television station pages.

Plus, he claims he is using a script to do these edits. Clearly that script isn't working properly or has been changed. I don't seen anything in the script where Year in Something is/can/will be changed.

I have tried to speak with ‎Onel5969 and gotten snarky comments and this claim of violation under one rule to a claim of a violation under another rule. There has been consensus prior (BURDEN) that these are allowed and what harm are they really causing. Plus, removing them on just 19 pages?! So, I bring this to you all. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:57 on April 6, 2019 (UTC)

User has been notified of this thread and of the possible 3RR violation. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:05 on April 6, 2019 (UTC)

I have respectfully requested Neutralhomer to provide examples supporting their position. They have refused to do so. They have stated, "When proven that there was an exception for these kinds of WikiLinks within DATELINK", without actually have done so. When they reverted the edits I had made, which I did through the WP tool "All dates to mdy", I was a bit taken aback. I remembered an instance which had occurred several years back where I had linked a year on a film article I had created to "xxxx in film", which had been reverted, but I couldn't remember the policy/guideline which had been cited in that revert. Since I couldn't remember, I posted a question in the Teahouse. Another editor (who I won't reference so that I won't be accused of CANVASSING), responded with the aforementioned WP:DATELINK. When I reverted their revert, and stated that position, they shortly reverted again, stating that as per WP:BURDEN it was up to me to prove my case. Now, that's not exactly what BURDEN is about. That guideline has to do with removing and re-adding cited/uncited material, which has no bearing on this discussion. However in my looking at the basic WP:LINKING guidelines, I pointed out that one of the main points of creating a link was "Appropriate links provide instant pathways to locations within and outside the project that are likely to increase readers' understanding of the topic at hand." And then pointed out that to create a link to another page which didn't even mention the subject of the article in question hardly met that qualification. At that point, I made my second revert (which is what I always try to limit myself to), and made the point on my talk page I list above. Subsequent to that, I reached out to an admin I respect (again, unmentioned, as to not imply I am canvassing), to seek guidance on whether I should open a RFC on the topic. And if so, where. The issue, as I see it, is that the above editor feels that, as they put it, "Radio and TV station pages operate in a special "realm" in many rules and consensus discussions". And that very well may be true. But I went to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Radio Stations, and saw nothing which dealt with this topic. The only thing I saw was Wikipedia:WikiProject Radio Stations#Infobox which states that instructions to the infobox can be found at the template, Template:Infobox radio station. At that location, the only guidance is that the startdate should follow this format: First date of broadcast, using {{Start date|YYYY|MM|DD}}. This says nothing about linking to "xxxx in radio". I feel that bringing this to ANI at this stage is silly and a waste of editors' time, but since it has been brought here, I felt compelled to reply. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 04:47, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

What made you feel compelled to edit war, for example at WVSP-FM? Using a script to make multiple edits is very undesirable if there is any opposition. The matter must be settled somewhere before continuing. Johnuniq (talk) 08:35, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Specifically, at WVKO (AM), WVSP-FM, WPZZ, WHOV, WLQM (AM), WRJR, WSNQ (AM), WLLL, WGPL, WPCE, WTOY, WHLQ, WKBY, WBLB, WDVA, WSBV, WREJ, WFTH, WGMZ, WGAD, WARB and WWDN... ——SerialNumber54129 09:11, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

The user continues to use a script to remove year links from pages even though this ANI stands. The script they are using does not allow for removal of YEAR in WHATEVER linking. It has been changed. Also, with this ANI open, they should have stopped (as Johnuniq said) until the matter was settled. They haven't. I'm asking an admin to basically force onel5969 to use the script correctly, to stop their edits and to address this issue. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 12:27 on April 8, 2019 (UTC)

Didn't realize this ANI was still open. I was still waiting for you to respond, as per policy and guidelines, to support your position. Which I've asked you repeatedly to do, and you refuse to. But you're right, as long as this is open, I'll refrain from correcting articles in that manner, according to WP guidelines. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:32, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

onel5969: When you changed your reasoning from DATELINK to LINKING and then I looked at the script you were using and saw nothing that would cause the correction of the YEAR in WHATEVER linkage, I brought it here. My "refusal" to respond was allowing the admins to handle your using a script to edit pages in a way you shouldn't. WAAAAY against the rules (see Betacommand, Rich Farmbrough, among others). The former got in major trouble many-a-time, and the latter got admonished and lost his adminship (and I think blocked by ArbCom).

Now, to Serial Number 54129's question which you didn't answer, why did you only choose those radio station pages and none others? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 12:43 on April 8, 2019 (UTC)

Didn't "change" my reasoning. I bolstered the original guideline by adding a second, even more targeted argument, to it. You refused to address either, and began an edit war. And not sure what you mean by using a script to edit pages in a way I shouldn't. I simply use the script. The script automatically makes the change to the "xxxx in yyyy" entries in articles. So not sure what you're implying there. So far, without any examples of why, your argument simply boils down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. And I don't read that other editor as questioning why only those articles, but to answer your question, I attempt to make corrections on every article I touch. Whether it's filling in raw links, adding a short description, fixing dashes, harmonizing dates, stub sorting, occasionally de-orphaning, whatever. Those were articles that came up during my daily dab fix routine. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:55, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

One, you don't use a script in an edit war. Period. Two, nowhere here does it say that the scrip will delink YEAR in SOMETHING links.

Three, I am going to ask then. If the YEAR in RADIO link is used on all radio station pages (and it is) why did you remove it from just those? Also, why did you use a script to continue an edit war? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 13:18 on April 8, 2019 (UTC)

First, I think you missed "Del year-in-X dates – unlinks the most common 'year-in-X' links". It's #1 in the second group of what the script does in Overview. Second, already answered. Third, I didn't use a script to respond to your edit warring. I simply reverted your revert when you refused to give a valid rationale for your reverts, based on policy. Which my edits were. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:31, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

So you are using a script that is, in itself, disruptive. Awesome. For the why you only edited those radio station pages, you turned the question around on me. Not an answer. Why did you edit just those pages and not any of the others? As for your reverts, a script was used for your first revert. As for you "But you're right, as long as this is open, I'll refrain from correcting articles in that manner, according to WP guidelines" malarkey, that lasted all of 14 minutes or 16 minutes (depending on the script). - Neutralhomer • Talk • 13:41 on April 8, 2019 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I haven't changed any "year in xxxx" links since I made that comment. When you make an accusation, you should really provide the DIFF. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:59, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

You do have a point, BUT when say you won't use a script to make a certain kind of edit. Probably best not to make any script edits, especially when you are concerned the script might not be working properly. Just saying.

Now, please, answer my question. Why did you only edit those radio stations pages and not all the others? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 14:13 on April 8, 2019 (UTC)

I've been asked to take a look at this thread, and my conclusions are the following:

1. There is no consensus as to whether years in a radio station infobox should be linked to the appropriate 'x in radio' article (per advice given by Bearcat on Onel5969's talk page).
2. Although Onel was getting towards the limit of 3RR two days ago, he does not appear to have edit warred since and has moved on, and sanctions are not punitive. If he begins systemic edit-warring across articles, ping me with diffs and I will look at it. (Ping me without diffs and I'll probably refer you to this).
3. As result of the above two, Neutralhomer and Onel should both calm down, take a deep breath, and realise getting upset about other edits is not worth it.
4. The content dispute is not a matter for ANI.

I think that's everything, so unless there are further insights, I think we can close this thread out now. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:51, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

[139] ——SerialNumber54129 15:06, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

• Ritchie333: I did try to discuss this on his talk page first to no avail. I would like to know why he edited only those radio station pages and the VAST numbers of other radio station pages that still have the YEAR in Radio link on them. With due respect to Bearcat, this is something that remains across Wikipedia. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 15:02 on April 8, 2019 (UTC)

But Onel has also said "I'll refrain from correcting articles in that manner, according to WP guidelines." which sounds like your answer. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:22, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi Ritchie333, I think the answer I gave to Neutralhomer's question regarding why these articles (emphasis mine), was "I attempt to make corrections on every article I touch. Whether it's filling in raw links, adding a short description, fixing dashes, harmonizing dates, stub sorting, occasionally de-orphaning, whatever. Those were articles that came up during my daily dab fix routine." I have no desire to seek out every radio article and delink those items, but the script clearly does delink them, in keeping with MOS guidelines. So is there a problem with the script? Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:53, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

I recognise these scripts as I use them myself, generally running them manually after doing some improvement on an article. I think the main thing to remember when running a script is that you are directly responsible for any edits made by it, and if other editors challenge the changes, you shouldn't edit war over them. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:02, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Vandalism-only IP 76.170.23.100

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's an IP (76.170.23.100) who is persistently vandalizing my talk page: [140][141][142][143]

Can someone please do something?

Thanks in advance. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:12, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

 Done, blocked for 31h--Ymblanter (talk) 07:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:24, 11 April 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.

Ḥadīth

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 "missedited" and changed Ḥadīth to Ḥādīth (extra diacritic over "a"). Can someone sort out please. Thanking you in anticipation. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 12:34, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Haha Dont worry Wikipedia's sledgehammer has cracked this nut JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 12:37, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

JorgeLaArdilla - What exactly do you mean when you say that you "missedited (sic) and changed Ḥadīth to Ḥādīth"? Looking at the logs for Ḥādīth, it looks like you moved the page. How exactly should the page title be spelled and with proper diacritics in all letters? I'm happy to fix the page move for you and move things to the right place; I just need confirmation on what the correct spelling of the article title should be. :-) Thanks - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:16, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

JorgeLaArdilla - It looks like your page move has already been undone and reverted to its original page title by General Ization. I think this is the right action, as the article title reflects the spelling in English. Looks like this issue is resolved. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:21, 11 April 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.

Ziggy 2milli

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.

---

Ziggy 2milli (talk · contribs) seems to not really be here to create an encyclopaedia so much as get paid for pushing unacceptable puff pieces about celebrities. A fair number of his "articles" are horrendously-sourced, and have generally died to AfD, with many of them being moved from draft space specifically for Google exposure. More recently, AfD'd pages get moved to draft in an attempt to prevent their deletion should the AfD end as delete. A listing of articles he's created (based on his talk page) is:

• Marlo Hampton · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch ) · [revisions] (G11'd)
• Doğukan Yüce · ( talk | logs | links | watch | afd ) · [revisions] (AfD'd; he attempted to remove the AfD notice twice)
• Justin Klosky · ( talk | logs | links | watch | afd ) · [revisions] (AfD'd)
• Alex Quin · ( talk | logs | links | watch | afd ) · [revisions] (AfD'd)
• Shyon Keoppel · ( talk | logs | links | watch | afd ) · [revisions] (AfD'd; attempted to move to draftspace during AfD. Requested a restore at REFUND and, when asked point-blank about being paid, denied it unconvincingly)
• Luieville · ( talk | logs | links | watch | afd ) · [revisions] (AfD'd; moved directly from draft to main space by him; he attempted to move it back to draft to dodge the AfD)
• Luca Maggiora · ( talk | logs | links | watch | afd ) · [revisions] (Live at time of writing, sourcing is abysmal; he moved it from draft for Google exposure)
• Paul Fabritz · ( talk | logs | links | watch | afd ) · [revisions] (Live at time of writing, sourcing is abysmal; he moved it from draft for Google exposure)
• YNW Melly · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch | afd ) · [revisions] (Live at time of writing and now being worked on by others as he's achieved notability in the interim)

Given the extensive lack of clue as to sourcing and the quite obvious attempts at SEO, I am proposing that Ziggy 2milli be topic-banned from creating biographical articles or drafts and from moving drafts to main space, both indefintitely. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 19:30, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Indeffed. MER-C 20:20, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Goodness, that was prompt. Saved me from writing up my effusive support. Cheers --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:35, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

That makes things easier. Now the focus should probably be on figuring out if Luca Maaggiora and Paul Fabritz are salvageable. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 20:37, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

They may or may not be notable, but the articles look like WP:G11 material to me. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:00, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

YNW Melly is notable (and to be honest the article isn't G11 material). I would be tempted to send the other two to AfD. Black Kite (talk) 22:28, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

After GNews gave me nothing usable for either of them I've AfD'd the both of them (Maggiora and Fabritz). —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 21:01, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

And they have just made an unblock request, claiming that they aren't being paid - the same vacuous denial they made at REFUND when challenged, and one which beggars belief given his editing. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 20:51, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Looks like it was denied. Probably for the best (at least for now). --Kbabej (talk) 00:15, 11 April 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 who creates useless talk pages

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

---

The reported IP users are stale; no administrative action is required at this time. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:38, 10 April 2019 (UTC)}}

• 2402:800:6370:5A7:A56E:A58D:E241:F5E5 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) – Creation of nonsense CSD G8 talk pages. Woshiyiweizhongguoren (🇨🇳) 10:56, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Likely the same person as 116.102.37.132 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), who also created Talk:Rthro Woshiyiweizhongguoren (🇨🇳) 11:46, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Reported to AIV twice but no result. The two talk pages in question are Talk:Rthro and Talk:Voiced upper-pharyngeal stop. No diffs since we're dealing with deleted pages, of course. Woshiyiweizhongguoren (🇨🇳) 13:37, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Is this also User talk:Tcl29? Woshiyiweizhongguoren (🇨🇳) 17:28, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

The IPs are both of Viettel Group in Vietnam. Woshiyiweizhongguoren (🇨🇳) 17:38, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Woshiyiweizhongguoren - The reported IPv6 address hasn't edited or made any changes on Wikipedia for over three days, and the reported IPv4 address for over a week. There's no need to block either IP user unless they resume making disruptive edits, and the disruption is current and in progress (happening right now). :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:37, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

@Oshwah: Which it is, see the above about Tcl29. Woshiyiweizhongguoren (🇨🇳) 19:39, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't see how the deleted contributions of Tcl29 and the two IP users you reported are related in any way to one another... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:04, 10 April 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.

Possible ads or promotion

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

---

Does this count as ads or promotion? I don't know who added it or when it was added. Woshiyiweizhongguoren (🇨🇳) 22:56, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Yep, blatant commercial link spam. Thanks for removing it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:09, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

You're welcome. P. S. Did you check who added it? If it were added not too long ago, have you blocked the user who added it? Woshiyiweizhongguoren (🇨🇳) 23:18, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

No, I haven't looked back that far - I'm in bed with my laptop right now and just about to get to sleep, but I might have a look in the morning. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:24, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

It was added by this IP user on November 1, 2018. I've looked through the two articles from the IP user's contributions and I don't see this domain present anywhere. Looks like you caught and deleted one that managed to stick around for so long. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:26, 10 April 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.

Anonymous user 161.73.194.242

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

---

On 21 of February 2019, 161.73.194.242 left me a message on my talk page called “We will never surrender”. The message said “Britain will never surrender to your s***ty yank spellings. The message was vulgar, and inappropriate. The message also included a big picture of Winston Churchill. I think 161.73.194.242 needs to be blocked because of this. Any thoughts? Metric Supporter 89 (talk) 21:29, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

• I'm pretty sure that we're not going to block an IP address for a comment made 7 weeks ago, especially as that IP appears to be a library computer at a University. Black Kite (talk) 21:49, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

  See Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of 161.73.194.241, User talk:161.73.194.241 and the linked discussions. This was just an IP adding silly warnings an reverting legitimate edits. Just forget about it unless they come back, see Special:Contribs/161.73.128.0/17 although there has been more edits from that range it doesn't look like its the same person. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:20, 10 April 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:Joel37

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.

---

Joel37 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Joel37 is going around the automobile articles replacing pictures, most of which are already been used in the article. I been warning him several times to stop with the disruptive editing but doesn't seem to listen. --Vauxford (talk) 20:35, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Assuming you mean this sequence of edits, they all look reasonable enough to me; Joel37 is replacing older photos of vehicles in infoboxes with images of the most recent model in that line, which I certainly wouldn't consider intentional disruption given that it's generally going to be a reasonable assumption that most readers are likely looking for information about the current model, not former iterations. Whether or not each specific image is preferable is a content issue, and not something which requires administrative intervention. What I am noticing is a distinct lack of discussion on your part at User talk:Joel37, where you've instead chosen to spam a stack of template messages. ‑ Iridescent 20:44, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Sometimes the older ones are the most iconic in the article, such as the Fiat Panda and has been there for a long time. The reader can just go down the article of the generation of model they want to look at. But the way this user done it is very disruptive in nature. --Vauxford (talk) 20:47, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

That's twice you've claimed that, but we're not going to take action unless you indicate why you consider this a situation that needs sysop actions. "Someone has an opinion that differs to mine" does not constitute disruption. ‑ Iridescent 20:48, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

To be honest I thought that was the right thing to do is warn the user, because I thought they were being disruptive. --Vauxford (talk) 20:49, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

This is not an issue for ANI, you disagree with someone, no need to sound the admin bugle. Toasted Meter (talk) 20:53, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Well I didn't know what to do, I thought that what people do if they spot a editor being potentially disruptive. The scale of what this user was doing was quite severe so I didn't know what to do. So I take it now I got myself into more trouble then the user I reported, great. --Vauxford (talk) 20:55, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Then, hopefully, you have learned that the thing to do if you disagree with edits that someone has made is to talk to them, rather than assume that you are right and they are wrong and that everyone else will agree with you. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:03, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

I just thought that what you do when a newish editor acts like that, I guess not but from my impression of what people do on here it very similar. What if they refuse to and just keep going, that what I thought was going to happen so I took it here. I didn't expect everyone to agree with me. --Vauxford (talk) 21:07, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

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

Is this BKFIP?

Special:Contributions/82.15.21.214, notably this and this among recent edits. --JBL (talk) 17:50, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

• Could be, but it doesn't geolocate to BKFIP's usual location. I don't see a lot wrong with those edits, either, to be honest. Black Kite (talk) 18:37, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Well, that is standard for BKFIP -- many of their edits are defensible on the merits. In this case, the edit to Sylvester is not: some contributions really are fundamental and described as such in good sources, and some roles really are leadership roles and described as such in good sources. Also, saying that "the school of utilitarianism [was] later mentioned by Jeremy Bentham" is obviously less accurate and meaningful than "the school of utilitarianism [was] later made famous by Jeremy Bentham". Possibly third alternatives would be better in both cases. --JBL (talk) 19:15, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Cleanup crew and block needed for 123.150.182.X for WP:NOTHERE by tagging so many talk page to merge for not valid reason

• 123.150.182.177 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 123.150.182.179 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 123.150.182.180 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• Talk:Federal Republic of Germany, Talk:Germany/Archive 24
• Talk:United Mexican States, Talk:Mexico/Archive 11
• Talk:Republic of Iraq, Talk:Iraq
• Talk:Persia, Talk:Islamic Republic of Iran, Talk:Persia/Archive 2 Talk:Iran/Archive 19
• Talk:Transleithania, Talk:Lands of the Crown of Saint Stephen, Talk:Kingdom of Hungary (1867–1918)
• Talk:Kingdom of Sweden (1809–1905), Talk:Kingdom of Norway (1814-1905) , Talk:Union between Sweden and Norway
• Talk:Siam, Talk:Thailand/Archive 3
• Talk:South Korea/Archive 10, Talk:South Korea
• Talk:Kingdom of Spain, Talk:Spain
  • list not yet complete

See also above section #3 IPs displaying signs of meatpuppetry/ sockpuppetry

But for this time, the ip tagging many talk page for no sense merge. Matthew hk on public computer (talk) 11:35, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Blocked Special:Contributions/123.150.182.0/24 for one month. The merge tags on the talk archive pages are nonsensical. There might conceivably be some valid edits among their contributions, but see also the earlier ANI about '3 IPs displaying signs of meatpuppetry'. 20:51, 9 April 2019 (UTC)EdJohnston (talk)

Nliz and bot accounts

Nliz (talk · contribs)

Hello Nliz, I hope that you do not mind me posting here. You seem friendly enough and thanks for posting to my talk page. We sometimes get bots doing odd experiments on Wikipedia and I was wondering if you were human.

To everyone else - all of Nliz's edits look the same.

• special:diff/891706704
• special:diff/837008824
• special:diff/831382141

Thoughts? How do we engage with contributors like this? Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:02, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

I guess we could see if Nliz responds here, but this doesn't look like someone who has ever made a constructive edit. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:00, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Ginjuice4445

Ginjuice4445 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Gab (social network) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Gab Dissenter (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This user is an SPA exclusively editing on Gab (social network) and the closely related Gab Dissenter. ((43+10+242+2+20+6+2)/337 = 96% percent of their edits are on these pages, relevant talk pages, and admin noticeboard threads. They demonstrate an impressive degree of rejecting consensus and community input, most notably in this overwhelmingly rejected RfC they proposed for the replacement of well-sourced material for idiosyncratic, promotional interpretations completely unsupported by sources. In this RfC alone, they, per Softlavender[144], managed to produce 80 talk page posts within 29 hours. Aside from talk page sealioning and bludgeoning, they earned a month-long TBAN in January from Lord Roem for tendentious and disruptive editing, as well as continuing to edit war after being informed consensus on talk page. After I asked them to clarify if they have undeclared paid editing on March 2, they disappeared for a whole month, until today, when they, in direct violation of uw-paid, reverted a merger of the two articles [145][146] in violation of the consensus achieved at the merger RfC which they participated in, declaring in edit summary that "No consensus for merge on talk page, AT ALL". At this point I believe it is evident that this user is not here to improve the project, and only here to push a promotional POV in an extremely disruptive manner. Actions may be required to remedy this egregious WP:IDHT and WP:NOTHERE problem. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 21:57, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

This edit is particularly egregious, because it's the exact opposite of what the close was.--Jorm (talk) 22:14, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

I've fully protected the redirect, indefinitely. Should consensus change on that issue, it can be unprotected. Am looking at the rest of it now. Black Kite (talk) 22:34, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

• If no diffs will be provided for alleged talk page disruption, a boomerang article ban should be considered. Tsumikiria has persistently made personal attacks on the talk page and is an overall net negative to the atmosphere there. FWIW, Ginjuice was wrongly T-banned in the first place in my opinion, while the paid editing concerns are very worrisome. wumbolo ^^^ 22:42, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

  Oh please. You know how to look at his contribs; that's the point of saying "all of his contribs are to here." Do you want a diff link for each of the 80 talk page posts mentioned up there? --Jorm (talk) 23:17, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

  If you don't think Tsumikiria has provided sufficient explanation or links, you could perhaps ask them to provide more direct links before jumping straight to proposing a boomerang article ban for what appears to be no reason (and, notably, with no diffs of your own). GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:21, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Here are diffs:

Battleground mentality and WP:BITE (29 October 2018) – Oh you blame me for the shooting? When did I say I endorse them? Good job constructing a straw man, and congrats that this is your 5th ever edit on Wikipedia. [147]

PA (29 October 2018) – Plus your experience and concept of racism may be far limited. [148]

Straw man argument (31 October 2018) – If by "there" you mean we have to erase any mention of white supremacist membership and state up front that Gab is a completely innocent angel of free speech human rights etc, please, no. [149]

Completely unnecessary comment (5 November 2018) – If you believe that Wikipedia shouldn't present things that are not to your liking, you are free to continue your quest on finding somewhere that serves you better. Maybe Conservapedia. [150]

PA (22 November 2018) – It is understandable that you think your favorite gathering place is not getting good treatments, but your own opinion matters nothing to Wikipedia. [151]

PA (3 December 2018) – Wikipedia policies does not back your filibustering that suggests a motive of whitewashing your favorite website. [152]

Loaded question (18 December 2018) – D.Creish, are you ready to defend that "cuck", "f* off" and saying "build the wall" twice, first screenshot quote and second replying in the context of reading upon that the previously quoted person is a latino, isn't insult? [153]

Battleground mentality (20 January 2019) – I hope this will be your last attempt at warring to whitewash the page to your POV narrative, else you might be walking toward a topic ban. [154]

Battleground mentality (20 January 2019) – You just happend to find the PG source I added have a particular sentence that favors your viewpoint and used it to flip the article to your narrative. Stop. [155]

Issuing an ultimatum / AGF failure (21 January 2019) – We will not submit to your incessant sealioning texts, regardless of the number, and we're not obliged to respond to every one of them, either. [156]

Battleground mentality (21 January 2019) – On the other hand, this editor is rather reminiscent in their arguments and tactics, to the previous POV pusher on this page User:Ridiceo now site-banned by the comunnity, with plain denials, exhausting sealioning, and demands to others to work for them. This will certainly not be the last civil POV pusher we see here, but we're becoming adept at this. [157]

Completely uncivil comment (22 January 2019) - (emphasis mine) This editor is likely trying to score brownie points from Andrew Torba, so that their outright abuse of process here can be painted as some sort of heroic dissent being "censored" by evil Communist editors on Gab's Twitter account. The editor is heading towards a topic ban at the very least per the standard process under this kind of situation - and this is exactly the advertising opportunity Torba wants. He's certainly quite updated on this talk page's development and may have already engaged in conversation in this page. [158]

Snarky (supervote) comment in (involved) RfC close (15 February 2019) – The proposer's disruptive sealioning efforts aside, [...] [159]

Righting great wrongs (28 February 2019) – (emphasis mine) The fact that they specifically advertised for the use on Wikipedia is indicative that this is Torba's retaliation against his failed canvassing attempts here. And we're not going to give him another chance. [160]

I did not make accusations of other policy violations because that would be unnecessary. I'm not comfortable with these comments though: [...] writer of the website Popehat. This should definitely be noted. Shall I contact him for more source? [161] and I've contacted Michael Hayden myself. [162] (emphasis mine), I simply notified him the existence of this discussion and that we hope his collegue publish his story in a future work. [163] (emphases mine), esp. in light of Tsumikiria accusing others of COI editing. Also look at this edit, where Tsumikiria strikes comments made by an IP editor, citing an apparently fictional "CheckUser-confirmed block evader" while the IP has never been blocked. wumbolo ^^^ 09:45, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

That's nice. And all these old diffs have WHAT, exactly, to do with User:Ginjuice4445, the actual topic of this thread? --Calton | Talk 17:45, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

I really appreciate this, although your analyses left out the context of those old discussions and would not be to the extent of being relevant and helpful to this thread other than potentially falling into tu quoque category. I've sure made mistakes. Joined last June, This is my first attempt to make major contributions to an article that isn't some subcultural video games and I have not read or informed of relevant guidelines until I was waist deep in the discussions. The first diff you cited, I was responding to someone calling me personally responsible for the October 2018 synagogue massacre. While the other things you cited for battleground mentality and else, in the presence of now-sanctioned WP:CPUSH editors, and SPAs, it'd be admirable if you could remain totally calm throughout, for that would be a difficult endeavour. The RfC close you protested, it was on an RfC that was almost unanimously opposed where the subject of this thread made those 80 posts within 29 hours. For the COI concern you mentioned, I was unaware of the COI guideline nor did I consulted another editor prior to tipping Hayden. The content in question were never published anywhere and were not for once added to the article. The comment by I striked where you commented "apparently fictional" was indeed made by a block evader who was checkuser rangeblocked by NinjaRobotPirate. They were previously blocked twice. Should you still wish to continue this discussion, it'd be a courtesy to start another section. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 01:04, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

User:EricSnow3

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 is likely WP:SPA with less than 100 edits dating back to 2015. Between years/months of no activity, all user contributions are for Chad Zumock; Zumock's former employer WMMS; Zumock's former coworker Alan Cox (radio personality); and a fellow comedian Zumock frequently performs with – Jim Florentine. In recent weeks, user has repeatedly removed sourced content and added unsourced WP:BLP info to Chad Zumock article. Despite multiple warnings at user's own talk page, user refuses to engage whatsoever -- no edit summaries, no response at talk page, no discussion at article talk, etc. Diffs below:

• Removing subject's sourced birthdate & birth year: 1234

• Adding unsourced claim that subject is "recurring guest host" for The Bob & Tom Show (note: B&T website source does *not* verify claim): 123

• Adding unsourced quote attributed to NYC comedy club owner (note: Gotham Comedy Club website does *not* verify attributed quote): 123

Levdr1lp / talk 08:52, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I've indefinitely blocked this account based off the numerous and repeated issues listed here, as well as other concerns I found in the user's contributions. The user will need to appeal their block by requesting an unblock, where they'll need to explain and show understanding of policy and why their edits have been problematic to an admin before they'll be allowed to edit. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:30, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thank you, Oshwah. I'm also beginning to wonder if user EricSnow3 (created 3-Mar-2015) was an attempt by Redfernb to block-evade (indef blocked 22-Jan-2013). As is likely for EricSnow3, Redfernb was WP:SPA, having only edited at Chad Zumock, Zumock's former employer WMMS, and Zumock's former coworker Alan Cox (radio personality). Despite multiple warnings at user talk page, Redfernb also repeatedly changed sourced birth date/year at Chad Zumock article: 1234

Levdr1lp / talk 09:39, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Levdr1lp - It's possible, but the Redfernb account is so old and blocked so long ago that a further investigation isn't necessary. However, if you see accounts pop up and making similar edits to EricSnow3, please don't hesitate to let someone know or file a report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations so it can be fully evaluated and necessary actions taken. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:46, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Oshwah- Thanks. Will do. Levdr1lp / talk 09:48, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Levdr1lp - You bet; always happy to lend a hand ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:52, 11 April 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.

3 IPs displaying signs of meatpuppetry/ 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.

---

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.

---

123.150.182.177, 123.150.182.179, and 123.150.182.180 are repeatedly editing in concert. They regularly remove warnings from each other's user talk pages, and often act in concert in editing other pages, as can be seen clearly in their individual contribution records and more clearly at Special:Contributions/123.150.182.179/29. Just one recent example is on Cross-Strait relations where the 3 IPs acted together in a series of edits, including the unjustified removal of the template {{pp-pc1}}. The repeated rapid jumping between IPs does not look like reallocation of a dynamic IP but more like deliberately deceptive pretence of being a number of independent users. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:52, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I had opened A SPI before and they say having a dynamic ip is not a sin by itself. And so far the ip is civil to willing to sit down in Talk:Republic of China (1912–1949), and yes, he may be have more than those 3 ip from 123.150.X.X. and you should prove his "disruptive editing" by providing real diff and/or post it to edit warring noticeboard. Matthew hk (talk) 10:29, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

As well as Talk:Nationalist government and Talk:Pahlavi dynasty. Also, 123.124.233.241 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) seem him. Matthew hk (talk) 10:43, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) also can you add extended confirmed protection to the page.___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 12:02, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

The edit-warring is getting bloody silly. ——SerialNumber54129 13:04, 7 April 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-hopping edit warring continuing on Kingdom of Tungning with no attempt to discuss on the article's talk page. Obviously not a dynamic IP but deliberately switching between static IPs. --David Biddulph (talk) 07:03, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I agreed that the ip had so many battleground. (see his edit log and warning and previous block log), but i doubt the nature of the ip as purely "static ". It rather seem a private VPN or one of a few ip that VPN service provider to use. I am not sure the Great Firewall of China had blocked en.wiki or not, or may be with or without firewall and VPN, out bond traffic was rerouted to a handful of ip. Matthew hk (talk) 14:18, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Also, the provider may able to provide fake info to update local registry, so that WHOIS is wrong. One of the 4 associated ip above, was registered to China Bank (may be in fact Bank of China), but the ISP was actually China Unicom Beijing branch. Another name in the WHOIS data, TIANJIN HUITIANTONGXINKEJIJISHU LTD ("HUITIAN 同心科技技術"?), may be entirely fake. Matthew hk (talk) 14:23, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

And now it became a fully troll that tagging multiple talk page for merge. see Talk:Mexico/Archive 11, Talk:Iran/Archive 19, Talk:Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea). Matthew hk on public computer (talk) 11:31, 9 April 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:Alessio Pasquinelli 's WP:NOTHERE

• Alessio Pasquinelli (talk · contribs)
• Spalding (company) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• BLK (sportswear) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Acerbis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Macron (sportswear) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Joma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Tovio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Sorry for cross-posting from WP:COIN. However, the person based on his linkedin profiles (the Alessio Pasquinelli one and Alessio P. one), is some sort of brand sponsorship agency (Pasquinelli Work Advertising; "PROFESSIONAL MARKETING ACCOUNT PROMOTER EASTERN CONSULTANT SPONSORSHIPS MANAGER ", "EX PROFESSIONAL MARKETING ACCOUNT PROMOTER SPONSORSHIPS BROKER CONSULTANT Manager"). But for ANI matter alone, he keep on removing content without giving a real reason, see Special:Diff/891391353, Special:Diff/891278286. His explanation for BLK (sportswear) also seem not satisfactory. Matthew hk (talk) 17:33, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

After the ANI, he just ignore the warning on minor edit again by performing this edit . Special:Diff/891393477. Matthew hk (talk) 17:54, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Yet again tagging controversial edit as minor edit on top of paid editing. Special:Diff/891821732. Matthew hk (talk) 11:14, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Block evasion

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.

---

[164] suggests block evasion by indeffed WisdomTooth3. Tgeorgescu (talk) 06:53, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

IP has acted at [165] despite level 4 warning for using talk pages as forum. Tgeorgescu (talk) 07:00, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

 Done, blocked for a month, no brainer--Ymblanter (talk) 10:28, 12 April 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.

Changing ethnicities to "Jewish" by IP range

Related previous filing in in the archives.

An IP editor from the 185.113.0.0/16 range continues to change ethnicities from "FOOBAR" to "Jewish". Most recent example is [166]. Past IP edit examples: [167], [168], [169], [170], [171], [172], [173].

The motive behind these edits is unclear (anti-Semitic? Zionist?).

These edits from this range are sparse, so a range block would be inappropriate. I'm honestly not sure if there is anything that can be done (edit filter maybe?) but figured I should let admins know about it. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:53, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Changing a person's ethnicity to "Jewish" has at times created a lot of negative feedback. There was an enormous to-do over indicating Bernie Sanders is Jewish back in 2016. But there are different reasons for this reluctance so I, for one, would have to know why the IP editor was insistent over changing this aspect of a bio. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:04, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

This is not a matter of "ethnicity" but rather changing what was previously a person's nationality or citizenship to "Jewish" in the lead sentence of a BLP. This is inherently disruptive because it promotes the inference that Jews are not legitimate citizens of the countries where they live and hold legal citizenship. The comparison to the 2016 "Is Bernie Sanders Jewish?" controversy on Wikipedia is not valid. Not one single editor ever advocated that the lead sentence of his biography should be changed from describing him as an American politician to a Jewish politician. In brief, the issue was instead whether an ethnic Jew who is not religiously observant should be described as "Jewish" in the infobox, which implies religious affiliation. That was a far more nuanced and intelligent discussion and completely different from going to articles about Swedish citizens and American citizens, removing their citizenship, and calling them "Jewish" instead. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:57, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

My thoughts mirror yours. It can easily be read as anti semitic. But even if it's not and we agf, it's at least disruptive. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:23, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

It possibly didn't help that the first example was simply changing transatlantic to Jewish while preserving the British and American bit. The other examples more clearly illustrate the problem. Nil Einne (talk) 06:11, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

EvergreenFir The relevant range is Special:Contributions/185.113.97.195/22, which still has a decent bit of other editing but is much more reasonable to be blocking. Judging by this unsurprising edit on the same IP as some of those edits, I think Liz's question should be answered. Anyhow, I'm testing on Special:AbuseFilter/953 a general filter to track labelling of people as "Jewish" in the lead (since this occurs more often than it reasonably should..). Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:00, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

@Galobtter: I see you've blocked 97.195; did you mean to block the range? I've also blocked 98.123 which was making the same edits. Looking through the range's contributions, while there is some productive editing there, I'm not absolutely convinced there's more than one editor behind it. GoldenRing (talk) 10:20, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

No, I meant to block the IP, not the range; the politics related edits are quite possibly the same person but there's enough various editing stretching back years that I think rest is other people. Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:18, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

I lack the technical familiarity to evaluate whether the test filter is working, but provided it only provides a list of edits for humans to scrutinize (rather than warning editors not to say "Jewish", of course!) then this is a rare case where an edit filter actually seems warranted. This seems like a classic anti-Semitic focus (compare (((echo)))) and the distortion done to articles, including by the incidental removal of adjectives replaced, is significant. Of course, Wikipedia articles should always welcome sourced information about persons' religion and ethnicity, properly added by human editors. Wnt (talk) 13:51, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

I think it's pretty clear the edits aren't intended in a positive way; this same editor is also interested in making it clear that Kurds are also not "real" Swedes (e.g. here). This edit clarifies why the editor makes these edits; it also shows that the editor edits from other IP ranges (in this case Special:Contributions/130.238.98.89), and that they've been at it for years, and seem unlikely to stop. If an edit filter can stop this, it seems like the best solution. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:56, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

I like the edit filter as a means to flag possible problematic edits, but not as a means to disallow or warn for such edits. Users may legitimately be adding information on someone's Jewish religion or ethnicity to a lead sentence, for example a person who is a noted Jewish theologian or rabbi or something like that, and I'm not sure the edit filter could distinguish between such appropriate, good-faith edits and this sort of pointy flagging of Jewish people that our Swedish friend seems to be bent on doing. If we flag the edits, and have a place that collects the flagged edits for review, we have something that helps real humans solve the problem. --Jayron32 15:04, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm resurrecting this thread, because I noticed yet another edit by this relentless editor, made today. Since they have dynamic IP addresses, blocking each one clearly won't help much. @Galobtter:, can we get that filter? Jayjg ^(talk) 20:07, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

There is already this public filter Special:AbuseFilter/953 for Jewish, but even as a means of tracking it has the unfortunate problem of a high false positive rate [174]. This also doesn't help with stuff like Kurdish etc of course, I assume likely targets could be added but of course the more you add the more false positives you'll receive.. Nil Einne (talk) 11:00, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I see that while it does catch the problem edits, the false-positive rate is too high. User:Galobtter, is there a way of having the filter only look for the word "Jew" or "Jewish" in the article's first sentence? That will basically catch all the real problems, without the false-positives. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:05, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

@Jayjg and Nil Einne:, the filter is now improved at 982; the version at 953 was an initial version which was deliberately broad so that there aren't any false negatives. Checking only the first sentence is a more difficult than you'd think for a filter to do, but the version at 982 should do close enough to that. Galobtter (pingó mió) 02:28, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Death threat

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

---

This death threat appears more serious than most vandalism I revert, and merits a warning and/or block at least, as I see it. Thanks. Jusdafax (talk) 12:23, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I'll deal with it. In the future, please follow WP:EMERGENCY. --Yamla (talk) 12:34, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Understood, absolutely. Thanks. Jusdafax (talk) 13:26, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Yamla isn't a general admin revdel needed here ? --DBigXrayᗙ 05:56, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Good point, done. I should have done that initially, but I did report it to the emergency line, as I do with all death threats. --Yamla (talk) 10:09, 12 April 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.

TrollDaddy69

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.

---

TrollDaddy69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – besides the username, we have three lovely edits (diff, diff, diff). Thank you. Leviv ich 23:44, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Blocked, but you'll probably get faster service if you report vandalism-only accounts to WP:AIV. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:52, 12 April 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.

ClassicOnAStick - Persistent addition of unsourced content, refusal to engage

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. I try not to be here if I can help it, but decided I'd rather not issue a unilateral indef in this case. ClassicOnAStick is a long-time gnome who focuses primarily on infobox maintenance, in the areas of video games, companies/organizations, and WWE. Their editing behaviors and refusal to respond to inquiries and warnings has already resulted in 4 blocks, including 3 escalating blocks by myself. Each of those blocks forced the user to acknowledge the issue on their talk page, with a promise not to continue. They seemed to essentially accept the block, did not try to appeal, waited it out then returned to editing. As a result, what I've basically seen is they stopped editing video games and companies (thus dodging the editors who were warning them from those areas), and are now focusing on WWE alone. Since the last block, their talk page has at least 10 individual warnings or notes from other editors about edits that were reverted, why (I.e. MOS, unsourced, etc), all without any response from the user.

STATicVapor gave them some warnings in March about unsourced edits, which I noticed via watchlist. I left a personal message to Classic asking them to engage, hoping to avoid being in this position, but they did not respond. Static contacted me again that Classic is continuing this, including some apparent unsourced BLP edits.

Since the last block was for a month, I feel the next step is probably an indef, as there is little indication the editor will change their behaviors. But I want to make sure that's where we need to go. -- ferret (talk) 11:54, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

• This editor has been around a while, since I used to edit WWE - certainly long enough to learn. However, is the next step after a month an indef? Could we do a year first? starship.paint ~ KO 12:53, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
  • To me the main difference between an indef and year in this situation is that the editor can come back in a year, with no appeal, and restart as they did before, eventually landing here again. With the indef, after six months they can attempt an appeal with standard offer. The indef requires them to appeal and engage the community. The lack of engagement is nearly (or more so) an issue than the problematic edits themselves. -- ferret (talk) 13:14, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

• Well okay, since you put it that way - I won’t object to an indef as long as the six month option is clearly spelt out. starship.paint ~ KO 13:53, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

• I’ve crossed paths with this editors many times over the years, and can verify everything Ferret is saying here. I think the editor has been give more than enough chances. I think a indef block is warranted, though I’d settle for one year if that’s all that a consensus would support. Sergecross73 msg me 13:06, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
• This edit adding unsourced content after final warning, resulted in me bringing this to ferret's attention. I have left multipe talk page notices for the same behavior, templated and my own words. They will not WP:ENGAGE and I feel like they will just keep on doing their thing. I have actually reported to AIV twice with the AIV reports going stale, so there are at least two more disruptive edits after final warnings that they did to merit the AIV reportings. I skimmed through to find some recent questionable edits such as adding unsourced controversial BLP content. A lot of their edits would appear random and unsourced since they never use edit summaries. StaticVapor message me! 13:18, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
• Blocked x 3 months with an explicit warning that their next one will be indefinite. The only reason I did not go with an indef this time is that the last block was a year an a half ago. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:30, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
• Before this closes, I wanted to note I misremembered something in my opening post. The first two blocks I issued, the user made no response. Only third month long block resulted in an apology and promise to stop. Just wanted to correct my mistaken statement for the archive. -- ferret (talk) 20:44, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for that clarification, but I don't think it mitigates the record of disruption. A long term block is clearly justified. After three months they either will get it, or their time here will come to an end. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:51, 12 April 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 timeline editing

User:XxCrunchY is making continued disruptive edits to the Slipknot timeline without any discussion in the talk page. He has not sought consensus for his changes and they are considered disruptive due to his repeated attempts to make changes. MetalDylan (talk) 08:47, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

I can see now that this isn't the first instance of disruptive by this user according to their talk page. MetalDylan (talk) 09:02, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

XxCrunchY, why aren't you responding to the messages left on your user talk page? Why aren't you trying to work with the other editors to address the concerns regarding your edits to Slipknot (band)? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:08, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Continued disruption by Es204L

• Es204L (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I hate to bring this up for a second time, but Es204L is continuing to cause problems. The first discussion may be found here.

Refusal to respond to the first ANI

The problem I have is the fact that the user "left", only to return about 10 days later. He continued to edit despite being told:

• Please edit no further till you discuss all this at WP:ANI and these issues are resolved. DlohCierekim (talk) 03:45, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

  You have edited without responding at ANI. Communication is required. Please respond before making further edits or I will be forced to block you. DlohCierekim (talk) 23:15, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

The user never did respond to the first ANI discussion and it auto-archived without any actions having been taken. The user has been editing on a regular basis ever since. This is clearly in violation of the admin's instructions. @Dlohcierekim:

New additions of unsourced content/vandalism

• changed the death count for a storm without sources
• changed total again
• changed total once more
• removed a note and changed total without a source
• changed total without a source

These edits may seem minor, but they are very disruptive to the project as people have to consistently revert them in order to maintain accurate and truthful material. There may be more than what I have linked above. Those are the ones I know of currently. Please let me know what your thoughts are. Noah^Talk 23:50, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

The issues pointed out in the first ANI have clearly continued, and are definitely disruptive to the project. The user's continued inability to cite sources with their edits, as well as communicate and respond to messages and concerns regarding these issues, are not acceptable. Given the number of discussions that have been opened about this, and the number of messages and changes that have been given to the user to respond and work to improve their edits that have gone ignored - it's clear that this issue will only continue unless administrative action is taken in order to prevent additional problems. Given what I've seen and found in this (and the previous) ANI discussion, I've blocked Es204L for two weeks. This will hopefully put the appropriate brakes on this user, and be what's needed to nudge him/her to improve their edits and communicate. If not, a longer block can easily be applied in the future if necessary. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:34, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Bankster - unilateral moves and RM reverts

Last month, I discovered and RMed a series of articles moved unilaterally by User:Bankster without discussion. (The RM is at Talk:Sistema Público de Radiodifusión del Estado Mexicano.) However, within 36 hours of the RM closing and articles being moved, Bankster reverted six page titles back to how he had them before, again without discussion. The pages are currently at Channel 9 (Argentina), Channel 1 (Colombia), Sandinist Television System, Channel 13 (Argentina), National Radio Television of Colombia, and Workers' General Confederation of Peru. What should be done in this situation? Raymie (t • c) 04:04, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Raymie, have you talked to this user directly regarding their reversion of the page moves and the moving of the articles back to the old titles? What did he/she say in response? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:06, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

@Oshwah: I have. When the original move that got my attention occurred a month ago, I left a message on his talk page. He replied on mine. Bankster did not participate in the resulting RM, though he did leave a comment on another case where I had other substantive concerns with the article title at Talk:Digital terrestrial television in the United States. I think it's worth noting that this incident echoes the original issue that has pervaded his conduct, which is lack of discussion/consultation with other editors. This was an issue that recurred several times on his talk, and it is unfortunate to see that it is recurring again with reverting the results of a recently concluded RM. Raymie (t • c) 04:12, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Raymie - Thank you for responding with the additional information and details; that was very helpful. Given that each article you listed here was moved following a requested move, then moved back to the original title unilaterally by Bankster without a request or discussion first - I've reverted the page moves that he/she performed and moved each article back to the title that followed a requested move, and left Bankster a notice on his/her user talk page asking him/her to stop making unilateral page move reversions without a discussion or consensus first. If the page moves continue from Bankster without a discussion or request first, let us know here so that appropriate action can be taken (if applicable or necessary). ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:35, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Admin pls

pls. ..see..here.--Moxy 🍁 04:14, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

The people who need to see that have been notified. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:18, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive IP

188.117.159.149 (talk · contribs)

Contributions consist almost exclusively of making unsourced changes to infobox parameters on articles for political parties. Has been extensively warned since July 2017 about this behaviour, and already blocked on one occasion. Blocking indefinitely would save everyone a lot of time. Endymion.12 (talk) 16:49, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I blocked them for 3 months. We do not block IPs indefinitely, and the previous block was short, so that I thought a year would not be appropriate.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:16, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't realise there was a policy of not indefinitely blocking IPs, but I think the block could be longer given that in three months they will simply resume what they have been doing for nearly two years to date. Endymion.12 (talk) 17:21, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

This is indeed likely. In this case, just let me know at my talk page, or, if I am not going to be around, open one more topic at ANI.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:23, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

And remember that, although it seems that this IP address has been static for a couple of years, that could well change at any time if, for example, that editor moves house or changes ISP, and the address will then be reassigned to someone else who should not be blocked. Our policy tries to strike a happy medium between protecting Wikipedia and not blocking innocent editors. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:28, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Anti political shills

This account is being used only for promotional purposes. POV pushing on articles related to Balkan states. Reported to AIV twice, but was told to come here. Woshiyiweizhongguoren (🇨🇳) 20:52, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Diffs and an explanation of what they are promoting would be helpful.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:52, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

@Woshiyiweizhongguoren: You also failed to notify the user as you are required to do.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:49, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Woshiyiweizhongguoren is obviously collaborating with Jingiby to push Bulgarian views on Balkan articles, all I'm doing is cleaning out the obvious agenda pushing in these articles as my history indicates. Jingiby has been abusing WK:NPOV for over a decade (Redacted). Clearly a breach of | WK:NPOV, and Woshiyiweizhongguoren is supporting him in this act and is sending threats to me to discontinue my editing. Jingiby has a highly negative reputation, as can be seen by googling his name. All I'm trying to do is make articles which he has edited have more neutral perspectives. I can give examples of Jinbigy's edits which are obvious breaches of | WK:NPOV that I neutralised.

Bulgarian Australians

Jingiby's statement: "... who count the Bulgarian Australian and the later Macedonian Australian diaspora together for historical reasons, estimate a total number of around 100,000 [Bulgarians in Australia]"

The above is obviously a fraudulent statement that pushes Bulgarian narratives, and it is highly contradictory with the Australian census.

Taga za Yug

Jingiby keeps on removing and white-washing references to Macedonians and Macedonia while primary sources and the poster on the article clearly refer to Macedonians and Macedonia Anti political shills —Preceding undated comment added 01:10, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

@Bbb23: Three more issues regarding this user:

1. He may be abusing multiple accounts, see the first message on his talk page. He then tried to clarify things by listing an IP address he used, but IPs aren't accounts, so I'm not sure.

2. His username may be a bit too inappropriate and POV pushing for Wikipedia.

3. His allegations of me collaborating with Jingiby are 100 percent false. His dishonesty is just making things worse. Woshiyiweizhongguoren (🇨🇳) 18:31, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Really sounds like you are scraping the bottom of the barrell here to create a smoke screen for yourself and Jingiby. Anti political shills —Preceding undated comment added 23:47, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

@Woshiyiweizhongguoren: As Bbb23 already mentioned, if you could provide specific diffs and explanations of the bad edits in question that would speed the process along greatly. Accusations are worthless without evidence. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 03:49, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

@CaptainEek: Diff. Moving pages against established consensus. I'd also include a diff for the multiple account issue on his or her talk page, but that's the first contribution. Woshiyiweizhongguoren (🇨🇳) 15:51, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

@Anti political shills: This is kind of interesting. "Rv sock." Tell me, how many accounts do you have? Woshiyiweizhongguoren (🇨🇳) 15:54, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

@Woshiyiweizhongguoren: See my talk page. You really need to stop with the false allegations Anti political shills

This is also a concern [175] considering WP:OUTING issues. And while I don't think it justifies a block of itself, these edits [176] [177] [178] misusing the term WP:vandalism are a concern. Still despite this poor response [179] to concerns, they don't seem to have repeated it yet. This move is also a concern [180]. I have no idea what the current MOS is regarding Macedonia and frankly don't give a damn but it has been at the title long enough [181] to make such a move highly inadvisable without an RM. (I do think the admin made a mistake when protecting, it should have been labelled as protecting due to a dispute and not vandalism, but I guess maybe they just clicked the wrong button.) Nil Einne (talk) 21:45, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Anyway at a minimum, I've given Anti political shills a WP:ARBEE discretionary sanctions alert. It was my first time, so hopefully I did it right [182]. I did not give Woshiyiweizhongguoren notification as despite APS's claims to the contrary, Woshiyiweizhongguoren doesn't seem to be particularly involved in the area. I did not give Jingiby an alert as I assume [183] is still valid for a few weeks at least for the Balkans despite it being subsumed into EE. Incidentally, despite APS explicitly bringing up and accusing Jingiby of wrong-doing above, they were not notified of this discussion until I did so [184] Nil Einne (talk) 22:19, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Nil Einne left me a note about being mentioned here but I'm not sure which bit applies to me. If it was the move protection then it had nothing to do with it being North Macedonian or Macedonian but that it should follow Wikipedia:Naming conventions (government and legislation)#Elections and referendums and the date goes first. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 03:47, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello everyone. I see that there is a discussion in which my name is mentioned, but the editor who intervened me in it User:Anti political shills did not let me know. Thanks to the administrator User:Nil Einne who did it. I understand what Anti political shills accuses me of, but I do not understand why. At the same time, the User:Woshiyiweizhongguoren accusations against him, seem to me to be not without reason. Jingiby (talk) 04:33, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Outing is a big no, no. Other claims made by @Anti political shills go into casting WP:ASPERSIONS territory. I'm really concerned about this editor and looking at the examples presented above of WP:TENDENTIOUS editing, @Anti political shills appears not to be here to build an encyclopedia.Resnjari (talk) 04:43, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Resnjari's conclusion. Apcbg (talk) 06:36, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree the outing is very concerning. The Google search this user is already a concern, but the actual mention and screen shot of an external site IMO clearly crosses the line. I only noticed it after I'd made my post and quickly redacted it. I didn't otherwise comment as I privately emailed an admin to see if it qualified for revdeletion so wanted to avoid drawing attention to it until this has been assessed. Nil Einne (talk) 09:32, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

On the topic of sock puppetry, I'd like to know what other accounts belong to Anti political shills, besides the diffed IP. I won't open an SPI, since the admins may already know which account(s) I'm referring to. If Anti political shills gets blocked for all of this, please remember to block all associated sock puppet accounts and IPs — Preceding unsigned comment added by Woshiyiweizhongguoren (talk • contribs) 10:43, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

As a Balkan topic area editor myself, who is watching the articles closely, I am not surprised to see someone with POV agendas such as User:Anti political shills casting WP:ASPERSIONS against editors such as Jingiby who are simply doing their job in defending Wikipedia's articles from people who did not come to build up an encyclopedia. Like how the others above said, User:Anti political shills is ought to explain and defend himself without besmirching the reputation of other editors. If the Admins know or have evidence of WP:SOCKPUPPET, then I have faith the appropriate actions on the matter will be taken without delay. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 12:26, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes. A WP:NOTHERE and sock puppetry block forever would do. Woshiyiweizhongguoren (🇨🇳) 15:49, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

@Jingiby: I have opened an SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Anti political shills to determine whether User:Gaylordbush69 is a sock. Woshiyiweizhongguoren (🇨🇳) 13:24, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Ok! Jingiby (talk) 13:35, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Even if not a sock, certainly an inappropriate username. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:45, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

SPI results: Gaylordbush69 is most likely not a sock puppet account. Woshiyiweizhongguoren (🇨🇳) 21:14, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Anti political shills continues to edit tendentiously again today here and now is supported by oppenly disruptive editing User:Gaylordbush69 who was suspected as his sockpuppet. Both were warned already not to disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point, respectively here and here. I hope, they will stop this disruptive combination. Jingiby (talk) 19:01, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Concerning edit by Thewolfchild

It's an unghastly hour of the morning where I am, so forgive me if this is semi-coherent or I am way off base here. But I don't think this should wait. BoongaBoo has an short edit history that has ... at least two ... possible explanations. Let's make the assumption, for now, that BoongaBoo is here in good faith and just very confused. In that case, would someone please have a look at this medical advice from Thewolfchild, which I unsuccessfully attempted to remove? I really don't know what I can say in a public forum, except ... please look at BongaBoo's contribs and, again assuming good faith, decide how they might take it if they wake up in few hours and read TWCs comment. I just don't feel comfortable with that standing. (I am not notifying, or even pinging BoongaBoo since this is not really about their behavior and they have enough template spam already. Notify if you must. I will notify TWC). Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 09:55, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

It bothers me that people choose to give confused new editors unsolicited, unsourced and unusual medical advice on their talk pages instead of directing them to the only possible place on Wikipedia where asking questions entirely unrelated to Wikipedia -- such as the question they have repeatedly asked! -- is on-topic. And edit-warring the medical advice back in, on someone else's talk page, reminds me of a recurring behavioral issue with Thewolfchild ... MPS1992 (talk) 12:45, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

I see they reverted your removal of comment. That's totally inappropriate. I'm really surprised - people give medical advice all the time in articles, but it's usually a well-meaning mistake. This seems deliberate. Guettarda (talk) 12:54, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

BTW, you should have notified them directly. Guettarda (talk) 12:54, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

They did. twc removed the notification. --bonadea contributions talk 13:03, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have checked. Guettarda (talk) 13:35, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

• I have warned Thewolfchild that if they pull a stunt like that again, I will block them indefinitely. FWIW, cat behaviour like that is well known - my wife and I have owned cats for many years and at least three of them have exhibited exactly what the OP said. If there wasn't the possibility that the OP was indeed a troll, Thewolfchild would currently find themselves indeffed. Absolutely ridiculous and irresponsible behaviour. Black Kite (talk) 14:30, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

• And with the troll having been blocked, I don't think TWC needs to be raked over the coals about this. I didn't find TWC's comment to be offensive and I don't think his behavior portends future issues that this noticeboard would seek to prevent. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:52, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

• Frankly, they may not even be a troll (have a look at their edits - it's not clear). And even if they were, TWC's comment was grossly irresponsible (because other editors might see it and say "hey, my cat does that..."). I can't believe that an experienced editor like yourself can't see that. Black Kite (talk) 15:05, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

• "It's probably cancer" is a joke children think is funny right up until they lose someone to cancer. BK was being generous in assuming good faith here and not blocking. Leviv ich 15:22, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

• So just to be clear, Black Kite, it's ok to insinuate to someone that they have cancer, just so long as the person who it's being directed at is a troll? You should've blocked. End of. And I'm frankly annoyed that I've had to come out of a year's retirement to have to tell you that. What a disgusting foul place this website has become. Cassianto^Talk 15:26, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, you're absolutely correct, I should have done. I was seriously considering it, and I dropped the ball there. Mea culpa. Black Kite (talk) 21:10, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

• FWIW I don't think you dropped the ball, BK. It wasn't like there was ongoing disruptive editing that required an immediate block; no harm to the project came from waiting a bit. As happened here, a second admin read your post and took action, and now we know two admin are in agreement about the move, which is better than one admin indef'ing when they're not entirely sure. Things always look clearer in hindsight, especially after discussion; I'm sure it wasn't as clear for you in the moment and there's no reason to expect that it should have been. Non vestra culpa. Leviv ich 00:55, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

• I would defer to Black Kite if it wasn't for the detail that Suffusion of Yellow removed the Wolfchild's edit, with a pleading edit summary,[185] and TWC restored it with a pushy, self-satisfied one.[186] That's too much for my stomach. I've blocked them indefinitely. If there's a good appeal, no admin needs to consult me before unblocking. Bishonen | talk 15:57, 13 April 2019 (UTC).

• Bishonen, your first diff goes to the wrong page. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:00, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

• LOL, that's what I get for trying to work on two tabs at once. Thank you, Phil Bridger. Fixed. Bishonen | talk 16:05, 13 April 2019 (UTC).

IP repeatedly adding unsourced information to BLPs

Editing both as 69.127.134.251 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 108.50.197.161 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

I can't take any action due to ArbCom restrictions, and I've raised at AIV twice with no response so I'm escalating here. Repeatedly adding unverified/untrue information to BLPs, warned and blocked numerous times before for the same action (and not just by me!) - just look at this heap of block templates and warning messages from numerous edtors for repeated vandalism and unsourced info - please can somebody review and action as they deem appropriate? I am about to go away for the weekend. GiantSnowman 14:07, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Both IPs blocked one year for long term addition of unsourced content. Since they made the same edit at Eric Nshimiyimana they could well be the same person. EdJohnston (talk) 21:18, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! GiantSnowman 11:57, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Rev/delete, please

Towanda, Illinois. Thank you. 2601:188:180:1481:3077:824F:EBFB:EA20 (talk) 02:02, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Done. For future reference, keep in mind that posting here draws far more attention to offensive content than is desirable; posting on the talk page of an active admin, or emailing the oversight team as described at WP:Oversight, can get a response without the Streisand effect. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:09, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

There's also a Streisand effect meta-effect. You can find the really juicy stuff behind the Wikipedia scenes via Special:WhatLinksHere/Streisand_effect. EEng 05:31, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Polarbear001 recurring unsourced edits to biographies

Polarbear001 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Polarbear001 has been warned four times before (1, 2, 3, 4) and now a fifth time by myself about adding unsourced information to biographies of living persons. Some of their edits are properly sourced, some are improperly sourced to wiki pages on IMDb, some are just unsourced. Since this is a recurring, persistent, long-term problem, a block is in order. Bright☀ 18:09, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

You warned the user three times, all four three times today, but the user did not edit since March 23 (and the previous edit was in February). They did not get a chance yet to even read your warnings.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:26, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Though the editing pattern is not good, a block might be needed. I will appreciate a second opinion.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:28, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Three warningss over an hour today when the editor has not edited since March 23rd? This is bad behavior, Bright. Why was more than one needed? No block until the editor has returned. 209.152.44.201 (talk) 20:19, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence of three warnings today, where are people getting this from [187] [188]? From the messages left, BrightR warned Polarbear01 once with a non templated message [189]. They then had a more careful look at the talk page history and I guess uncovered that Polarbear01 had been warned before but had seemingly not changed their behaviour and gave a stronger message and a templated warning together [190]. They then decided to bring Polarbear01 to ANI and gave the necessary notification [191].

An ANI notification is explicitly required when bringing someone to ANI and should never be conflated with a warning. I just a few days ago gave about 6 people AN notifications because I mentioned them, with there being clearly no warning. (I did not suggest they had done anything wrong, or there to be any real discussion of their actions but gave it just in case.)

It seems to be fairly reasonable to warn someone and then having a closer look decide to bring them to ANI. The older warning could be deleted, but frankly it's probably often better to leave it be since there's no guarantee anything will happen from the ANI, and it may be gone by the person sees it. Provided the ANI comment doesn't suggest the latest warning was ignored, I don't see why there is any problem with that.

Frankly it doesn't really seem that bad giving someone a second strong warning if after checking more carefully you realise that they have been warned before. After all, this probably arises in part because the editor regularly clears out their talk page without archiving. Which they are fully entitled to do, but still makes it easier to miss the history.

And while I guess the first warning could have been deleted when giving the 2nd one, frankly meh it doesn't seem to matter much. Especially since because the first warning was non templated and the second one only partially, it's only part redundant. See this example, where with some minor modifications I've turned that 2 warnings into basically one fairly coherent and fair even if perhaps not perfectly worded, warning [192].

The only real nitpick is it probably would have been better to decide whether to give the 2nd warning or bring to ANI.

Nil Einne (talk) 04:28, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

You are right, there were two warnings and an ANI notification. In the meanwhile, Polarbear001 blanked their talk page; this was so far their only edit in April.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:37, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Ahrtoodeetoo

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

E. W. Priestap was the assistant director of the FBI Counterintelligence Division from 2015 to 2018. Testimony given by him to the Senate Intelligence Committee that Russian officials had used "fake news and propaganda" during the campaign for the U.S. presidential election in 2016, seems entirely relevant to his article. Editor Ahrtoodeetoo has removed the statement, as he has done three times previously with similar information [193], [194] and [195] (4 reverts in total). These reversions are against policy. The matter has been discussed on the article talk page without success. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:36, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth has refused to explain how this material is encyclopedic / biographically significant (i.e. satisfies WP:NOT) and instead has repeatedly DEMANDED that I restore the content. I suspect they don’t understand how to build consensus and so have resorted to foot stomping. I am on vacation with limited bandwidth through April 17. R2 (bleep) 14:18, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Is this what you're calling "demanding"? Argento Surfer (talk) 16:27, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

I was thinking more of this. R2 (bleep) 19:43, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Still seems like a polite request to me. He says "please" and even calls it a request. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:40, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I've applied full protection to the article in order to direct all users involved in the dispute to discuss the issue and come to a consensus together. Please follow Wikipedia's dispute resolution protocol and work things out on the article's talk page. This is the administrative action necessary as far as action that will be taken here; everyone needs to discuss the matter here. Thanks :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:13, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Before anyone here asks or bring this up: No, the current revision will remain as-is during the time that the article is protected. Unless there's a serious violation of policy present on the current revision (BLP violation, copyright violation, etc), changing the article to a "better revision" would be inappropriate for me to do (unless consensus by all editors involved agree and point to a revision on the article's talk page). Otherwise, I'd be choosing sides in the dispute and favoring one side over the other by changing it. That's the "luck of the draw" when it comes to full protection; whatever the current revision happens to be at the time is the revision that stays. Sorry... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:18, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

@Oshwah: I am disappointed in the outcome of this thread which was supposed to be about the aggressive behaviour of editor Ahrtoodeetoo. Instead of reprimanding him for his behaviour in repeatedly removing reliably-sourced material, you have rewarded him by protecting the article in its reduced form. Please could you instead consider whether there is any merit in his claim that the material he removed was unencyclopedic. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:56, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth - This appeared to be a content dispute to me, but I'll be happy to take another look and review the edits that Ahrtoodeetoo made again. Stand by... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:00, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth - While I feel that Ahrtoodeetoo's removal of content is a bit aggressive, his arguments behind the reason for removing the content appear to be in good faith and with the belief that there are issues with the content and the references cited. Therefore, I stand behind my decision that this is a content-related matter that needs to be discussed and worked out on the article's talk page. Administrators who are acting in the capacity of their responsibilities on this noticeboard and in a discussion like this one (where the issue is content-related and not a matter of resolving policy or guideline violations) aren't going to respond by choosing a side and a favorable revision and work to bring the article to that revision. That would be a very inappropriate thing for them to do. Their responsibility in this situation is to stop the disruption and edit warring, determine what the root issue is regarding the edits and the dispute, take the appropriate actions (if applicable), and send the involved editors to the aritcle's talk page to work things out. Wikipedia's dispute resolution protocol is the guideline to follow, and if Ahrtoodeetoo is failing to discuss the dispute with you on the article's talk page and work with you to come to an agreement or consensus, then this is another issue that can be looked into. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:30, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Sabeeh butt

Hi admins! This user is continuously adding WP:PROMOTIONal material on Jawani Phir Nahi Ani 2, along with copy paste from the content (and references) of the same page with no WP:ES. There are also many warnings on User talk:Sabeeh butt, still no response. Please deal with their disruptive edits, and check what to do with the pages they have created (with duplicative edits too). Thanks! M. Billoo 18:19, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Sabeeh butt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I ran into this user a few times making problematic edits. Here and here they made edits that were either unsourced contradicting current sourcing or possible deliberate factual errors. Then they had these two edits [196] [197], they removed sourced negative content and replaced it with unsourced non-NPOV content. Going through their contributions it seems like they have created a few AfD worthy articles. StaticVapor message me! 21:15, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Please also check Special:Contributions/39.41.161.24, seems to be same user without logging in. M. Billoo 04:50, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Yeah that looks like him editing logged out forsure. StaticVapor message me! 13:21, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

User: MantaWon editing Brandon Wade page to remove factual information

MantaWon (talk · contribs)

I've noticed a persistent campaign on Brandon Wade's page to remove references to his birth name, Lead Wey.

They are almost always done by new accounts, the most recent being MantaWon.

In the latest round, a deceptive edit was made by Dutchboy2885 here[198] under the description "Added NYT reference", when in reality it was accompanied by an unexplained removal of references to Lead Wey.

When I reverted it, MantaWon reverted it back. Note that there is a pattern of new users that only edit Brandon Wade's page to remove his birth name, including Aussiebear99[199], Jazzman987[200], SpanishBird00[201], and Gemface212[202]. All have removed references to Lead Wey.

exeunt (talk) 19:48, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

You should notify every one you mention in your report about this converstaion.209.152.44.201 (talk) 20:08, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Added notifications to mentioned users' talk pages. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 14:47, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Possible hoax article:

A guy on 4chan claims he made a hoax article on a genocide that he made up. Assuming he's telling the truth, that means there's probably a stub article somewhere on a fake genocide. He says it's 2 years old. Harizotoh9 (talk) 00:52, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Assuming that anyone on 4chan tells the truth is a big assumption. Irony, trolling and shitposting are all part of the daily fun. It may be a poor joke about The Holocaust being a hoax, which is a recurring theme of 4chan. Even one of the posters in the /int/ thread suggests that OP is shitposting. Without further evidence, this should be taken with a large pinch of salt.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 04:37, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Harizotoh9 requesting you to get further details about the hoax article. (a link would be nice ). Without which as Ianmacm said (to which I totally agree), nothing much can be done here. --DBigXrayᗙ 05:42, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't think it was a joke about the holocaust as they said the article was 2 years old. If another person edited it, they may have added it to a cateogry like Category:Genocide. Searching through there for stub articles 2 years old might find it. It's a bit of a needle in a haystack. And that's even assuming they're talking about the English Wikipedia! Harizotoh9 (talk) 19:26, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Because a fake genocide doesn't have a lot of real-world impact, I searched for articles with an orphan tag mentioning genocide, didn't find anything matching the description. I also searched for articles in the basic Stub category, finding nothing. Found nothing for articles with articles with Stub-class or Start-class templates. Found nothing that looked appropriate (created approx 2 years ago, creator account has low number of edits, article size is small, low number of links from other articles) doing a general search of articles with "genocide" in the title and "citation needed" somewhere in the text. Are there search tools more powerful/configurable than the general search function? Because I had to check most of that manually, and it would have been easy to miss things. Safrolic (talk) 19:54, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Zak Smith is having problems 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.

---

• Zak Smith (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The article is just coming off of a week of full protection and the edit war is continuing. The short version is that the guy had abuse allegations leveled at him, and there were resulting career consequences. These are covered by a reliable third-party source, and the overwhelming consensus on the talkpage is to preserve the section.

I myself am at 3RR and need to stop, but I'd appreciate eyes on this page. I'd also appreciate someone with more experience than I having a look at the last section of the talkpage, which contains a very long comment from the most recent user removing the allegations. It feel very litigious to me, but again, I'm not very experienced and would prefer another set of eyes. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 22:31, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

NekoKatsun, Protected by Ad Orientem with 1 user blocked for making legal threats. I'll leave this open for an admin to close following and WP:RfPP reuqest. RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} 23:02, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Phew, thank you! Much obliged! NekoKatsun (nyaa) 23:03, 12 April 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.

• Post Closing Comment There may be some BLP issues here. As I am involved in my capacity as an admin I am reluctant to edit the article but extra eyes would be appreciated. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:20, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Legal threats on my talk page

Hello fellow admins, a user has posted a threat of legal action on my talk page. When I suggested they retract it, they appear to have doubled down. Not comfortable blocking, since I personally am being threatened. The thread is User talk:Diannaa#Alberta Odell Jones. Thank you, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:46, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Stwalkerster already did what needed doing. Favonian (talk) 13:48, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I was shocked and alarmed and didn't realise it was already being handled. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:57, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Twinkle abuse by Shervin27

Shervin27 (talk · contribs) added information to the Ayanda Patosi article, which I reverted, citing WikiProject consensus and a recent RFC (linked on the article talk page-- which he has not commented on). He has continued to revert me using Twinkle, which is a clear case of WP:TWINKLEABUSE - 1, 2, 3 (especially #2 as they have used Twinkle to revert good-faith edits without using an edit summary). Please can somebody review and action accordingly. I am about to leave for a weekend away. GiantSnowman 14:16, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Warned for edit warring – but you should both stop reverting. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:43, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! (and I did; I stopped editing, raised at talk page and raised here.) GiantSnowman 11:57, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

User:PPP001 mass creating uncited stubs

First, my apologies if this is malformed, but I try to stay away from ANI, so can't remember if this is the first time I've ever begun a discussion. Regardless, this new user has been mass creating stub articles regarding political subdivisions in India Malaysia. From the beginning, they were creating these stubs without proper sourcing, as you can see here, but back then they responded by adding a valid source, as you can see here. Shortly after that, they were asked to format their references, rather than simply adding raw links, see this. And they responded to that request positively. However, the very next day, they began to create stubs without valid references, see here, and again when informed, they began to make corrections. Recently, beginning April 10, they started to mass create these stubs, and were using an invalid reference (see Bebar (state constituency) as an example). They were informed numerous times about this issue, see User talk:PPP001 and Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers#Large number of constituency stubs by PPP001. However this time they are not responding, and are simply recreating these unsourced stubs. This is taking up the time of a number of editors. I feel a short, temporary block might be needed to get this editor to slow down and simply provide valid sourcing for their articles. I would have waited longer after Elmidae posted a specific comment on their talk page, but they are still ignoring the messages and have begun a new recent spurt of these article creations, like Tioman (state constituency).Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:59, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

It's a long way from India to Malaysia, tbh. This is their article creation; I did a spot check and they all seem to be sourced to a government publication, which is presumably a RS. now, maybe I missed one, but what we seem to have here is an editor who is a) creating content b) responding "positively" to requests and c) now adding references with their stubs (see latest creations, e.g [203]). We certainly have far worse.

If there's doubt about whether they pass our notability guidelines, then perhaps a bundled AfD. Or an SPI of course. But, ultimately, this seems to centre around content rather than user behaviour. Block, indeed. ——SerialNumber54129 12:15, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

A for communication, well. It certainly is an issue. They created their account on 3 March, and were welcomed by Hostbot.

They’ve got 107 messages on their talk; all except those of David Biddulph and those placed from yesterday are templates or semi-automated. '96of these messages are from Onel, the vast majority also templates—all left in the space of 25 minutes! They also include such welcomes as this gem from Vincent60030, You’re being imbecile.

I wonder; has any of this really created an environment which demonstrates the importance of communication?

Re: referencing, cf. WP:DEADREF and then onto WP:MINREF.

For clarity, I'm not particularly in favour of the mass creation of single-line stubs from a single source; to mind, that's what WP:STANDALONEs are for, frankly. But until that's codified, there's nothing to stop it.——SerialNumber54129 13:09, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

You say that he has added references to his stubs, but either the references make no mention of the subject, as in the example which you quote, or the reference link gives a 404. He is stubbornly ignoring the advice given and questions which were asked at his talk page (but which he has merely deleted), and he has made no attempt to discuss the problem. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:04, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

The source for Usukan does confirm that it is a state constituency - you just have to click on the "state" button to see it. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:09, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

• Comment - it looks like the ANI got their attention. After seeing the notification, the editor is now going back and fixing the refs at the stub articles, see Karanaan (state constituency). Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:55, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Well, if that's what it took, then mission accomplished, I guess. But really this is like having to tie someone down with earphones taped to their head before they will listen. Still no communication of any kind, I note :/ --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:30, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

...with or without templating? ——SerialNumber54129 15:35, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Well, I really do not consider it commendable practice if the only reaction to having this [204] put onto your talk page (with some very collegial notes by Sam Sailor) is to delete it and churn right on. How much more invitation to communicate is needed? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Oh, sbsolutely. Neither do I think it's a particularly commendable practice to leave a new editor 96 templated messages in the space of <25 minutes. WP:RETENTION, anyone? ——SerialNumber54129 17:42, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

It will reduce willingness to pay heed to talkpage alerts, no doubt. But would draftifying w/o notice, or letting it all sit in mainspace while the editor ignores all attempts at communication, have been better options? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:56, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

NINETY-SIX templated messages in less than an hour? WHat a futile gesture. Overkill. Seeking to up your edit count, One? 209.152.44.201 (talk) 20:38, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Do you understand that these messages are a non-optional consequence of moving to draft using the draftification tool? The only way to avoid them is not to perform the action at all. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:13, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

They obviously don't understand that, Elmidae, and their lack of civility and AGF merely compounds it. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:07, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

It's because you use a semi-automated tool. If you did it manually you could leave a note, or would that be too much work. You may not understand that, whatever the consequences of using a semi-automated tool, you are responsible for them, not the tool. Let's just hope you understand sourcing requirements (which is not immediately apparent) better than you understand the difference between—err—India and Malaysia :D ——SerialNumber54129 06:11, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

So the demand is honestly to manually draftify close to a hundred stubs not fit for mainspace - either foregoing the accountable logging and notification that are the main point of the tool, or demanding that the NPPer spend quadruple the time on the process - in order to spare an editor's talkpage sensibilities? Plus a few side stabs, while you are at it? This is getting surprisingly unreasonable and petty, from an unexpected source. I suggest we stop this here. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:25, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Looks like User:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js was the script. There's already a discussion on the script's talk page from last month about adding an option to not notify the creator. I'll write a patch to add such an option. Enterprisey (talk!) 01:13, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

I see it's now been implemented. Thanks to Enterprisey and Evad37. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 06:26, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Bonzofreak

Jonathan Mover (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Bonzofreak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Bonzofreak is an WP:SPA who has been editing Jonathan Mover or content related to Mover in spurts since the account was created back in 2007. Despite being repeatedly having edits undone and asked to discuss things on the article's talk page, Bonzofreak has may no effort to follow WP:DR and engage in any discussion; in fact, I cannot find any record of Bonzofreak making any posts on any article talk pages or user talk pages at all since the account was created. There have been warnings added to their user talk page here and here by Rodericksilly, here by Binksternet and here by myself, but there's been no response from Bonzofreak other than to keep trying to force their preferred version of the article through (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9) without leaving even an edit summary trying to at least explain why they are reverting or adding unsourced and promotional content. Concerns were raised about a possible COI at WP:COIN#Jonathan Mover and Bonzofreak was notified of them here, but there's still been no response.

Being an SPA is not a problem in and of itself, but being an SPA who refuses to engage other editors in any manner and try to follow WP:DR eventually becomes disruptive and WP:NOTHERE type of behavior, especially when it's been going on as long as this. There has to be at least a willingness to discuss things with others to try and resolve content disputes, and the COI concerns, etc. aren't going to go away as long as Bonzofreak continues to remain silent.

Since this editor basically edits in spurts, I'm not sure how much value a short block would have other than as a sort of final warning not to keep repeating the same behavior; so, perhaps an administrator could make one last attempt to encourage Bonzofreak to start following WP:DR and collaborate with others in improving the article in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines or face a fairly long or indefinite block if they don't. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:38, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Bonzofreak emailed me today, raising his concern that "someone is vandalizing the wikipedia page for Jonathan Mover" and asking me if I could help him figure out what is going on. I replied that his persistent additions of promotional text and removals of negative text were against the policy WP:NPOV, that his addition of unpublished material was against WP:NOR, and that persons with a clear conflict of interest (such as himself) should raise their concerns on Talk:Jonathan Mover rather than revert uninvolved users.

Despite my firm response I think this is a positive development. Binksternet (talk) 06:23, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

That is certainly a start, but I don’t think there’s been any vandalism, at least not per WP:VAN. Bonzofreak is certainly welcome to discuss any concerns they gave about the article on the article talk page, which I believe they’ve been encouraged to do. Perhaps they don’t quite realize that is generally the best place for such discussion to take place when others who are interested can participate if they want. — Marchjuly (talk) 07:13, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Continued addition of unsourced info despite repeated warnings

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 stated above, Puzzlepiece333 has been warned multiple times on their talk page, 3 final warnings in just the last few days and yet they continue to add unsourced info here, here and here to name just a few as well as removing sourced info here. It should be noted that user has already received a block for the same behaviour previously. Please could an admin cast an eye here, thanks. Robvanvee 19:31, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Indefblocked. Materialscientist (talk) 21:06, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Much appreciated. Robvanvee 05:21, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

BTW do you mind looking here when you have a chance please. Looks like a blocked user you blocked earlier this year socking/block evading. Thanks. Robvanvee 08:19, 15 April 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.

Page Mohammed PBHU prophet of islam

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.

---

Got a legal threat over at the Help Desk about the page Muhammad. Thought you would like to know. Whispering^(t) 20:42, 15 April 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 requests account cancellation

Could an administrator please look at User talk:Vecchio.betti.marco where the cancellation of that account is requested? Thanks. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:45, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

I think what he's asking for (although he doesn't realise it) is a block. Guettarda (talk) 03:16, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) If by “cancelled” this editor means deleted, then I don’t think that’s going to per WP:UPOL#Deleting and merging accounts. The account, however, may be blocked/locked if he’s claiming it’s compromised per WP:COMPACC. —- Marchjuly (talk) 03:28, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Yeah it's either compromised or shared. I blocked the account without autoblock, and left him a note recommending that he create a new account and enable email (so they could reset their password). Guettarda (talk) 03:31, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

This is now a CU block. See User:Marcobetticarboncini1. It's possible they're both compromised/shared, but they'll have to convince me or another CU of that.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:29, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

User Surtsicna

• Myles Ponsonby, 12th Earl of Bessborough (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Patrick Chichester, 8th Marquess of Donegall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Surtsicna (talk · contribs) has repeatedly removed relevant (for nobility) ancestry content as "unsourced and trivial". After I reverted, adding a source, and explained that there is only one R in WP:BRD, he/she reverted another time, and seems to believe that discussion is done in edit summaries.

It isn't. I asked him/her to self-revert after the his/her last revert, but he/she declined, and said "sue me".

Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by HandsomeFella (talk • contribs) 14:57, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Guilty as charged. There are as many Rs in BRD as you can roll of a tongue when the subject is a living person and the content is unsourced and challenged. This has been explained to HandsomeFella. Surtsicna (talk) 15:01, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

*off

I added a source, but you may not have noticed. And it's not that ancestry – at least not this kind – is negative or controversial. HandsomeFella (talk) 15:10, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

WP:BLP says "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source." (Emphasis in original.) The material was challenged when Surtsicna removed it, so now it's your WP:BURDEN to provide inline, reliable sources. Woodroar (talk) 15:17, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

You cited a self-published source. Extensive discussions about thepeerage.com have resulted in the consensus that it is not a reliable source. Whether this content is negative or controversial cannot be ascertained because we do not know who those people were - or whether they even existed. We are discussing a living person's family, and that should never be done without reliable sources. Surtsicna (talk) 15:18, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Yeah right, those people probably didn't exist, and he got his earldom from thin air ...

Most articles have unsourced data in them, but it's most often uncontroversial and accepted as fact without sourcing. HandsomeFella (talk) 16:33, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

He didn't get his earldom from anyone called Mountifort Longfield nor from a Marietta Turner. And this unsourced data is controversial because I challenged it. Ta-da. Surtsicna (talk) 21:00, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree that thepeerage.com is not a reliable source and should not be used. Doug Weller talk 15:35, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

thepeerage.com is not a reliable source ... and there isn't really a need to have this many generations of ancestry either - great-grandparents would be sufficient. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:42, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Actually, removing the article altogether and just having one on the earldom would probably be sufficient. There's nothing in this article that suggests that Myles Ponsonby has done anything notable. He does not appear to be part of the House of Lords or hold any other particular power. He's the hatrack on which this title currently hangs. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:23, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Proposal: Discretionary sanctions for all discussions about portals

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.

---

Look at ‎#Northamerica1000 disruption at MfD and #Legacypac and portals on this page, WP:AN#Thousands of portals, the hundred or so portal nominations currently at MfD, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Portal issues (which is heading towards being declined) various other discussions linked in those threads and it is clear that something needs to done to stop this getting even further out of hand. I suggest that community discretionary sanctions for all discussions about portals (including but not limited to MfD) is a simple and necessary first step. Specific restrictions on specific editors can then be placed as needed with much less drama than at present.

Note to everybody please keep this discussion on topic. It is not the place to discuss the merits or otherwise of portals, the merits or otherwise of portal MfDs, portal speedy deletion, portal prods, etc, etc. It is also not the place to discuss specific incidents and/or specific users (use existing sections or start new ones for this), it is intended solely for discussion about discretionary sanctions for the topic area. Proposals for and discussion of specific sanctions to be applied if sanctions are authorised should also not take place in this thread. Thryduulf (talk) 15:56, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose, at this point at least - there are a fair few negative discussions, but I don't think there's been sufficient attempt made to handle the disruptive conversations using the regular means (I suspect the prevalence of experienced editors has discouraged stricter de-escalation beyond conversation (which is a great first step, but clearly not enough at this point)). Until standard conduct review methods such as ANI have been shown, to a clear and convincing level, to not work then I don't feel we should escalate to DS - which are frequently overused and an absolute nightmare to ever get rid of. With regards to breadth, it's a relatively small group of editors throughout, rather than this absolutely hoard of disruptive editors that require a shoot first, review later policy. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:10, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
  • @Nosebagbear: Would you then care to make an attempt to handle the ongoing disruption using the usual means because nothing that anybody else has actually tried has worked so far. Thryduulf (talk) 17:18, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose as an overreaction which would not even need to be suggested if all the major parties involved turned off their PCs for 24 hours; with less WP:BLUDGEONing of each other and other commentators, preferably. ——SerialNumber54129 17:21, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support for 45 days (or other similar range of between 30 and 90 days). The purpose of GS/DS is to empower administrators to take actions to benefit the encyclopedia which might otherwise be difficult to impossible to do. As someone who doesn't see much value behind Portals but also has a "hey I'm already weird because I edit wikipedia and even among these weirdos I'm weird because of my niche" live and let-live attitude I'd welcome a chance for community discussions to play-out and consensus to form. It seemed, at least from my casual observations, that things had cooled a little when the ARC was filed but as it has become clearer that this would be declined (which I think is the right thing for ArbCOM to have done) it seems that the temperature is heating back up. It further seems from the threads I've observed at ARC, AN, and ANI (as well as the occasional talk page) that it's the same players going at each other time and time again. A timelimited GS would hopefully allow some neutral administrators the leeway to help cool the temperature back down so there is space for editors who care about Wikipedia but cannot muster the passion of a thousand burning suns around Portals and/or their deletions to (re)join in and help guide us to a conclusion but also then not continue to stick around forever. Because after we (hopefully) reach a point where consensus has been reached, there will be alignment about the way forward even if there's not complete agreement. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:04, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose I haven't seen widespread disruption as yet. The discussion is getting long and tedious, but being long and tedious is not sanctionable. --Jayron32 18:12, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose No admins will be sanctioned without a long ArbComm case where every benefit will be given the Admin, meanwhile DS will dangle a sword over the head of ordinary users who would be subject to immediate restrictions or block without discussion. DS is just another path for the proposer to get what they failed to get with complaints at ANi and ArbComm. Legacypac (talk) 18:39, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
• Comment If you liked the Infobox Wars, you'll love the Portal Crusades. EEng 01:00, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
• Comment This seems like a permanent solution for a temporary problem. With the discussion on portals spread out over so many pages, I think this adds an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy. I'll be the first to admit that the issue of portals has brought out less than ideal behavior by some editors but I think this can be handled wiith blocks for regular disruptive or tendentious editing, if this is called for. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:26, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose without any indication what kind of discretionary sanctions the proposer has in mind in which situations. Would too many nominations be sanctionable? Too many !votes which don't match the end result? Repeating arguments, already debunked in one or two MfDs, in other MfDs? !Votes without "proper" argumentation? It's unclear which problems the proposer is trying to tackle here. Fram (talk) 08:11, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

  Fram I'm clearly on a fairly small island with Thryduulf in seeing benefit for this so let me give a go at answering your questions: the problem that GS would try to tackle is general disruption to the project caused by editors who are fighting, as EEng says, the Portal Crusades. So for one disruptive editor the answer might be a limit on MfD nominations per week. For another it might be that they may not initate/comment at ANI about portals related behavior. For a third it might be a more typical behavior warning. Essentially it's appropriate sanctions ala User:Awilley/Discretionary sanctions. The goal should be to decrease the temperature and allow the project to come up to alignment for a way forward with Portals. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:54, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

  Barkeep49, I have read and re-read the discussions at both AN and ANI, and from what I've gleaned, NA1K has done nothing wrong; certainly not anything even remotely considered unbecoming of an admin. She is indeed a creator of portals - many of which represent excellent work - and has also demonstrated -0- opposition to the deletion/nomination of any portal that fails to meet inclusion criteria; therefore, not a steadfast inclusionist or deletionist as what we've seen in the infobox wars. With regards to behavior, I have never known NA1K to be either impolite or refuse/deny any editor an opportunity to openly discuss an issue in the proper venue. What I've gleaned about Legacypac is that he appears to be focused on the clean-up and deletion of portals, a large number of which resulted from a brief episode of mass creation that has since been addressed. Quite frankly, the evidence/argument he has presented against NA1K simply doesn't support his steadfast position. Based on my experiences, it seems out of character for Legacypac, and it saddens me that 2 highly productive editors are at odds over issues that can be easily resolved with a bit of productive collaboration at the proper venues. I remain cautiously optimistic that Legacypac will step back long enough to realize what a mental strain and absolute time sink this entire incident has been, and will turn his focus to other areas of the project where his contributions are much needed and appreciated, such as AfC/NPP. It's time to let others handle the portal situation for a while. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 14:02, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Atsme I feel like I made the case for this as best as I could. It's very clear the community doesn't agree with me on this and so out of respect for the consensus model I am not going to belabor this by arguing further. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:25, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

• Good God no. Never in the history of Wikipedia have discretionary sanctions "decreased the temperature"; they just increase the toxicity of already-toxic issues by forcing disputes to fester because people are afraid to comment. If an editor is being disruptive then treat them as we would any other disruptive editor. To hammer home a point that hasn't been hammered enough here, this is not an important issue since 99.99% of readers never see a portal; yes, malformed portals are a nuisance and need to be culled and yes, the mass creation constituted intentional disruption, but hardly anyone will ever see the malformed portals and I'd like to think nobody would be stupid enough to try to restart the mass creation. ‑ Iridescent 20:03, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
• No, per Iridescent. The intention is good, the plan of execution is not. Everybody involved in this mess needs to wind down the aggression and combative attitudes that have made it so much more unpleasant than it needs to be, and instead work towards resolving it in the quickest, easiest and most amicable way possible. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:40, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

When a trout just isn't enough...^Atsme _Talk 📧 20:33, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose but what if we topic ban all editors from discussing portal-related user conduct on any page other than WP:PortalFight2019, enforceable by a 24hr first-time no-warning block by any uninvolved admin? Not a joke suggestion. Leviv ich 22:58, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Portal_MFD_Results may help Legacypac (talk) 10:37, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Unnecessary, per above. SemiHypercube 🎂 13:08, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support - A few editors need to be topic-banned from portal discussions. ArbCom said that the community was handling the portal issues, so the community should handle the portal issues in the same way as the ArbCom would have, by empowering administrators to take draconian action. Strong support. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:50, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
• Comment - The Original Poster of this is Thryduulf, who is an advocate for portals. I am a strong critic of portals. But we agree that sometimes a Gordian knot needs to be cut. (Yes, the tool that is used to cut a Gordian knot draws blood, but that sometimes minimizes total injuries.) Robert McClenon (talk) 19:54, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - per Iridescent. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 21:52, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Iridescent per Levivich's earnest suggestion, but strong support for their oppose per cygnis insignis, and McClenon's support of Thryduulf's original proposal. And my axe! Insincerely, cygnis insignis 22:13, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
• Something needs to be done. I'm not sure ArbCom sanctions are necessarily needed at this point, because a topic ban as suggested by Robert McClenon (talk · contribs) might be sufficient. We really do need better guidelines on what qualifies a portal for deletion, and then purge the ones that don't fit and update the ones that do. Something that stops the portal crusades in the short term will be desperately needed... SportingFlyer T·C 01:12, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
• Something needs to be done indeed. There are many people here saying that discretionary sanctions are nor required because the usual processes are sufficient. However this requires that people actually engage with the usual processes - since I started this thread there have been at least two more ANI threads related to portal issues that have not had sufficient engagement by uninvolved admins for anything to actually result, and those listed at the top are also still open, tacitly permitting the disruptive behavior to continue. Thryduulf (talk) 08:35, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
• Doing something at random has no chances to improve anything. Only doing some right things could do that. First point that needs some right thing. The Portal:Dangun is a just created 2,857 bytes page. But it's deletion will not delete 2,857 bytes of information. To create this marvelous portal from scratch, only the 14 bytes incantation: {{subst:bpsp}} were needed. Therefore deleting the $3000+$ content-less portals will not delete $\approx 3000\times 3000$ bytes of information, but exactly nothing ($=0$ bytes of information). What to do with the repetitive clamors about don't kill our precious $10,000,000$ bytes ? Second point that needs some right thing. Many SPP=Single Purpose Portals seem very similar in their intents to these SPA=Single Purpose Accounts that are chased across the wiki. I don't think we have to try to provide a commercial advantage to KFC versus McDonalds or conversely. For the present, these portals score 448 versus 199 views per month (probably most of them from the deletion discussions): rather ridiculous than COI... but big holes start by small ones. Pldx1 (talk) 12:48, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
• At Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Mass-created portals based on a single navbox there is a single MfD where over 2600 portals are nominated for deletion in a single discussion. If there was ever an attempt at fait accompli this is it. It is claimed that all of them meet a criterion set out in the discussion but it is not possible to verify this and given the track record in this area, I am not able to trust without verification. Thryduulf (talk) 13:20, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

• @Thryduulf, it is indeed possible to verify them, because as I promised in discussion at MFD, I have described in detail the process by which I made the list, complete with the code for the AWB module I used. The process is set out at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Mass-created portals based on a single navbox/Selection process. The AWB module which I used is at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Mass-created portals based on a single navbox/AWB module. As you will see there, I have asked for others to verify the list. You are of course very welcome to test it yourself, and I hope you do so.

I note that as usual, you have made no substantive argument to make against the rationale for deletion. You neither defend nor reject the deletion rationale. Instead, you object to process solely on the basis of your assumption of bad faith. One way or another, you object to every single process used or proposed for cleaning up the portalspam.

And as usual, there is the bucketloads of ABF and smears you which deployed even at the Arbcom case request.

The claim of fait accompli is a risible piece of your usual WP:BATTLEGROUND conduct. A group of pages has been nominated for deletion on the basis of clearly set out shared criteria. Editors are free to decide whether they support deletion on those criteria, so there is no more fait accompli than in any other XFD nomination.

The funniest bit of all this, is that you proposed discretionary sanctions. That is truly hilarious. Given your repeated misconduct in smearing and maligning the editors who work on cleaning up the portalspam, you'd be near the top of the list for any sanctions applied. Luckily for you, your proposal is going nowhere. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:20, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

• The biggest fait accompli being, of course, the mass creation of something clearly inapproproate and then a refusal to assis in the clear up. Happy days indeed. ——SerialNumber54129 13:25, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
  • The biggest waste of time is having to explain multiple times in every discussion that just because many portals were created without consensus does not indicate a need to delete them all as quickly as possible, does not create a need to ignore consensus, and most prominently does not mean two wrongs make a right. Thryduulf (talk) 13:49, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

    If you have to explain something in every discussion, whatever you're explaining does not have consensus. Leviv ich 23:25, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

    @Levivich: I only have to repeat things because those who feel that the sky is in danger of falling in if these are not deleted asap (a slight exaggeration, but at times it doesn't really feel that way) did not repeat things based on the same assumptions that very clearly do not have consensus - principally that there is a deadline, that these portals are actively harmful, and that because something was created without explicit consensus explicit consensus is not required to delete it. Every discussion to date has resulted in exactly none of these achieving widespread agreement (let alone consensus), yet almost every day there is a new action, proposal or comment based on at least one of them being a statement of unarguable fact. Thryduulf (talk) 09:17, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

No one does have to say [the same thing] every day; but when one feels one has too, it's pure, distilled, unadulterated WP:BLUDGEON :D ——SerialNumber54129 13:57, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Thryduulf - I understand your frustration but my familiarity with imposed DS (and there is no denying DS and AE can be highly problematic) raises justifiable concern that the proposed resolution may create a worse nightmare than simply undoing what caused the problem in the first place. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 16:49, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose Completely unnecessary. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:17, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose An un-needed proposal, which would only increase drama. The only possible benefit of it is that it would very likely lead to discretionary sanctions against the proposer Thryduulf, whose long stream of assumptions of bad faith and unevidenced smears against other editors have repeatedly poisoned the discussions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:24, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose This isn't the way, and the naughty step discretionary sanctions would probably only serve to cause further polarisation and disharmony. I am so sad that what was last year's common sense community recognition that Portals were of value and merit has somehow turned into a Pyrrhic victory. It is such a shame that experienced and competent editors can't all work more sensibly and cooperatively for the common good of this encyclopaedia. That we are even talking about DS is quite an indictment of our behaviour over this issue. How must this look from the outside, I wonder? Nick Moyes (talk) 00:36, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
• Portal? What are they? Don't think I've ever seen one. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:13, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - I have struck my support above because I have re-thought the issue. On the one hand, discretionary sanctions could be imposed on the portal platoon of editors who are recklessly creating portals that are broken and need deleting. However, the community has shown that it is capable of dealing with reckless portal creation without DS. On the other hand, in portal deletion discussions, the point has been made that discretionary sanctions are never imposed on administrators. The current conflict over portal deletion involves disruptive activity by an administrator supporting the creation and retention of portals, User:Thryduulf, and one non-administrator, User:Legacypac, who is nominating portals for deletion and expanding MFD nominations in a way that confuses and gums up the debate. Discretionary sanctions would, in practice, only be applied to one non-administrator who is trying in a sloppy and frantic manner to clean up the portal mess. The playing field is already unfairly on the side of retaining unsound portals, in spite of the valiant efforts of administrators User:BrownHairedGirl and User:Fram, who need the community's support. Robert McClenon (talk) 11:17, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
  • @Robert McClenon: A few points of order are necessary here: discretionary sanctions can be and are applied to admins when needed. I support the creation and retention of some portals, and support the deletion of others - please stop repeatedly mischaracterising my position in nearly every discussion. I have never (attempted) to use ANI as a weapon or anything of the sort. Finally, the contributions of BHG, Fram and yourself have been a mixture of helpful and unhelpful. Thryduulf (talk) 13:16, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
    • Yes, User:Thryduulf - It is satisfactory to me that you consider the actions of BHG, Fram, and myself to be a mixture of helpful and unhelpful. I see that as meaning that we disagree primarily on content issues. I consider your actions to be a mixture of helpful and unhelpful, although I consider them more unhelpful. I consider the actions of User:TheTranshumanist to be entirely unhelpful, and I think that is also true of a few others, but have not assessed their conduct in depth. But who do you want to use the DS against other than Legacypac (noticing that BHG is losing patience with him)? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:13, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
      • It's not a matter of "using DS against" people - it's not a battlefield (no matter how much us vs them language some people employ), and even if this proposal had been successful it would not be me implementing them. Discretionary sanctions would be there for uninvolved administrators to deploy as they see fit, that might be removing or restricting one or more users from one or more discussions (which could equally be me as anyone else it was felt I was the one being disruptive), but equally it might be more general - limiting the number of concurrent discussions for example. Thryduulf (talk) 09:34, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
• Comment - What ought to be done should be to restrict User:Thryduulf from using WP:ANI as a battleground for allegations against critics of portals. However, the ArbCom has declined at this time to hear the case, and the case against Enigmaman really is more urgent. Robert McClenon (talk) 11:17, 12 April 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.

Blocked for a mean comment made a decade ago?

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 April 8, User:Enigmaman blocked User:Ribbon Salminen for "repeated personal attacks" first for three years and then for one year. That account has not made an edit for over a year. Looking through Enigmaman's edits, following the block he made this comment to a nearly ten-year old discussion, including a diff where the blocked user made an admittedly mean comment about him. The comment is also listed on one of Enigmaman's subpages. That comment was made literally a decade ago and led to a block back then. I don't see how Enigmaman's new block follows any blocking policy at all. For full disclosure, the blocked account is my old account, before I did a WP:CLEANSTART. I'm not particularly happy about outing myself, but this was such weird behavior from an admin that I felt I had to do something. I would like the block removed although I have no intention of returning to the old account. I tried to reach out to Enigmaman, but heard nothing but silence. [REDACTED - Oshwah] 17:01, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

NOTE: I've redacted and suppressed the identity of the creator of this discussion. It's clear that he/she self-outed themselves very reluctantly, and in order to file this report here. In order to protect the identity of the user following their clean start and to keep the user's identity private until they willingly disclose this information publicly, this action was determined to be necessary. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:09, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Unblocked. If you had just asked, I would've unblocked, although I'm confused about the motivation. Enigma^msg 17:14, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Excuse me, Enigmaman, but that's all you've got to say for yourself? I'm confused about your motivation. EEng 19:14, 10 April 2019 (UTC) And you shouldn't be closing a thread that's about your own behavior. [205]

You were asked. And it's your motivation that seems much more confusing. You obviously made a bad mistake here, and pretending that you didn't only makes it much worse. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:44, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

The user couldn't have asked without risking self-disclosure of their identity and connection to the account. They felt the need to discuss it here instead, and obviously for good reason; unfortunately, they had to self-disclose their identity following a clean start in order to do so (which I've resolved). ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:42, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

• Oh wow this is an incredibly bad block which requires a very good explanation. GiantSnowman 19:19, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
• A 3 year block (that was lowered to a year) for an editor that hasn’t edited since January of 2018? Could you show the personal attack that led to this block? RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:05, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

@Enigmaman: Please explain your actions here. Paul August ☎ 21:20, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Enigmaman making a bad block needs an explanation as well as an apology to the community. Closing the thread about your behavior is every bit as egregious. Please respond to the concerns here and try to restore some sense of trust in your ability to act responsibly as an admin. MarnetteD|Talk 21:33, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

• I don't even see where an explanation is needed. This is blatant retaliation and grudging. Look at the timeline:

• 20:14 8 April, Enigmaman updates his "disaster" page. On that same page, he has preserved a diff of this 2009 personal attack by Ribbon Salminen.
• Three minutes later, he blocks Ribbon Salminen, a highly established account in good standing, that has not edited in well over a year and was supposedly retired. The block was a draconian 1 year, for "repeated personal attacks", reduced from an initial decision to block for 3 years. Enigma did not provide the required block notification. Enigma also deleted Ribbon's talk page header, in violation of WP:TPO.[206]
• A few minutes later, he responds to a comment from 2009 and posts the diff of the personal attack.[207]

This would have gone undetected if not for the fact that the user has cleanstarted. The abusive block forced the user to out their connection. Enigma admits that they would have unblocked if simply asked, which means they're not even trying to pretend that there was any legitimate justification for the block. Yet, they suggest that the user has some sort of questionable motivation? This is a serious issue. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 21:41, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

• Enigmaman - I like you a lot as a person and respect you completely, but man... as an uninvolved editor and admin reading through this thread, you do need to answer the numerous calls for an explanation here, and you do need to fully outline and explain this block and what happened. My guess is that you didn't realize how old the comment was, thought it was recent by mistake, and applied a block accordingly. Even if this were the case, why such a long block duration? Three years? Even one year is quite a long time... what was the reason behind such a long block? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:05, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

• When I first arrived at this thread, this seemed like very strange behaviour on the part of the blocking admin. Then I came across their first two unsuccessful RfAs — Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Enigmaman and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Enigmaman 2. The phrase "intentionally deceptive" used by one of the !voters struck out. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 23:24, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington - Lets not dive into past RFA discussions and use decade-old comments to imply any accusations or a connection to this situation without a clear explanation of a connection and reason for doing so. I don't think that it's constructive or relevant here... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:33, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't have posted these under ordinary circumstances. However, the observations and evidences presented in the RfAs taken together with this latest example of what appears to be an egregious abuse of power (as highlighted by Swarm above), combined with their deceptive response when questioned about it, suggests a long-term pattern of abuse. This means that, at the very least, their recent administrative actions need to be reviewed by the community. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 00:02, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington - Thank you for responding and providing additional thought and clarity regarding your original comment. It's helpful in that others will understand your thoughts and the connection you're seeing, rather than possibly seeing it as an implied accusation based on completely random things. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:07, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

• Thank you for bringing this to the community’s attention, even at the risk of “outting” yourself (and a thank you to Oshwah for amending that). If this is indeed retaliatory, it’s an egregious breach of community trust, and an obvious misuse of tools. And given what Swarm came across when looking at the block, I’m not sure we should immediately assume good faith here. Per ADMINACCT, User:Enigmaman should explain both blocks, which are indeed rather Draconian. Even if others feel a block was appropriate in either case, rather than mediation or any number of other ways to reach a problematic editor, or correct disruptive behaviour... YEARS(s) should never be an administrator’s first resort. Given the user page, two severe blocks within a short duration, and one in which the user was obviously absent (who doesn’t check the contributions page?), I have to wonder if there are other blocks that should be reversed as well. Please explain yourself. (Non-admin here, obviously. I just find this concerning). Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:50, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

  You might be onto something. I decided to take a look at some of Enigmaman's recently issued blocks, and almost instantly stumbled upon this block, undone by User:Boing!_said_Zebedee as "bad block." Can't say I'm surprised. The question isn't "if" but "how many." Disgusting. 78.28.54.200 (talk) 23:58, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

  Oh dear, yes, that one. The context is at User talk:Bloger#Yet another warning, and my unblock rationale was that "This was clear abuse of admin rights in a content dispute". An utter disgrace. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:06, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

@Boing! said Zebedee: I remember that discussion; I notice that Enigmaman also abused the rollback tool in a content dispute, and I think the only reason I didn't undo the block myself is I wanted his explanation first. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:36, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

This is very disappointing to see - especially knowing that further investigation may find more issues and discover that this is an ongoing trend. Boing! said Zebedee, was there an ANI or noticeboard discussion regarding this block and unblock? Or just what I'm seeing in this section of Bloger's user talk page? Did Enigmaman offer an explanation or apology following this block that was satisfactory? Where was it made? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:17, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

That's all there was that I know of - I just saw Bloger's unblock request when checking CAT:RFU, and there was no subsequent response from Enigmaman anywhere that I saw. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:23, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Boing! said Zebedee - Aww, that's not good. There appears to be a possible trend with Enigmaman performing bad blocks, and Enigmaman's inability to take control, follow up, explain what happened, and own up and apologize (what I'd expect to see per WP:ADMINACCT). Not good... very concerning to see. I also don't like the way he followed up after applying the block either. All things aside regarding the situation and block, we shouldn't be feeding trolls or see my clarification below making comments that will exacerbate the situation and lead to more disruption in retaliation by the recipient. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:28, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

What trolls, Oshwah? I know some random tend to circle the admins like sharks, but I don’t think that’s the case here. There’s a few terse comments, but I think this genuinely comes from a bit of a shock. As I said, I’d rather people review and reflect themselves, and let Enigmaman respond. As well as keep an open mind. But this is still really concerning, even if all good faith is assumed. There’s very likely either a misuse/abuse of admin privileges, or a CIR issue, which requires attention. Barring some response I can’t foresee of course. There’s no need to “pile on”, but I think people should be able to voice legitimate concerns. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 01:16, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Symmachus Auxiliarus - To clarify that statement: "Even if you put this situation aside and assume that it's a normal block against a vandal editor, we're not supposed to feed trolls." I was simply saying that the comment was in poor taste regardless of the legitimacy of the block and the situation that warranted it. That's all; I wasn't trying to imply or call anyone a troll here. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:00, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

That makes perfect sense now, thank you. I guess the wording just threw me, Oshwah. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 02:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

You're right; it really wasn't worded that well. That was my fault, not yours... :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:21, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

(re-indenting): Apologies is this is just some reference to trolling or an essay (aside from the obvious) I’m unaware of. I watch these boards regularly, but I’ve rarely commented. I don’t really know what sorts of issues you guys run into here. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 01:28, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

• I’d recommend admins and editors just read his current talk page as well. There seems to be some concern among others regarding the severity of even his most recent admin actions. Not trying to prejudice any opinions here, but it does seem there’s a pattern of people asking why certain actions were taken, and rolling it back. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 00:52, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

And your account is an HOUR old? Who were you before? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:23, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

The answer to your question can be found on the user's userpage. Let's not change the subject. 78.28.54.200 (talk) 01:31, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Liz, we've met before. I've been on Wikipedia for like... A decade, though editing infrequently. You'll understand if you check my first registered account, Quinto Simmaco. TLDR: I've edited so infrequently I've had to make an alternate account due to inaccessibility, essentially. It's all on the up-and-up. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 02:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

• I'm reviewing Enigma's block logs, and inappropriate blocking practices seem to be the rule, rather than the exception:

• No notification, block log entry of "made better" (a personal pot-shot)[208]
• No notification, personal attack in block log entry[209]
• No notification, bizarre block duration, personal attack in log entry[210]
• No notification, no block log entry[211]
• Personal attack in notification[212]
• No block log entry[213]

It seems Enigma's been getting away with petty misconduct for so long, that he's started venturing out into making blatantly illegitimate blocks for personal vengeance. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 01:14, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

• I should note that Enigma virtually never notifies users he blocks, which is something that is required by blocking policy. Looking into his other logs, I'm already seeing bizarre behavior in other areas too. For example, he indefinitely extended confirmed protected the redirect Audrey Geisel, which was being vandalized. ECP, much less indef ECP, did not appear to be necessary. When you examine the deleted contributions, you can see that there was no disruption from autoconfirmed accounts, and the period that the redirect was subject to vandalism was fairly brief. But, in conjunction with his indef ECP, he bizarrely deleted the page and then selectively restored only the non-disruptive edits. Therefore, no one other than admins can see the evidence as to why the page was locked. Cleaning up an edit history seems fine, but when that edit history pertains directly to an admin action, it's unacceptable. I don't have time to keep digging right now, but I doubt this is the last inappropriate behavior I'll be able to find. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 01:43, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment, since this is the second time it's been mentioned. From WP:EXPLAINBLOCK: "Administrators must supply a clear and specific block reason that indicates why a user was blocked...Administrators should notify users when blocking them by leaving a message on their user talk page..." The clear block reason is required, a talk page notification is only recommended. ST47 (talk) 01:48, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
    • If a policy says you "should" do something, that does not suggest that it is optional. Nothing about the word "should" implies "optional recommendation". It is, by definition, an obligation, or a duty, the opposite of an "optional recommendation". "Should generally" or "should usually" would imply that exceptions can be made, but even if you extremely stretch your interpretation to that extent, we're not dealing with exceptions. Even if it's merely "general guidance" in which exceptions can be made (a dubious suggestion to begin with, but I'm humoring you), that still does not give one license to engage in an extended pattern of ignoring policy guidance. Regardless, I don't think your semantics would hold up at Arbcom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swarm (talk • contribs) 01:59, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
      • That is a very interesting linguistic opinion based on literally just half of the first definition given for that word. In any event, if an action is required without exception, you should change the wording in the policy to "must". Otherwise it's still just a suggestion. Though I would agree that habitually ignoring best practices for no good reason is a problem. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:07, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

The very first definition is simply “to have an obligation”. That is literally the opposite of “to be advised”. There’s no convincing linguistic ambiguity here. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 03:29, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

As I said, the first half of the first definition. The back end of the first definition already casts doubt on that. As do definitions 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and the usage notes. "Should" != "must", and if you think that a should is a must, then you should (must?) change it. Plenty of Wikipedia policies use the word "must", while others use "should". This is not an accident, and they are not synonyms, and this shouldn't be the topic here anyway. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:34, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Since there is confusion, let's clarify: if you've been adminning for any length of time, it is clear from context (i.e. how the policy is applied) is that should is used in the "it's highly recommended, though clearly there would be exceptions" realm, RATHER than the "you must do this under penalty of death" realm. To wit: for most "garden variety" blocks (i.e. standard vandalism, edit warring, gross misconduct and abuse, etc.) we always notify, or must try to. However, there are also clearly times when notification is not necessary, usually when blocking a long banned user who jumps IP addresses rapidly. In those cases, there comes a point when leaving notice is just silly, and we WP:RBI and move on. So yes, we leave notice (and I will note that every block by Enigmaman so presented above seems to be those types that mandate rather than suggest a block notice), HOWEVER, that doesn't mean that there aren't times when leaving a notice is not only unnecessary, but probably counterproductive. Carry on.--Jayron32 13:58, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

This sort of pedantic dithering about the definition and philosophy regarding the word "should" is fucking stupid. If a policy says you "should" do something, then you "should" do something. The intent is not to ignore what it says, just because you can put up some flimsy, pseudointellectual semantical debate. If your only realistic defense for consistently ignoring a policy directive is to debate the semantics of the word "should", then you're almost certainly the problem. ~Swarm~ ^{[[User talk:|{sting}]]} 08:10, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

In other words, when we’re looking at literal, blatant admin abuse, context like this becomes very relevant. To argue that an admin is repeatedly ignoring policy guidance, rather than a policy mandate, does not improve the big picture. To do so from a pedantic, semantical point of contention, that’s just ridiculously petty. I’d be happy to debate semantics of the world “should” all day, but not when we’re worried about an abusive admin. If you think now is the time to debate such a petty, inconsequential semantical point, then you’re clearly more focused on playing devil’s advocate, and engaging in dramamongering itself, than actually examining and resolving the big picture. Carry on. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 08:52, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

• • While there's clearly an issue with the Ribbon Salminen salminen block, the routine vandal blocks without talkpage notice are not really an issue in my view. For obvious vandal-only accounts or whackamole socks I don't leave talkpage notices either. It's not a matter of whether some policy text says "should" or "must"; it's a matter of common sense. Real vandals know why they are getting blocked, there's no need to tell them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:15, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

@Future Perfect at Sunrise: This is my working practice as well - when somebody is defacing an article with "poohead", they do not need a template. WP:DENY. However, I also use the stock rationale of "Vandalism", "Disruptive editing" or "Clearly not here to contribute to the encyclopedia" - snarky comments in block notices are completely unacceptable. Do not insult the vandals. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:43, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

This. Let's not let the talkpage notification issue distract from the far more serious one. GAB^gab 22:10, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

• Hi Enigmaman. I'm going to be brief and direct. This looks really bad. You need to do one of two things. Post a serious explanation for your recent and highly controversial use of the tools and be prepared to answer what I am guessing will be a lot of questions from the community and your fellow admins. Alternatively I suggest an abject apology coupled with your resignation as an admin. Anything else is not likely to end well. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:25, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Ad Orientem is correct here. With what's been uncovered so far in this discussion and in the short amount of time it's been open, this will very likely become an ArbCom case to have the committee review your use of blocks and conduct surrounding them, as well as WP:ADMINACCT. The community's trust, as expressed here, has been strongly shaken regarding your ability to hold and appropriately use the admin tools. As summarized many times above and by most users who have responded here: This is really bad. :-/ ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:33, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

"Please excuse me from ANI, I have a cough."

The Centers for Disease Control are predicting a time-limited micro-localized outbreak of ANI flu starting immediately: computer models forecast that only a single admin will be affected, and that the sufferer will suddenly recover a day or two after this thread closes. The most prominent symptom, of course, is a sudden inability to communicate. EEng 02:48, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

In this case, the flu could be fatal. I don't want to come across as giving an ultimatum, but this is not going away w/o one of hell of an explanation. And I don't think there is going to be a lot patience waiting for it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:54, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Given the amount of issues that have been uncovered in this discussion, I think that an ArbCom case is warranted regardless of the explanation provided for the block that let to the creation of this discussion (and even others). There seems to be too many separate cases and issues regarding the use of admin tools to consider otherwise... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:00, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

What a miracle it would be if just once an admin in this situation were to save the community the trouble by resigning without fuss. EEng 03:22, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Why has no Admin not closed this thread as "nothing to do here" yet? Follow normal procedure people! Legacypac (talk) 04:35, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

The thread remains open in case Enigmaman wishes to respond. It is also useful to keep others aware to be on the lookout in case a new bad block is made in which case a WP:PREVENTATIVE block should be placed on Enigmaman MarnetteD|Talk 04:43, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

The discussion is open to allow input from the community regarding this situation and Enigmaman's use of admin tools. We're also waiting for Enigmaman to respond to this discussion. Closing it would be inappropriate. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:45, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Oshwah, jeesh. Lpac was being sarcastic. EEng 07:30, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Oh. :-) My bad then... I thought to myself that this was a weird response to add here... this explains why... XD ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:58, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

• The pattern of conduct here and the deafening silence means an ArbCom case is likely necessary. GiantSnowman 07:43, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

  At what point do we go "yep... they're not gonna respond and they've got the flu" like Eeng said above and just file that ArbCom case? I'll do so now... but I don't wanna look like I'm assuming bad faith. I kinda feel like regardless they need to provide these answers within an ArbCom case. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 08:01, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

He hasn't edited since his comments here 15 hours ago (ish, if my maths is correct) - his editing pattern shows him online and editing just about every day, so give it a few more hours. If still silent, then I think it's fair to assume he is putting his head in the sand... GiantSnowman 08:07, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I've also emailed him - "It would be really helpful if you could please return and comment on the ANI thread. I understand this must be a concerning time, but ignoring it won't help." GiantSnowman 08:08, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Maybe it's just a case of ANI runny nose. EEng 08:10, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

@Eng AN/I is generally just fake news. XD Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 08:15, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

It's quite likely that Enigmaman is in the United States, which would mean that he's probably asleep at the moment. I think we should wait for 24 hours plus a few since his last edit before taking this to Arbcom. Maybe the miracle that EEng described above will happen. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:19, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

He did not edit since his edits in this thread, and the editing pattern shows he is typically making several edits per day. I would say waiting for a couple of days (assuming he has not edited in the meanwhile) seems quite reasonable to me.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:49, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I think that an ArbCom case would be a fair next course of action, regardless of Enigmaman's responses here. A case request at ArbCom doesn't have to be made and decided based off of the issues alone (although that's a very key part in the formulation of a good request); it should also examine and take into account the amount of trust and confidence that the community currently has regarding Enigmaman and his/her ability to hold the admin user rights. If that community trust and confidence is clearly shaken or comes into question (no doubt it certainly has), ArbCom has generally accepted these case requests regarding admins and their conduct and tool use in order to evaluate everything from all angles, and impose binding decisions and sanctions that the committee feels is necessary or needed in order to put a stop to the issues and prevent future problems (whether that be restrictions, bans, or the removal of the tools altogether). ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:53, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

• Apart from the Audrey Geisel indef protection pointed out above, there's also

• 2017–18 Los Angeles Lakers season, which was indef-protected more than a fortnight after the last vandalism and remains so till date... I couldn't notice any long-time disruption on the article to warrant an indef-protection. I may be wrong.[214]
• Tim Hardaway Jr. – again, indefinite protection with the explanation "trade rumors" of an article that has been protected only once in its lifetime for a week. No vandalism reverted.[215]
• User:Anonymous editor – indef-protecting the user page of a user who last edited in 2006, with an explanation "no reason for this".[216]
• User talk:PMDrive1061 – indef-protecting the user talk page of a user who last edited in 2014, with no explanation,[217], and bringing back a talk page that the user had already taken out years ago (explanation provided: "talk").[218]

There are many other examples; I'm just tired of trawling to say what is obvious. Something's funny and we should probably get this done without delay. Lourdes 09:16, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Uhm, the userspace log entries you listed above aren't "protections", they are essentially "unprotections", i.e. changes of old indef-full-protected pages to semiprotection. Those seem not unreasonable. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:35, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

The protection of PMDrive1061's talk was placed by DeltaQuad in 2011 with the rationale "User has left, pages have been targets below, no opposition to unprotection if required/requested by user" (emphasis mine). No reason was given for the unprotection, and the only reason Enigmaman did it was because of this RFPP comment that mentioned "Admin PMDrive1061 who locked it [ Alex Olson ] is retired". Unprotection was neither required or requested by PMDrive1061. Certainly nobody asked for Enigmaman to remove the retired template. If somebody's retired, respect their wishes, don't just unilaterally use your tools on what you think should be done without any discussion. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:55, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Arbcom case, please. I had a quick look at Enigmaman's contributions. Immediately I see him deleting Audrey Geisel with a rationale of "this does not need a page" (in whose opinion?), and when restoring it after being asked politely which CSD criteria he was using, extended confirmed protected with the rationale "disruptive edits" (where exactly and from whom?) and deleting a whole bunch of edits from it (although the edits were mostly vandalism and reverts thereof, policy is only to redact / oversight in extreme instances, never delete entirely). Then we have User:Martinb22/sandbox deleted with a summary of "mental handicap" (WP:NPA?) and Draft:List of rulers of the Gurma Mossi state of Pama with the rationale "bot pestering me" (what CSD criteria is that?) That's a total dog's breakfast and several policy violations in ten minutes of looking. I notice Swarm has already mentioned some of this above, and I apologise for only skim reading the thread before doing my own research; still it proves that at least two admins have concluded there is a problem. Enigmaman, you need to get back to this thread ASAP and, in the words of Blackadder, I would advise you to make the explanation you are about to give... phenomenally good. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:43, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

That "mental handicap" comment added to the deletion reason is absolutely unacceptable, regardless of the situation. Even if Enigmaman was G5'ing a page created by an LTA user causing severe abuse and disruption, comments like these - especially in admin actions - will only feed the troll and encourage them to continue what they're doing. Definitely not behavior that I expect to see from an admin... :-/ ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:53, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I am not happy about Enigmaman's adjudication on Peter Lemongello, where he blocked the IP who credibly asserted to be Lemongello, while the other party in the edit war (restoring claims of kidnapping and arson cited to People magazine with equally incivil edit summaries), Vinylstud97 (talk · contribs) got off scot free. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:19, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

• And, generally, I am not a fan of crowds with pitchforks. I did not look at all the details, though diffs which I checked indeed look problematic. However, as a complement to problematic diffs, I would like to see evidence that the problems have been pointed to / discussed with the administrator, and they did not (or, actually, did) correct their behavior. This might be or might not be the case here, but generally for most administrators one can find diffs of some actions they were not really proud of. If indeed an ArbCom case is filed, an important part of the case must be an investigation how they reacted when the problem has been pointed out to them.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:48, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Ymblanter - I agree. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:54, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes Ymblanter, I agree too, but given the number and seeming egregiousness of the problematic actions, the absence of such discussions certainly would not preclude some sanction by ArbCom. Paul August ☎ 15:02, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I also agree with Paul August here. There are many things to take into an account when looking into cases such as this. As stated by Ymblanter: Whether or not the user (in general, not referring specifically to Enigmaman) has been given the chance (or how many chances and opportunities were given) to improve their edits and behavior following feedback and notices left asking them to stop is something that certainly can be examined and taken into account by the community (if they choose to do so). Another aspect: Whether or not the user, given the feedback or notices left about issues or problems with their edits or actions in the past, have honored such feedback and actually ceased such issues or behaviors and stopped them from happening again. However, as Paul August and many others have pointed out here: judging the issues as a whole will be a balance between these different viewpoints. Whether or not the user was asked to stop the behavior before, and how the user has responded to feedback in the past and worked to put an end to issues - are aspects that can only be considered up to a point depending on the issues and problems. If the issues are eggregious, severe, neglegent, or abusive enough (again, I'm speaking in general and not specifically referring to Enigmaman) - these aspects begin to lose their importance, relevance, and their consideration by the community... :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:42, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I think we are in full agreement here (again, I did not really look into the case and did not try to find the diffs). For example, it is pretty clear that if an admin vandalized a page and reverted the vandalism revert (or made sure vandalism was not accidental) they must be desysopped, and no feedback is needed. And there is the whole range between this and blocking someone for 48 hours rather than following the usual practice of 24 hours. Without looking at the details, I do not know where we are here.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:03, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

And administrators are expected to keep themselves up to date with policy and expectations? If Enigma's actions encroached into gray areas, areas of doubt, then it would be unfair to expect a behavioural change without previous advice. But, man. Most of this stuff is blatantly out of line; calling people "useless", e.g., should not need to be advised against. ——SerialNumber54129 15:12, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

• There's a few really odd blocks in there as well. Not wrong as such, just weird. here's an account inserting really unpleasant anti-semitic material, an obvious indef - blocked for 9 1/2 months (?). Or obvious spammers - these should also be indeffed - this one got 1 year but this one only 48 hours. Strange. Black Kite (talk) 15:29, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Er, what? Enigmaman blocked someone for one year for one edit that wasn't blatant vandalism? The user was trying to put a link to a match in the article, merely in the wrong place. Easy newbie mistake. Unless that was a checkuser block, or an obvious link to a LTA case, that's complete and utter overkill. Anyway, that's enough with the torches and pitchforks, we now need a response. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:18, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Fsdget345 (talk · contribs) was probably also editing as 180.245.126.33 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), which would explain the block (assuming the link qualifies as spam). Abecedare (talk) 16:55, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, it was a link to an illegal Internet stream of a boxing match. Black Kite (talk) 17:38, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

• Ben reviewing this and it looks, like, really bad not sure anyone documented this one yet: "21:08, 20 January 2019 Enigmaman (talk | contribs | block) blocked The Guy From Your Local Walmart (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of 1 decade, 2 years, 2 hours, 9 minutes and 36 seconds (account creation blocked) (Vandalism-only account: complete twit)" so add that to the pile of weird block with unecessary personal attacks. As someone who, sadly, has particpated in a number of arbcom cases involving admin abuse, both as a party and an arbitrator, I do think there is a case here that the committee would accept, given the amount of evidence already present in this thread and Eningmaman's aparent reluctance to address these issues. (but I'd really like it if someone else were the "designated asshole" who file it and presents the evidence this time around.) Beeblebrox (talk) 16:50, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Beeblebrox - With deep disappointment and regret, I can be that person and file a request at ArbCom. I think that a request and case is warranted given all of the issues uncovered here. They're too plentiful in number and too concerning and against policy to argue otherwise... :-( ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:34, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

• Support opening an Arbcom case with much regret. Enigmaman has had sufficient time to post something... even if just a "Hey everybody, I need a little time to lay out a response." Also I very strongly suggest that Enigmaman refrain from any use of the tools until this business is resolved. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:44, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
• I am going to go against the crowd here and say that unless there is reason for emergency action to stop ongoing abuse, any user should get at least three days (a week is better) to respond to an ANI filing that has no previous warnings. People take long weekends off. They have computer failures or ISP problems that take a few days to fix. They spend a couple of nights in jail. They have to drop everything to travel out of state because of an unexpected death. Or maybe they just need two or three days to think about it before resigning under a cloud and ending the ANI case that way. Enigmaman has 12 years and 40,000 edits with a clean block log. We can wait a week for him to respond. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:10, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

All of the above  :) ^^^ but, except for the fact that the bloody thing has already been filed, I agree with Macon, a few days wait—for explanations, discussions, cooling offs?—can't do any harm. ——SerialNumber54129 18:40, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Agree. We all know what's almost certainly going on here, but there's no emergency and no reason not to give benefit of the chronological doubt. EEng 18:53, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Minor correction: I was under the impression from the discussion above that this was without warning. I just looked at the arbcom case and saw a link to User talk:Bloger#Yet another warning. If anyone has other examples of such warnings, please post them here or at arbcom. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:54, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom case request

• Given the issues found in this ANI discussion, the concerns expressed by the community, and the comments made here supporting an ArbCom case request be filed - I have filed a request for arbitration regarding this situation here. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:10, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Is there any logical explanation for his RevDel actions on Logan Lynn? He's redacted one of his own edit summaries (hiding the fact that he applied protection, perhaps to hide a link that was in his edit summary), four other edit summaries (for no discernible reason), and four usernames (again, no discernible reason). ST47 (talk) 18:35, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
    • That was done after a personal appeal to me from a user who said he was being WP:OUTED as a result of his edits on that page. I have no reason to doubt what he said. He asked me to remove his username from the history, so I did so. Anything that was removed from the history was strictly for OUTing concerns. Enigma^msg 18:39, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
      • That explanation sounds reasonable, thank you. ST47 (talk) 18:43, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
        • It looks a little weird to me actully. I'm assuming you know something that isn't obvious. FYI outing concerns should generally be referred to the oversight team. If there is a real possibility of outing the edits should be supressed entirely and only oversighters can do that. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:01, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Community sanction

@Oshwah and Boing! said Zebedee: Is there a particular reason for an ArbCom case instead of community sanctions, because in the end, we think we know what we are getting at. Cases would just take more time and waste everyone's time. Anyone can see that Enigmaman has failed WP:ADMINACCT at every step. --qedk (t 桜 c) 21:09, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Well, I didn't raise it, but there's no community method for desysop if that's one of the possible solutions - only ArbCom can do that. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

There's no community-established procedure for deadminship, but per WP:DESYSOP (and any DR convention), community sanctions can be imposed to revoke administrator permissions (like any other permissions), or is there something I'm missing out? --qedk (t 桜 c) 21:17, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

The listed methods are Resignation, Inactivity, Administrators open to recall, Arbitration requests, Emergency and Death. It also says "There have been proposals to implement other means of doing this, such as a process mirroring the adminship request process. See Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship and Wikipedia:Removing administrator rights/Proposal." If you follow those links you'll see the perpetual failed attempts to implement a direct community desysop process. Crats won't remove admin rights as a result of a community discussion - Wikipedia:Removing administrator rights/Proposal is a failed "proposal for the granting to bureaucrats the ability to remove sysop flags, or "desysop"", which leaves ArbCom or Stewards - and unless they think there's a case for a global lock, Stewards aren't going to interfere in en.wiki admin appointments. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:46, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

The process for community sanctions is, as far as I am aware, entirely open. And it is entirely possible that the community could TBAN someone from making any administrative actions pending an appeal to the community. This has AFAIK never been tested, and ArbCom will likely bristle at the thought. But it is allowable under current policy as far as I'm aware, and as of about a year ago, I checked and asked fairly thoroughly. GMG^talk 23:22, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

WP:TBAN is quite clear on what a topic ban is. A ban from making any administrative actions is not a TBAN, as it would not be a ban from editing a topic - so no, the community can not TBAN someone from something that is not a topic. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:34, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

• As noted above, only Arbcom can direct an involuntary desysoping. (In theory I think JIMBO may still have that authority, but it's a little like the Royal Veto. In practical terms, it's probably a dead letter.) That said, I have always felt that in really clear situations a motion of "No Confidence" by the community should have the effect of prodding a wayward admin to do the right thing. But such a motion would not be binding so if faced with an obstinate admin you are still stuck with Arbcom. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:01, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

TBAN

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.

---

Propose a TBAN for User:Enigmaman from taking any administrative actions indefinitely, pending an appeal to the community to lift the ban, which can be made one year from the time the ban is enacted, and 6 months thereafter, if the appeal is unsuccessful. ArbCom is intended to be the venue of last resort, and pending this decision we have not yet exhausted all possibility for community based resolution. It is therefor not yet within ArbCom's remit. GMG^talk 00:33, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

• Support As proposer. GMG^talk 00:33, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
  • GreenMeansGo: Could you clarify what "pending an appeal from the community to lift the ban" means? As worded, the intended duration, appeal process, and end-conditions of the proposed TBAN don't seem clear. Thanks! :) —{{u|Goldenshimmer}} (they/their)｜😹｜✝️｜John 15:12｜☮️｜🍂｜T/C 00:51, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
    • Pretty sure GMG meant until ban is enacted till it is appealed, essentially indefinitely. I've made it so it can be appealed after a year at first, and 6 months therafter. @GreenMeansGo: Feel free to revert if you do not like my version. --qedk (t 桜 c) 07:58, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
• Sounds almost like a community desysop action which I favor as a good option in general. Much faster and better than an ArbComm case. No opinion about this situation in particular. Legacypac (talk) 00:57, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose The arbcom request is likely to be accepted and even if the committee bounces it back to the community, we should take our time in systematically gathering the evidence, and evaluating it and Enigmaman's response, before deciding on appropriate action. The diffs provided so far are certainly concerning IMO but there is no emergency here. Over the next few weeks, Enigmaman's edits and esp. any admin actions they (inadvisedly) choose to take are sure to be closely scrutinized and any indication of them going rogue will be met with a swift block. Barring that we all can step back and let the process play out. I recommend closing this ANI report for now; interested editors can instead help by gathering evidence (off-wiki or in their userspace) relevant to the case for presentation at the arbcom case or at WP:AN, depending upon where the case finally lands. Abecedare (talk) 01:35, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
• For context, Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 147 § Community de-adminship processes is the last discussion I'm aware of that discussed if the community is able to ban an editor from using administrative privileges. isaacl (talk) 03:09, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

  Which seems to have been started by me, I was pretty surprised to see it after all this time. --qedk (t 桜 c) 07:43, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

  Just to summarize for anyone not willing to delve into it: people were surely into the idea of having a process (except Tony and one another) but were reluctant that it would be feasible, given the general unwillingness of the community towards change, better or worse. I eventually let the thread be as I was confident people didn't feel strongly enough about it to care and change convention so me making any move on the issue would essentially fall flat on its face. --qedk (t 桜 c) 14:25, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

  Similar to recall. Is that still around and is it ever used? Enigma^msg 16:35, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Still around see Wikipedia:Administrators open to recall. Paul August ☎ 17:55, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose for both procedural and policy reasons. Probably we should archive all this and see the last show of the circus before it leaves town. Lourdes 05:36, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support in principle and the aim as well. This is not a witch hunt, this is a stop-gap to prevent further violation of core Wikipedia policies by a community-elected administrator. I do not find any logic in having 3 months wasted over this at dramacom with absolutely no guarantee that it will end in the way it is supposed to. --qedk (t 桜 c) 07:43, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - This is not a reasonable proposal. ArbCom is intended to be the venue of last resort for disputes, not blatant admin abuse. Per WP:ADMIN#Arbitration Committee review, ArbCom may step in at any point if they feel an admin-related issue is serious enough. Based on the WP:RFAR, Arbcom is obviously going to accept the case, which means that this sort of "failsafe" is not necessary. In the event that Enigma is brazen enough to abuse the tools going forward, which I don't think is a realistic scenario, Arbcom can and would simply perform an emergency desysop pending formal desysopping. This AN/I thread is, at this point, an unnecessary and fairly-meaningless fork of a pending ArbCom case, and it should be closed so as to not distract from the actual case. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 08:04, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose both on procedural grounds and on the merits. This is an attempt at forcing a community-desysop process through the back door. We don't have a community desysop process, because all such processes that have been suggested over the years have been rejected, and if we ever were to install one, it very certainly wouldn't look anything like this here. On the merits of the case: I see one weird (and as yet unexplained) block from the other day that was clearly bizarre and suggests a profound momentary failure of judgment, but didn't do any factual harm. I see another arguably bad block that was a year ago and wasn't followed up on. Apart from that, I see trivialities like occasionally swearing at vandals, which definitely don't warrant a desysoping, plus several accusations being bandied about that are evidently factually false. Let Arbcom look at the situation if they think there's more than meets the eye, but handling it via mob-with-pitchforks is not the way to go. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:07, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - this is with ArbCom now. GiantSnowman 08:12, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. Like it or not, we have agreed at English Wikipedia that Arbcom makes such decisions. Its processes are bureaucratic and long-winded, but it has the power to perform an emergency desysop pending the final decision if necessary. Continuing a parallel process here only adds to the drama. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:24, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. Topic bans are bans from editing specific topics, and the admin tool set is not a topic. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:30, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

  To expand a little, "The purpose of a topic ban is to forbid editors from making edits related to a certain topic area" - per WP:TBAN. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:40, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

  @Boing! said Zebedee:-What about the scores of TBan(s) that restrict users from moving any article, without initiating a RM or something like that? ∯WBG^converse 13:55, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

  I think those are fine, as I see moving articles (ie renaming) as being part of the editorial process and coming under its umbrella - and within the intended scope of TBAN policy. But bending TBANs as a way round the community's unwillingness to implement a desysop procedure is not, in my view, within their intended scope. I'm a long-term supporter of community desysop, but the consensus has always been against it, and I will oppose attempts to evade that consensus by stretching the use of policies not intended for the purpose. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:05, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

  (I've just re-read that, and I want to stress that I don't mean anyone is deliberately trying to evade community consensus - I really just mean that I think proposals like this are contrary to that consensus. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:37, 12 April 2019 (UTC))

  Well, call it a TBAN, editing restriction or what have you. Perhaps choosing to call it a TBAN is unnecessarily distracting. Either way it would be a community sanction restricting on-wiki actions according to the disruption present in the particular circumstances. The community can and has enacted tailored sanctions of all sorts, and if we can reach a consensus to enact revert restrictions, restrictions from using rollback, huggle, from XfD, from XfA, and everything else under the sun (including at least one community restriction on "special signatures"), then I don't see a policy based reason to think that's limited by anything other than consensus. It wouldn't be a community desysop, and the person subject to it would not require an RfA to overturn, but merely the consensus of uninvolved editors.

  Having said that, while I was interested to see if this might be a good test case, it doesn't seem that it is. So anyone can feel free to close this, and everyone can settle in for an ArbCom case that I presume will be worked out some time before Autumn. GMG^talk 17:31, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

  An editing restriction prohibiting the use of administrative privileges would be functionally equivalent to a removal of privileges, and a removal of the restriction by community consensus would be functionally equivalent to a restoration of privileges. I agree with Boing! said Zebedee in that a community consensus for removing and restoring privileges in this manner is needed, given the history of past discussions on this topic. isaacl (talk) 19:14, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose - this is not the right venue. Are we seriously saying that an admin, even one under a cloud, cannot take adminstrative actions such as revdel in the case of serious BLP violations, or block a vandal that they come across, merely because there is an ARBCOM case pending open? That is the effect of the proposal as written. The admin in question should be under no doubt that their every move will be scrutinised by some editors, and is advised to be extremely cautious in the use of the tools in the meantime. But a TBAN is not the answer. Let ARBCOM do the job they are there to do. Mjroots (talk) 09:56, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose mainly per Phil Bridger. If there was a problem with Enigmaman using their tools during the ArbCom case, ArbCom can enact a motion to prohibit them from doing so. No need for the rest of us to interfere with ArbCom's handling of this case as they see fit. Regards SoWhy 10:03, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
• Pile-on oppose; this is a blatant attempt to slip a "guilty until proven innocent" process in via the back door. Regardless of whether you like it or not, Wikipedia's longstanding process is that Arbcom makes decisions about desysopping; there are good reasons for that policy and this thread is evidence of one of the primary ones, that angry mobs on drama boards are prone to knee-jerk overreactions whereas the glacial pace of Arb cases allows calm examination of whether something is actually a serious problem or just a momentary blip. If you don't like one of our policies then start an RFC to change that policy. ‑ Iridescent 08:16, 16 April 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.

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.

Possible misuse of rollback by User:Agaba Perez

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 raised on this talk page, Agaba Perez appears to have used rollback on an IP to revert non-vandalism without discussion, and did it earlier, which is getting close to edit warring. Perez also rolled back another non-vandal IP edit, so this potential misuse of rollback is concerning, especially since they were given the flag less than 3 days ago by Edgar181. I'm questioning whether this user is worthy of having rollback at all, making these mistakes. SemiHypercube 01:48, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

• I support removing their rollback rights, the user should know what and what is not eligible for rollback. --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 01:51, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

  Support revocation of rollback. I've reverted several dubious uses of the privilege, and seen more, and that's after a pretty cursory look at the edit history. 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:03, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

SemiHypercube, I am not seeing a reason as why the user was upgraded to rollback, nor any archives of approved rollback requests in the permission archives, strange. Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 02:03, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, this was the first use of rollback on April 14 [219]. It made no sense, and was reverted. 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:08, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

This was the second use [220]. I think we have to go through all of them. 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:10, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

I think the admin hit the wrong button and given the user rollback by accident. Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 02:11, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

another misuse user clearly does not know what rollback is. Please remove the rollback right from the user Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 02:14, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

And this [221]. 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:17, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

As well as several others I reverted, including this [222]. 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:18, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

And even more.... here in which I just reverted their rollback. Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 02:19, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

here too Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 02:20, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure, Thegooduser, what the problem was with them restoring the photo. 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:30, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Removal of the photo would be unexplained content removal, which twinkle's rollback or an undo should be used and not rollback, but feel free to revert my edit if you think I am wrong. Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 02:33, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Per this section Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 02:35, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Anyways, I've reverted back to a previous revision. Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 02:36, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Understood. Sometimes the reversions are correct, sometimes not, but they're using the rollback indiscriminately, and often when there's been no obvious vandalism. 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:47, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

• I was this close to yanking the privilege, esp. after the odd comment on the IP's talk page, but I want to know what User:Edgar181 thinks. Drmies (talk) 02:45, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Drmies, I might be a little repeating myself here, but Edgar181 gave no reason in the summary as to why they upgraded the user to rollback, Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 02:51, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
    • That may be so, but Edgar has been here longer than me and I'm not going to undo their action without at least knowing that they know about it. As for PERM--is there some requirement that rollback needs to be asked for in some specific way? If so, I'm not aware of it. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:04, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support the removal of rollback from this user , but I agree with Thegooduser and that there was no WP:PERM request for rollback . Kpgjhpjm 03:02, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Special:Diff/892447147. There doesn't need to be a request on a particular page. Maybe there should be a reason in the log, but it's rarely difficult to figure out. I have to say it's the kind of request I would review with an extra overdose of oversight. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 03:04, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Zzuuzz, Oh okay, thanks for that link, but shouldn't Egdar181 put a reason in the userrights log? Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 03:15, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Often a log reason would say something like "per request", which honestly wouldn't add any value. Is it best practice to link to the specific request and response? Maybe. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 03:18, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

If you look in my log, I requested to have my rollback removed and given back right after to solve a technical issue and Xaosflux Put in the link where I requested it. Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 03:20, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Xaosflux is of course the epitome of best practice. I notice your other logs aren't so specific - my rights log doesn't even have any reason at all for making me an admin. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 03:25, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

• I have removed rollback rights from this user per the consensus above. Assuming good faith sometimes has it's negative consequences, and this clearly a such a case. My apologies for the lack of edit summary in granting the right. -- Ed (Edgar181) 10:54, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
• Also, I think the user did request rollback, but it was on Edgar181's talk page and not at WP:PERM. SemiHypercube 10:57, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
  • They did. Let's not fetishize the process; Edgar was not in error in responding to it, nor in granting it, in my opinion. Drmies (talk) 13:48, 17 April 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.

Bing.aguilar.752

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.

---

• Bing.aguilar.752 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Check the contribs, example. Clearly WP:NOTHERE. I wouldn't normally bother reporting such a low-edit case but they have hit on the idea of adding thoughts to User:Bing.aguilar.752/common.js where they are difficult to remove. Should an interface admin be asked to clear that? Or a regular admin might delete the page? Johnuniq (talk) 11:15, 17 April 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.

Loose cannon

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.

---

RollingStonesFANZ (talk · contribs · count)

An admin might want to put the brakes on this new user, CSD'ing mass articles. - FlightTime (open channel) 05:08, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm trying to clean up irrelevant articles...we don't need articles on random Beatles songs that never even charted. RollingStonesFANZ (talk) 05:14, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

We ? You've been here 47 minutes. - FlightTime (open channel) 05:16, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

I have now nominated Let It Be for deletion. I will stop trying to delete albums if you stop trying to get them to delete my account. RollingStonesFANZ (talk) 05:19, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Nominations like this one appear to be be in bad faith. This user may be WP:NOTHERE. Aoi (青い) (talk) 05:29, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Aoi. The subjects of these articles are clearly notable. JACKINTHEBOX • ^TALK 05:31, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

@Someguy1221: Thanx. - FlightTime (open channel) 05:31, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Indeffed by Someguy1221--Ymblanter (talk) 05:35, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

• Stones fans just can't seem to get over their feelings of inferiority. EEng 06:04, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

LOL - FlightTime (open channel) 06:05, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

I am so dedicated to the WP:NPOV that I an a fan of both the Beatles and the Rolling Stones. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:00, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

I can just about AGF Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Good Morning Good Morning if one reads the letter of WP:NSONG, but Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abbey Road is taking the piss. I wonder if this is retaliation for me filing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim and Mary McCartney (2nd nomination) the other week? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:42, 17 April 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:Aditya Mishra H1N1

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.

---

May I ask the Community to weigh in on Aditya Mishra H1N1's behaviour, initially at Burhan Wani [223] followed by their nasty comment on my talk page? It's quite unacceptable on Wikipedia IMHO, esp. given that the user has already received a couple of warnings by different editors. Thanks — kashmīrī ^TALK 17:15, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

The article content needs to be discussed on the talk page (I haven't looked into the rights and wrongs, so the only observation I will make is that changing "killed" to "neutralized" is just an abuse of English, whichever "side" someone might be on), but accusing another editor of being a terrorist is a very clear personal attack, and should result in a block. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:48, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Indeed. I will note in passing that I had already previously left what I call a "loaded welcome" on Aditya Mishra H1N1's user talk page, which included an emphatic mention of and wikilink to WP:NPOV -- although amongst numerous other wikilinks.

As a point of information, Burhan Wani has been dead for a couple of years, so BLP does not apply and kashmīrī's talk page warning about defamation was not especially well chosen for that reason. MPS1992 (talk) 18:47, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

• Blocked Aditya Mishra H1N1 (talk · contribs) for three days for disruptive and POV editing, BLP violations and personal attacks. ECPed Burhan Wani for a year under WP:GS/IPAK. Abecedare (talk) 21:11, 16 April 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:MariaSefidari

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've not seen this type of activity before: see the edits of MariaSefidari (talk · contribs), attempting to solicit an "initiation fee" supposedly on behalf of the Foundation. -- The Anome (talk) 20:31, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

It was nice of her to extend a warm and cherry welcome. 🍒 Natureium (talk) 20:34, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

They are now claiming vociferously that they are the real es:María Sefidari, etc. etc.. -- The Anome (talk) 20:37, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Might I suggest someone oversight these edits as they are both impersonation and an attempt to scam? Whether it's an actual scam or not is irrelevant as we certainly don't want gullible users sending some random asshole on the internet their banking information...Praxidicae (talk) 20:39, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Edits have been oversighted, account is blocked and talk page access now revoked. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:41, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

I suggest any funds raised so far be sent to Ponyo and Boing! said Zebedee for their assistance in dealing with this disruption. –FlyingAce^✈hello 20:44, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Wow what a scam. Drmies (talk) 20:46, 17 April 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.

Mahmoud Reza Khavari and Sam Mizrahi

There has been coordinated efforts to remove any connection between wanted Iranian Canadian banker Mahmoud Reza Khavari and Sam Mizrahi. In 2016 the globe and mail and Financial Post reported that Iranian Canadian banker who fled to Canada has invested in properties owned by Mizrahi developments and there has been legal dispute about financial issues between the two parties. Since this issue is a sensitive political issue and involves issues regarding middle east, there has been coordinated disruptive behavior to remove this connection probably by people associated with Mizrahi developments. The page has been edited to remove the sourced information from the globe and mail by User:Shemtovca multiple times over the past two years, each time removing information that was published by globe and mail, most of the time with a cover up of WP:ATP or WP:NPOV where in fact the goal was and is to remove this information from public eyes. The user El_C blocked me for trying to prevent removal of this sensitive information from this page. My edits were neutral and only presented the information that was published in the article that are from a now closed case that is public. first edit * second edit * third edit I don't think users such as User:El_C who are misusing their adminstrator access should have access to block, and anybody who is neutral to middle east issues would see what is going on here.

References

Masterofthename (talk) 04:42, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

This looks like a content dispute, which should be resolved via some form of WP:Dispute resolution as with all content disputes. ANI is never the place to resolve content disputes. Note that the basic part of any dispute resolution entails all parties engaging in discussion in good faith not accusing others of being in a gang [224] or part of a coordinated campaign. Actually such claims when made without evidence are likely to be seen as a personal attack and liable for a block. Instead the discussion should focus on whether the proposed change comply with wikipedia policy and guidelines including WP:BLP, WP:NPOV and WP:ATP and why they improve the article. Such discussions would therefore including consideration of how much coverage, if any, to give of WP:non-notable people, including relatives of the subjects of articles, in light of said policies. If even after engaging in discussion in good faith you cannot come to WP:Consensus on the way forward, the aforementioned WP:Dispute resolution page outlines possible paths forward. Since this is a BLP case, WP:BLP/N is one possible path to get more feedback. Note that part of engaging in discussion in good faith would include recognition from all parties of the possibility that they are simply wrong about what should and shouldn't be included in the article. (To be clear, this includes you as much as it includes anyone else you are in the dispute with.) Nil Einne (talk) 05:06, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

I closed the AN3 report with a warning, but amended it to a block when misconduct persisted. User has since made two unblock requests, both of which were declined. And from this ANI post, it seems as if nothing was learned. I, therefore, suspect a lengthier block to be forthcoming in the immediate future. El_C 05:08, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

My main problem with these edits is that no one seems to address why the information from a well respected journal should not be included about the subject matter, If you believe the source is not reliable present your evidence, if you think that there WP:NPOV issues present your evidence, but the other parties in this dispute just remove a clearly written well sourced piece of neutral information about the subject matter without presenting any factual evidence why, the fact is in cases like this usually the party that removes factual information gets punished not the other way around. In addition many pages involving issues related to middle east conflicts, between Israel and Palestinians and or Israel and others have been subject to intense propaganda wars by all sides in the past. My issue with user:El_C is that there was no warning to the other user about why he insists on removing factual information, and also there seems to be some sort of friendship between the two users as user:Shemtovca is able to call user:El_C to block by writing on User_talk:El_C's talk page. That is why I believe this page should be reviewed by a neutral party who is impartial to the middle east and be locked in that state until a consensus is reached among all parties involved. Masterofthename (talk) 05:43, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

This was just another AN3 report for me — these accusations of bias that are leveled against me here are unfounded. The user was bold, but their addition was reverted — now they need to gain the consensus for these on the article talk page, instead of continuing to revert war. El_C 05:53, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

I did not add anything, the page contained information regarding the lawsuit between Mizrahi and Khavari for over two years. The user:Shemtovca is insisting on removing the information that was in the page for a long time with no explanation why. Masterofthename (talk) 09:47, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

There's nothing more to discuss here. As I said above, you need to engage in discussion in good faith to resolve any content dispute. If you really can't reach consensus there are several ways you can get help. I've already suggested BLPN but there are many others. As I said before, ANI is never the way to resolve content disputes. But in any case, your first step should probably be to go back to the talk page and engage in proper discussion rather than continually making ill-founded accusations of bias. Note that you suggestion of locking the article is simply not how things work on wikipedia, so is further evidence you don't really understand how things work here. This would not be a problem if you are willing to read, listen and learn, but it is a problem if you're not willing to and instead continually make accusations about other editors without evidence or WP:edit war. Nil Einne (talk) 14:23, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Added by you — and "no explanation," really? That's just plainly false. What do you call this? El_C 18:45, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

When news publishes something about someone it is added to their Wikipedia page, and it was not done only by me, but a couple of editors and the page included that information for more than two years. It is only recently that this information is suddenly removed without any explanation why, which also coincides with petition from Iranian Canadian Congress to investigate Khavari last month. However I still have not figured out why a criminal banker from supposedly antisemitic Israel hating Islamic Republic is loved so much by people who put star of David or pictures of Lenin in their profile. One would think naturally that it should be the other way around. Its OK, I won't edit this page again, but no amount of censorship can prevent an idea that its time has come. Good luck. Masterofthename (talk) 02:46, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Nationality on Natalie Wood

I assume this change to her opening sentence is wrong. BTW, is there better place to have a bio reviewed for such changes? The last time I asked an editor to check on an edit to a bio I got slammed for proxy editing and had my sentence extended. Thanks.--Light show (talk) 16:24, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Just about anywhere apart from here would be a better place, the most obvious place being Talk:Natalie Wood. This board is for behavioural issues that need admin attention, not for content issues that can be sorted out by editors without the need for admin rights. I don't see anything malicious about that edit, but simply a slight over-enthusiasm for the hyphenated-American form based on Wood's parentage. I see that another editor has reverted the change. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:50, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

The correct place would be WP:BLPN I would say. FWIW Ethnicity/origin should not be included per WP:MOSETHNICITY. GiantSnowman 16:59, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Since Natalie Wood has been dead for 37 years, BLPN is not the correct place to discuss this. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:32, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Light show is topic banned from all biographies and should not even be discussing this anywhere. Someone else can spot and clean up potential problems with biographies. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:24, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Not always. Since another nationality discussion, with an RFC and a unanimous consensus to state it correctly, was subsequently ignored and even made worse, per MOS. --Light show (talk) 17:35, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Per NinjaRonotPirate and WP:RESTRICTIONS, and I quote: "Light show is indefinitely topic banned from any edits relating to biographies of any kind, broadly construed." Light show should have learned from the last time they got slammed that they are not to do any editing of any sort, including talk pages, user talk pages, or here, regarding ANYTHING related to any biographical article. Like, they don't exist for you. You are not allowed any input of any sort. Per WP:BMB, you don't get a "pass" on this because you're trying to do your editing through WP:ANI rather than directly. Please don't do this again. --Jayron32 17:37, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

What do you suggest for allowance from vandalism? --Light show (talk) 17:43, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

I suggest you allow one of the other 47,442,340 users to get it instead. You're not necessary. --Jayron32 17:45, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

What Jayron32 said, and, anyway, that's a red herring that bears no relation to this case. This was nothing like vandalism. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:48, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

If it's a severe BLP violation, report it to WP:AIV and mention that you are unable to revert it due to your topic ban, that will be good enough. Black Kite (talk) 19:20, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

I have blocked Light show for one week for violating their topic ban. I consider that pretty lenient since their last block was for three months starting last August. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:47, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

I explained what I consider to be mitigating factors on their talk page. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:55, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

@Cullen328: Beeblebrox (talk · contribs) last blocked LS for three months for trying to do end-runs around the TBAN; saying that it isn't a "real" violation (I know you didn't actually say this; I'm saying that any wikilawyer worth his salt would find a way to interpret what you said as meaning this) is not a good idea, since this user has had ample opportunity to figure out that "broadly construed" means that talking shit about biographical articles on a noticeboard is not acceptable, especially given that his last block was specifically for this kind of edit. Yeah, you did block him, so it's not like you're encouraging this kind of behaviour, but it seems like this pattern of finding new ways to get around the TBAN is just going to continue indefinitely, and resetting to one week with what amounts to "you found a new way to violate your TBAN without technically violating it" sets a dangerous precedent in cases like this. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:48, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Hijiri88, I have not set a precedent, dangerous or not, and this is not "resetting". I explained my reasoning on the user talk page. If the next violation is more egregious, I will block for a year or indefinitely. Thanks, though, for your opinion, but I would be grateful if you avoided putting words into my mouth. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:55, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

FWIW, I thought I was quite clear that my intention was not to put words in your mouth, but to show how easy it would be to do so. And I'm aware of your reasoning, which is why I directly responded to it. (It was actually a last-minute decision to post the above here rather than on LS's talk page immediately below said reasoning.) The recent good contributions to non-biographical topics point is just as unconvincing to me, but for reasons that are both more subjective and more complicated. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:41, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

It seems to me that User:Light show either doesn't understand what they're doing wrong or what a indefinite topic ban actually is, or they do understand but are trying to find ways to indulge in their particular obsessions. Note this in their initial request above: The last time I asked an editor to check on an edit to a bio I got slammed for proxy editing and had my sentence extended. [emphasis added]. Since it's an indefinite topic ban, "extending" it is not physically possible.

This is the same claim they made the last time they were blocked, two weeks after yet another denied appeal: I forgot. Since there was no actual rationale for extending the ban another six months [emphasis added] due to my request, other than two editors' asking that I first display an act of contrition, I guess it didn't register. --Light show (talk) 01:18, 18 August 2018 (UTC) --Calton | Talk 23:52, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Indefinite bans (usually) have a 6-month moratorium on appeals. That is, a user may only request a lifting of the ban once every 6 months. Each such request resets the clock on requesting an appeal, as do any violations of the ban; thus a user may not request an appeal of their ban for a minimum of 6 months after any of the following 1) the ban is placed 2) they appeal their ban or 3) they violate their ban. It is item #3 whose clock is reset for LightShow. Every time they violate their ban, the clock is reset on their ability to appeal. This is generally true for many, if not most, indefinite bans. --Jayron32 13:39, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

I am well aware of that. And he wasn't talking about appeals, he was talking about the bans themselves -- or are you saying that there's some way to "extend" an indefinite ban? Maybe "infinity plus one year", or something? --Calton | Talk 15:13, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

"Indefinite" isn't a synonym of "infinite". In this case, what LS is talking about is that the "indefinite period" is "at least six months", and he's complaining about the six-month clock being reset. If you want a real-world analogy, consider a criminal serving a life sentence who's been set a minimum term after which he'll be eligible to apply for parole, and is disputing that eligibility date. ‑ Iridescent 15:17, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Query

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.

---

Anyone know if we have an "SC vandal" onsite? User:PISSSTREAMINGFROMMYASS claims to be that person, which is why the account is blocked, but if this part of a larger network it should be tagged or categorized as such. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:04, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

And this one - "User:Acc creation not disabled lol" TomStar81 (Talk) 00:09, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Scratch that, Drmies (talk · contribs) got it. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:23, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

TomStar81, I ran CU--it's that one vandal, I keep forgetting their stupid name, who deals in obscenities. There's an LTA report somewhere, and a few accounts from a couple of days ago were already blocked. BTW it was your block that alerted me to the username, so thanks for that. Drmies (talk) 00:26, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

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

Personal attacks

Over at Talk:Visa requirements for Irish citizens, User:Mike Galvin has first said "you're extremely fucking rude" to me while I was simply engaging in a discussion over the content. Background on the content is that one of the indexes on passport rankings uses UN HDI as part of the equation, as per their methodology and I was discussing this in a civil manner while the other user continues to claim that the UN HDI is not used by that index, even though this is indeed verifiable within two clicks. I warned this user not to use foul language against me on that talk page, however the user went on to say "are you special needs?" in the new comment. I gave him an official stern warning on his talk page following that comment but he did not respond, rather he used the talk page of the article again to direct abusive language at me calling me a "Dumbass.". As warnings at my disposal have not been successful I hope admins can assist.--Twofortnights (talk) 21:20, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

I have politely asked them to stop. Let's see what happens. -- The Anome (talk) 21:31, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

LE

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.

---

What does the community do when a user, namely LE, declares that he or she does not intend to abide by the basic policies of Wikipedia, namely WP:NOR?

• LE on 13 April, in reference to Agricolae's explanation that reaching original conclusions through scholarship is prohibited by WP:SYNT: "Which is a clear example of the policies Wikipedia needs to abolish!"
• LE on 14 April: "Original research should be highly praised and sought after as nothing else gives any article independent value.The powers that want to make Wikipedia a pile of vomit that does nothing but regurgitate what can (and therefore should) be found elsewhere get far too much respect!"
• LE on 15 April, in response to Agricolae's explanation that WP:NOR is one of the core policies of Wikipedia: "And I trust I left no ambiguity as to my contempt for that attitude. Textbook example of 'a custom more honoured in the breach than the observance.' Praise complaint, not compliance; eschew deference, demand defiance. But on a self-published site that regards other self-published sites being self-published sites as something wrong with them, I realize the herd mentality is strong."

And while we are at it, I would also like to throw in some name-calling that most people outgrow in primary school. When he or she came up with the term Surtsickness in January, I assumed it was just a pathetic way to express annoyance with me by twisting my name. Today, however, it has been made clear that Surtsickness is meant to be my diagnosis, "the idee fixe that Wikipedia needs less of what it actually needs more of; also, irrational attachment to misguided policies that can be twisted to achieve this end."

The very least we should do, in my opinion, is thoroughly investigate this user's contribution, especially those pertaining to biographies of living people. Surtsicna (talk) 19:30, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

In this particular case, what the community ought to do is eliminate the offending policies. Obviously.LE (talk) 20:31, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

If there are certain policies you feel should be eliminated, you are free to formally propose that and work for that goal, but what you cannot do is just disregard them because you disagree with them. That is disruptive. 331dot (talk) 20:37, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

LE was much the same in a series of supercentenarian AfDs a few months back, though without name calling; LE's presence there was varying degrees of helpful and unhelpful. Here, here, and (my personal favorite) here featured the same call to arms to violate policy in the name of liking things, plus here for some more overwrought commentary (though, in fairness, that was a pretty heated discussion all around), so it's not just in this dispute with Surtsicna. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:58, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

I would not say much the same. In this instance, LE plainly says he or she is aware of the WP:NOR policy but does not and will not follow it. I now see that DrKay brought the policy to LE's attention already in January, but LE said: "To be clear, I consider anything BUT original research to have no independent value..." Surtsicna (talk) 22:57, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Different policies, but the same attitude of LE refusing to follow them if they don't happen to be to LE's liking. And the diffs from January are also quite demonstrative. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:07, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

We don't care whether anyone likes our policies or not. If someone doesn't like a policy they're welcome to try to get consensus to change it, but they can't just disregard them. Ignore all rules doesn't mean "do whatever the hell you feel like", and if LE or anyone else isn't willing to follow policy, they're not welcome here. ‑ Iridescent 22:05, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't know, more original research might be good. I, for one, miss the days of Time Cube. They don't make research like that anymore. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 23:09, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

• Further to the above, LE's response to the above was "That references are unobtainable elsewhere is precisely what makes the case for having them here. Remember, only original research can ever give an article independent value.". Can anyone see any reason not to show this user the door? ‑ Iridescent 21:31, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

  No. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:37, 16 April 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.

Brittany Ferries

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.

---

TonyMWeaver (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 80.7.177.245 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

TonyMWeaver has been seeking to include a complimentary phrase about this companies new logo since 12 November 2018. It has been removed at least nine times by myself and another editor but each time has been put back in by either his account or the IP account. At no time have any messages left on their talk pages about it been replied to nor have they taken it to the talk page as per WP:BRD or WP:ONUS. The phrase is actually a copyvio of [225] Lyndaship (talk) 18:23, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Blocked one week.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:40, 15 April 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 and 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.

---

Could somebody have a word with Tony1? Messages such as "Go to hell and burn", subsequently repeated with the explanatory supplement "Not the nominator: the whole lot of you", and to "piss off ow, you miserable little swine" are no just rather uncollegiate but wholly unnecessary and unprovoked. I attempted to discuss it—sans templates—but was reverted as vandalism. ——SerialNumber54129 14:09, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

A whole bunch of recent edits that are nothing but direct attacks on specific users? Civility police or not, that's beyond the pale. Blocked for one week. Yunshui ^雲_水 14:15, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

• sigh* I was in the middle of composing a message clarifying what the issue was and suggested he calmed down, but edit conflicted with Yunshui. Am I out of touch with the rest of the admin corps - I thought we were supposed to err on the side of not deleting or blocking. :-( Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:17, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: The history is here; I've no idea why you'd ping me to their talk page. ——SerialNumber54129 14:27, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Yep, that's going to cool the editor down... and make them think that admins are not out to get him. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:21, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

I knew any action here was going to be controversial, but those attacks were indeed beyond the pale, and a gross overreaction to nothing offensive whatsoever. I think the block is justified. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:25, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

He's been here long enough to know that these sorts of attacks are not acceptable, and has already had the issue explained to him by Serial Number 54129. Further exhortations towards calmness and civility seemed bootless. But hey, let's start a huge ANI thread about how admins should be nice and not block people who hurl blatant abuse at other users, that won't be a massive waste of time at all. You don't like the block? Lift it, then; I leave it to you to explain to those attacked by this editor why obvious personal attacks are totally acceptable nowadays. Yunshui ^雲_水 14:26, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Based on my past interactions with Tony1, I fully support Yunshui in this episode.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:30, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

A block was warranted, and while I personally would have blocked for maybe 48 hours, I see nothing excessive about 1 week and overall it's a good block. GiantSnowman 14:32, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree with GiantSnowman. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 14:38, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

• We need to face the elephant in the room here, around which folks have been dancing for ages. Tony1 has a horrible attitude to people he thinks have wronged him, and a record of reacting abusively to the most minor of incidents - and it frequently extends to innocent people who have not said a word out of place. Telling people to "burn in hell" for daring to suggest he might have some FA input? That's utterly unacceptable, and other editors should not have to tiptoe around such an obnoxious attitude. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:33, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
• (ec x many) I looked at Wikipedia:Civility#Dealing with incivility, which suggests blocking for "In "emergency" situations, where the other editor needs to be stopped in their tracks to avoid causing serious disruption or needs a fast and strong wake-up call". Was this such a situation? Meanwhile, the policy on cool down blocks says "Blocks intended solely to "cool down" an angry user should not be used, as they often have the opposite effect.". Please note, I'm not attempting to defend what Tony said or justify his actions whatsoever - the comment on SN54129's talk page is a flat out violation of WP:NPA - it's more that I felt we should deal with it tactfully and only block when we are satisfied that Tony is not going to calm down and will continue going bezerk. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:36, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

  Ritchie333, looked at the contributions. Definitely not a cool down block. This block is purely preventative as this has the potential to scare away editors that are relatively new. Our job is to protect the encyclopedia. Right now it needs protecting from this repeated abuse, which oddly enough is very hypocritical. My impression is, he feels everybody is out to get him, but has absolutely 0 consideration on what he's doing to others. —CYBERPOWER (Chat) 18:52, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

• And how many more incidents of personal attacks would we need for that? That was a good and warranted block, and at least imho, not a cool down block. Lectonar (talk) 14:40, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

This isn't a tantrum, it's abuse. I have zero tolerance for the latter, and nobody should be asked to put up with it. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:43, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree, it doesn't violate the "no cool down blocks" thing. It's a rational and measured response to an editor with a chronically obnoxious attitude to other people, and if he won't rein in his personal attacks then blocks are pretty much all we have left as a preventative measure. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:44, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

• Concurring with other admins that this is a fully justified block. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:17, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

• "We need to face the elephant in the room here, around which folks have been dancing for ages. Tony1 has a horrible attitude to people he thinks have wronged him, and a record of reacting abusively to the most minor of incidents" I've spent half an hour reading through the WT:FAC thread linked above. If what Boing! has said above is true, he needs to be community banned, not blocked. Again, I have to emphasise when I said "Am I out of touch with the rest of the admin corps", I was simply saying that the situation was progressing quicker than I could get a handle on it, rather that any action is unjustifiable. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:30, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

• Some further (albeit slightly dated) context discussed at length here with links to other incidents (and Ritchie333, I know you're already aware of the back-story here given that the original thread was in response to you so I'm not sure where the "Am I out of touch with the rest of the admin corps" is coming from). This has been going on a long time—as I said there, the the Request for topic ban for Tony1 from all FA-related pages and Gross incivility, threats of off-wiki harassment, and personal attacks by Tony1 threads from 2011 are probably as good a place as any to start if you want to research how we ended up here. ‑ Iridescent 15:41, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

It means this. I saw an issue. I looked into the circumstances. I decided to work on de-escalation. By the time I'd done all that, everyone else had already decided to block. Am I just slow on the uptake? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:20, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Nah, I just think maybe you're not as familiar as some others with Tony1's chronic interpersonal issues? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:38, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Maybe. De-escalation is preferable in most circumstances, but it can be counterproductive; when someone has a repeated history of doing something wrong and all that ever comes of it is some variant on "please don't do that again", the signal that gets sent is "you can do whatever you like because you're too important to lose", and so the problem just carries on. When we're having exactly the same conversation, about exactly the same people, that we had six months ago, seven years ago, eight years ago, eleven years ago and twelve years ago, there comes a point when one has to think "discussion isn't going to fix this". ‑ Iridescent 16:42, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Okay, so let's talk about a site ban. I've been through about three months' of Tony's contributions, trying to find out exactly how much of a net positive / negative he actually is, and once I've done that I will start a sub-thread about it below, unless somebody else gets there first. I don't want to set up a site ban proposal until I'm sure it's good a good chance of passing, as I don't particularly fancy being the new Number 1 person on Tony's shit list (which I inevitably would be if I did that). Bottom line is, if the problem has been going on for years and years, how is a week off going to stop them? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:45, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to see if the shock of the block has an effect before we start talking about site bans. Per my comment above, I strongly suspect a lot of Tony1's problematic conduct is because he's become so used to nobody standing up to his bullying and harassment that he genuinely feels it's acceptable; a clear and unambiguous "if you want to stay here you need to follow our rules from now on" will hopefully be enough. Don't get me wrong, I do think we'll ultimately end up at the site ban stage—as I said to you once before, Tony1 is one of the most arrogant and aggressive people I've ever encountered on Wikipedia—but he deserves the chance to try. ‑ Iridescent 16:53, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree it's worth trying that. And if his ego can't handle it and he knows that we as a community are finally not going to put up with his bullying any more, I think there's a real possibility he'll just leave of his own accord. And yes, "one of the most arrogant and aggressive people I've ever encountered on Wikipedia" is a succinct and accurate description. As an aside, while reading (in some cases re-reading) those historical examples, I tried hard to find an example of Tony1 ever softening his stance, backing off from attacks, accepting the possibility that another opinion might have some validity, giving anyone else any leeway, or showing even a hint of compromise. I could not find a single example, just escalating aggression every time from an apparent "Tony1 is infallible" position. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:23, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

I too spent the past half hour reading the WT:FAC thread. It was clearly a painful experience for Tony1, and irrespective of the content of the comments I don't begrudge Tony's decision to abandon that end of the project. However, it's been six months since its closure. An uninvolved editor to that discussion pinged Tony with requests for comment when renominating an article, and they get attacks hurled at them for doing so. My stances changes only for the worse. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:58, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

• Good block Those sorts of comments are not useful towards a collaborative working environment. It also was not a singular, one off burst of emotion in the midst of a heated discussion, but rather a sustained, unapologetic string of vitriol that has no place here. --Jayron32 17:30, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
• Good block I also suspect that the indefinite block that he received earlier today at Wikivoyage by AndreCarrotflower is what set this chain of events in motion and serves as the backdrop to emotional venting here.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 17:54, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
• If the notification alert I got was my invitation to chime in to this discussion, I will do so. I have to confess both a not-terribly-high level of familiarity with Wikipedia policy as opposed to Wikivoyage, and a complete ignorance of the nature of Tony1's contributions to Wikipedia before now. But even given said unfamiliarity, common sense prevents me from imagining any lucid argument in favor of not, at long last, instituting a block on Tony1 for his reprehensible conduct. Also in response to the above comment regarding the net positive or negative effect of his contributions as a whole, I'd humbly advise remembering Wikipedia:You are not irreplaceable. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:15, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Also: Iridescent, I hold out little hope that it's a matter of him being "so used to nobody standing up to his bullying and harassment that he genuinely feels it's acceptable". At Wikivoyage, we identified and stood up to his problematic conduct from the getgo, and long story short, we got nowhere with that tactic despite continuing to give him the benefit of the doubt for far longer than we probably should have. In fact, shortly after his first three-day ban went into effect, we got a nearly universally condemned hit piece in The Signpost for our troubles. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:24, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
    • Oh dear, I've just read that Signpost thing and the comments - it's seriously unethical as journalism, and amply illustrates his vindictiveness. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:57, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
• I think this was a good and necessary block, but sadly, I don't think it will stand. WaltCip (talk) 20:04, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
• I hate to say this, but given the edits made to User talk:Tony1, I feel talk page access should be revoked. He has removed the block notice and is simply attacking the admins and FAC process out of anger, without any real reasons. Noah^Talk 23:21, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

  He's allowed to remove the block message (and everything else he blanked), and the bold header comments were already there at the top and are not new. He's done nothing to warrant talk page access removal. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:43, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

  Hm.. that is odd. Just wonder why the system tagged this as a "replace" edit when the content was already there. Noah^Talk 23:47, 17 April 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.

Potential copyvio in sandbox

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

---

Resolved

Someone with their admin rights turned on should take a look at IP 168.8.214.26's contribs to Draft:Sandbox, which appear to be the lyrics to Old Town Road, and thus a copyright violation. I have removed the text and would revdelete if I trusted my corporate network enough to log in to my main account, but here we are. *waves to the IT people* Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 15:47, 15 April 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.

Legal threat by IP at Federal Bank

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.

---

195.62.53.161, in their edit summary at 16:58 on 15 April 2019, appears to have made a legal threat. "History changed by someone.True history should always recognized.Dont change It. It's a Legal warning" (shown in the edit summary, not difference on the page). PohranicniStraze (talk) 17:02, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

I've hard-blocked the IP for three months as a proxy.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:30, 15 April 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.

Persistent vandalism by User:82.41.248.148

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

---

Resolved

User:82.41.248.148 has been vandalising Cannock Chase Radio many times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VanZa39 (talk • contribs) 20:39, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Blocked. If the IP starts up again, you can report directly to WP:AIV. That's usually how you can get the fastest attention for vandals. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:44, 18 April 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.

Unsourced additions

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

---

I think an administrator needs to scrutinize the contributions of User:Kingant1016, history shows that essentially since the creation has been adding things without sources despite several warnings. This was yesterday [[226]] which could be serious BLP issues and [[227]] this from today. A block might be needed until they respond to the warnings and or start sourcing things correctly. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 23:25, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Four things. Can't you help to fix it? Have you tried communicating with this editor other than with templates on their talk page? Have you reverted any of the unsourced content? Have you tagged the article with a template describing that references are needed? I am not saying that you haven't done these things, I just don't want to waste the time of other editors who will be reviewing your request. Best Regards, Barbara ✐✉ 13:41, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Barbara (WVS) - While most of the questions you asked here would be great to respond with in certain situations (I typically ask most of these questions myself if I review an appropriate discussion and find that no communication or attempts to warn or educate the user have been attempted), I don't believe that they apply in this case. Asking someone, "can't you help to fix it?" isn't very logical in this situation. Hell in a Bucket isn't asking for sections and content to be blindly removed or articles to be deleted because they have miscellaneous issues or problems in random areas, or similar requests where asking, "can't you help to fix it?" would be more understandable... he/she is reporting a user for repeatedly making problematic edits and violating policy despite numerous warnings and notices left on their user talk page that have clearly gone ignored. There comes a time where just "cleaning up" and "leaving warnings" stops becoming the right thing to do, and reporting the repeated issues and the disruption becomes the logical and effective thing to do. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:44, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

The diff provided by Hell in a Bucket shows unsourced content was added to Sammy Gravano by Kingant1016. Without the inclusion of reliable sources, the content addition was a serious violation of Wikipedia's BLP policy. Kingant1016's user talk page shows a history of being repeatedly warned by other editors for adding unsourced and unreferenced content to articles. Given that this issue has clearly continued despite these warnings, I feel that a block is justified in order to prevent further violations of policy, and give the user time to slow down, cite sources with their changes, and review Wikipedia's policy on verifiability and when you need to cite references. I also hope that the user takes the time to understand the need to read the notices and warnings that other editors leave for him/her on their user talk page. I know that the issue reported is six days old (at the time of this writing), but given the history of repeated warnings and the severity of the BLP issue exampled here - I believe that a block is justified and hence have applied one for 72 hours. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:15, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Barbara (WVS), I'm sorry I would absolutely love to fix it but the editor in question is either choosing not to respond or doesn't know how. If the block can help us slow it down and the additions sourced we are rolling! I felt this is just a preventative block to get the attention of the editor so we don't violate BLP and that we do source what we add!. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 16:55, 18 April 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.

Drama panchi

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.

---

Drama panchi (talk · contribs) is a relatively new editor who mostly edits articles about Indian television shows, movies and actors/actresses. He's also uploading images for several of those articles and that's the immediate issue here. His upload log here and on commons show all images have been deleted. I've left some very pointed notes about this but they've never responded to that, or to any warning or message left on their talk page. More than a few of the articles they have created have been moved to draft space and others have been deleted or being considered. One article they recreated so many times after it was moved to draft space that it had to be protected. They then changed the spelling to get around the protection. Multiple notes about that article were left on their talk page about working on the draft version with no response or change in behavior. There's a useful editor somewhere here, but right now it's not really visible. I've got concerns about there general ability to work with Wikipedia policies and ability to communicate. An outside review would be helpful here and ideally, an acknowledgement from Drama panchi that they will stop uploading images and only create in draft space until they become more familiar with Wikipedia's policies. Given their utter lack of communication, I think a block will be needed to get their attention. Thank you. Ravensfire (talk) 15:39, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

While I was typing this up, Edgar181 blocked them for 31 hours for persistent copyright infringement. I feel the issues are a bit deeper and still warrant discussion here. Ravensfire (talk) 15:42, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

I have extended the block on Drama panchi by 48 hours due to block evasion with the account AmazingDramaplus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Looking at Drama panchi's contributions to articles, at the concerns expressed on Drama pachi's user talk page, and at Drama pachi's complete lack of response to anything, I think this user is either unwilling or incapable of collaborative editing. I suggest an indefinite block until the user demonstrates that they are capable of responding to existing talk page inquiries and concerns. -- Ed (Edgar181) 11:18, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

• I endorse an indefinite block until they decide to speak. We have too many of these sorts of ignorantly headstrong users who show up to make a ton of changes to Indian articles, maybe they're being paid, they rarely speak, they leave a trail of destruction and good editors like Ravensfire have to lose their minds climbing up warning trees just to get any remedy. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:00, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Based on this discussion, I have made Drama panchi's block duration indefinite. In order to be unblocked the editor needs to demonstrate an understanding of the multiple concerns their user talk page and to demonstrate a willingness to respond to those concerns. -- Ed (Edgar181) 11:48, 18 April 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.

Global Savings Group - company is suppressing criticism

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

---

The Company Global Savings Group is systematically suppressing criticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Savings_Group — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.221.112.219 (talk) 18:14, 15 April 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:Dw122339

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.

---

Dw122339 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I redirected this unsourced medical article to wiktionary (after searching for more references and only finding either medical dictionary entries, or information about the specific conditions), and was reverted by User:Dw122339. No big deal, maybe it should be a set index instead? He used no edit summary when reverting me, so I asked him about this on his talk page, and rather than responding, he deleted it. I noticed when looking at the history on his talk page, that I left him a message a few weeks ago about another edit of mine that he reverted with no edit summary, which he also deleted with no response. Looking at the history of his talk page, he seems to do this any time someone leaves him a message, so I'm unable to communicate with him. Perhaps someone with authority can tell him that he needs to stop.

Strangely, he's been around since 2014, but his talk page was deleted in 2017, so the history stops there. Hopefully there's a good reason for this. Natureium (talk) 20:03, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

This wasn't proposed and I honestly don't care what the specific article issue is but this demonstrates, to me, a complete failure to communicate with other editors and I'd suggest the user is blocked until they learn to communicate and make a commitment to doing so. From September 2017, until now I don't see a single response to a concern on their own talk page, including this request, which is probably where they should've been blocked months ago. Praxidicae (talk) 20:16, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

In fact their only edits to their own talk page is removing or blanking others concerns or questions (and occasional vandalism) all the way to August 2017. Beyond that, I don't know since their talk page history was deleted (??!?!?) A quick review of their talk page edits elsewhere shows no communication whatsoever, it's all reverting and restoring redirects in mainspace and one single comment about Blockbuster. Praxidicae (talk) 20:19, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

I've restored their user talk page, looks like some minor confusion over redirects and their deletion accidentally taking out more of the history than intended. I'm minded to block Dw122339 until they agree to discuss their edits, unless I hear any dissenting opinions in the next few hours. Nick (talk) 20:23, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Concur with Nick. This is obviously disruptive and requires a response, so if none is forthcoming it needs to be stopped. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:37, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Deleting a user talk page with a block notice on it is a pretty serious mistake. I thought we don't delete user talk pages - did I miss a change policy changed some time in the last...um, I don't know...15 years? Guettarda (talk) 14:25, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

I did it because the "person" didn't give a reason on why he deleted the redirect and so I had fixed it because I thought he was vandalizing the page and so if you all want answers then ask him why he was deleting his page without leaving answers to why..... Dw122339 (talk) 14:24, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Dw122339 - "idiot"? Seriously? No personal attacks is Wikipedia policy - you'd be unwise to disregard it here of all places. Guettarda (talk) 14:27, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

And what do you think he has been doing? Attacking me by attacking my undoing his vandalism Dw122339 (talk) 14:44, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

That's quite enough of that. I'm blocking now, this is about the most obvious example of mooning the jury I've ever seen. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:50, 18 April 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.

Legal threats and personal attacks by IP

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

---

180.190.103.229 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), in appealing their 31-hour block by Materialscientist, said this, containing WP:PA, WP:LEGAL, and who knows what else buried in the gibberish. They are clearly WP:NOTHERE (nor likely to ever be) and in need of much more than a 31-hour block, no? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 09:59, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

I revoked talk page access. If they continue after the unblock please let us know.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:05, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

180.191.151.63 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), who is not blocked, seems related to this nonsense. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 10:07, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

I blocked them now for vandalism for 36h.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:11, 19 April 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.

Aer Lingus vandalism

Rangeblock request

There appears to be a user/users from an IP range constantly vandalising the fleet section without any citation. Please see examples here: 2001:bb6:251d:2258:f41a:393b:a778:dfac 2001:BB6:251D:2258:4C5A:86B6:108F:33BE 2001:BB6:251D:2258:9540:4DD7:F388:A846 and 2001:bb6:251d:2258:9540:4dd7:f388:a846 [[228]] [[229]] [[230]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Angryskies (talk • contribs) 12:06, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't have time to look into the complaint right now, but these are all within 2001:bb6:251d:2258::/64. —DoRD (talk)​ 12:15, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

I've had a quick look. There's a source that Aer Lingus has 14 A321LRs on order not 8,[231] and another source here seems to support all the changes. There's nothing on the talk page - it doesn't look like obvious vandalism to me. Maybe User:Angryskies could elaborate (or update the article). -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:30, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi there, the only reason that I had reverted these edits, was because the IP users were not leaving any citations. If the user had left these citations, then there would have been no problem. Angryskies (talk) 21:37, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't want to sound too critical, but if we blocked every new user who didn't provide a source we might not have much of an encyclopaedia. I'd say no block is needed at this time - hopefully the editors at the page can sort out the right way of expressing the relevant information. If in doubt, a note on the talk page might be useful. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 03:12, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Blocking User:Reckon Her from Editing Belfield FM Article or Locking the Article from Unapproved Editing

To whom it may concern,

My name is William McCartney, I was previously the station manager of Belfield FM, the entity which the article in question details. The current station manager has been voicing her concerns over user "Reckon Her"s (a volunteer at the station) contributions to the article.

While the users contributions have largely fleshed out information on the stations, there have been many instances of unnessicary editorialisation over the history of his edits. Recently I removed some slanderous information about oxygen.ie/the SMEDIA Awards in the relevant section on the page to avoid any potential conflict between their party and the station. There was similarly a minor bit of inappropriate editting with "Keepin' it Country" redirecting to an article on peasant revolts.

The current manager notably expresses distaste towards the controversies section. While detailing the full history of the station is important, this section, as the largest in the entire artilce, has gotten a little out of hand, with some paragraphs lacking citations and essentially being an act of megalomania. Men's Rights Radio is his own show, and there has never been any concerns raised over its naming. While I hold a personal stake in the information about myself, its largely just here say; he messaged me after making that message asking what I thought about that with my real name being included, which seemed a little spiteful.

As a small society with in our university, allowing someone like this to wedge their personal feelings into a encyclopedia entry can have a negative affect on the university's percetion of the station which could lead to a loss of funding and the eventual closure of the station. I urge the administartive team at Wikipedia to review this incident and consider introducing heavier restrictions on the artilce.

Please do let me know if you need any further information or verification.

Yours ever,

William — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nibbihak (talk • contribs) 12:37, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) @Nibbihak:, first, you MUST notify individuals that you have opened an ANI thread on them. I have done so for you [[232]] Second, I am not sure ANI is the appropriate place for this. This is a content dispute so far, and the appropriate place for that is the article talk page. Start there. Third, you clearly have a WP:COI, which you seem to acknowledge. I am not familiar enough with our policy on that to advice you how to move forward other than to stop by the TeaHouse and ask for advice on editing with COI. TelosCricket (talk)

Nibbihak deleted the notification; I have restored it. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 14:00, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

The images in that article are really something. Does Reckon Her really hold copyright to all of them? In any case, I'm going to remove all the ones that look like social media screenshots as potential BLP violations. Cheers, gnu57 13:09, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

• Is the radio station even notable? Every citation is primary or university-related. Black Kite (talk) 14:05, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Reckon Her (talk) 14:59, 16 April 2019 (UTC) I am the user in question, sorry I'm new to wikipedia but the station is very relevant to the media of University College Dublin and prior to my editing of the article it was in a poor state which didn't really give the correct information or really any comprehensive detail about the station. I am the Technical Officer of the station and as such thought it would be prudent to put some time into fleshing out the article to give a good idea of the impact of the station and it's relevance to University College Dublin in general. If there's a conflict of interest however I will refrain from editing any further. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reckon Her (talk • contribs) 14:58, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

        *@Black Kite: Due to the station existing within a college media space, there is a lack of records available about it online. Myself, Reckon Her, and a few others have mainly used paper records within the station to flesh out the article. Nibbiak (talk)

Hello, Reckon Her (And Nibbihak!) -- I have no doubt the station is very relevant to UCD (lovely place, by the way) and notable to everyone there. However, on wikipedia, we judge notability from reliable (preferably secondary) sources. Thus, citations to the station itself or to University materials don't hold a lot of water here. I've done just a very quick search, and I am afraid I am not seeing a lot out there in news or the like--but there's every chance it's out there and I'm missing it. If you could find some sources like those, it would be a big help to the article and the community. Thank you for your efforts. Dumuzid (talk) 15:04, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your input Dumuzid! Could you provide any insight into what sort of sources would be best to support the article or if there's any way one could reformat it to better reflects its notability? Nibbihak (talk) 15:16, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

• Hi - you need multiple secondary sources - i.e. ones that aren't associated with the college or the radio station. Newspaper or other media articles are good, as are articles on websites. They should be focused on the subject, though - not just mentioning the station in passing. For more detail, have a look at WP:GNG. Black Kite (talk) 15:19, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

15:24, 16 April 2019 (UTC)Reckon Her (talk)as a point of other secondary sources which have mentioned bfm. The controversy around "Keepin it Country" was widely reported on at the time. https://www.dublinlive.ie/news/dublin-news/team-ucd-radio-show-keepin-15520757 https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/keeping-it-country-agriculture-students-sorry-for-lewd-remarks-on-ucd-radio-show-37603219.html https://www.spin1038.com/news-and-sport/ucd-students-apologise-disrespectful-comments-made-college-radio-234260 https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/ucd-students-apologise-for-alleged-sexual-comments-about-students-on-radio-show-890520.html https://www.herald.ie/news/college-radio-show-sorry-for-sexual-comments-about-female-students-in-unacceptable-broadcast-37602916.html Would this be the direction we should take with the article? I could flesh out this specific controversy and search for other outside sources.

Reckon Her and I have settled this issue in our own litigation. If anyone has any additional input on the page then I suggest continuing on the relevant talk page Nibbihak (talk) 16:04, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

@Nibbihak and Reckon Her: I've nominated the article for deletion. Your sources, whilst they mention the "Keepin It Country" in great detail, only mention the radio station in question in passing, which fails WP:NOTABLE and WP:42. And according to The Golden Rule (other name for WP:42), the meaning of notability is: "Articles generally require significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic." I'll be happy to withdraw if you provide sources that talk about the radio station in detail, not in passing. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask me. Thank you. The Duke 22:07, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Reckon Her (talk) 11:48, 17 April 2019 (UTC) @The Duke is there anyway to provide non-online (i.e. paper) secondary sources to a wikipedia article?

https://soundsidecolour.itch.io/escapebellefieldfm some person who we never learned the identity of made a game that used the stations name and likeness last year. we actually had quite a bit of an issue with this as it was completely unwarented and as a result filed a dmca which resulted in a name change of the developers project. would something like this help the case of proving the notability of the station, seeing as it inspired (or was at least featured in) someone else's art? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nibbihak (talk • contribs) 12:08, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

POV-pushing and editwarring.

SharabSalam (talk · contribs) has been less than cooperative. They identify as Yemini on their TP and seems to hold strong opinins on what constitutes a valid source and what does not. While not technically at 3RR (yet) his reverts in Egeria (mythology) and the explanations given are petty in the extreme and appears to be a tit-for-tat revenge revert. . Editwarring here and here, SharabSalam's explanations on the Egeria TP lead me to believe they are not motivated by a desire to improve the encyclopedia. Kleuske (talk) 18:34, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

First of all it's Yemeni not Yemini and no that's not a tit-for-tat revert. Your edit was removing sourced information and yet related to the topic. I did saw that when I clicked on your contributions but the revert was not because you have reverted my edit earlier. It's because your edit when I saw it was wrong to me and still until now we are discussing this in the talk page. If it was for revenge I would revert edits by the other user who reverted me but I didn't because I didn't see any bad edit and that doesn't mean that I am not cooperating with you. I am trying to make Wikipedia better sorry that you think this is a tit-for-tat revert but I assure you it's not.--SharabSalam (talk) 18:45, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

I think this report is just to stop the discussion that is going on in Egeria (mythology)--SharabSalam (talk) 18:48, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

I fully protected the page because of edit-warring, but the rest looks like content dispute to me.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:03, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Kleuske thinks that I am reverting him just because he reverted me earlier this is with all respect is non sense when I ever see a wrong edit I revert and go to the talk page I dont even make bold major edits without notifying other editors of my edit in the talk page. It happened that I clicked on Kleuske contrubtions and saw an edit that removed a whole paragraph without giving a valid reason the source mention the topic 22 times and it is well-source and Kleuske has admitted that it is well-sourced but said it is not related. What should I have done when I saw that edit? I should stay silent and stay scared from a report or assuming that I am doing tit-for-tat?--SharabSalam (talk) 19:21, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Jet Airways

Apparently this airline entered bankruptcy today and it has been changing all day back and forth from present tense to past tense; some say it is defunct and others say it is being reorganized and will continue. The is no discussion on the talk page about how to handle but just lots of effective reversion of changes. I'm not really sure what should be done to stem this. There are many accounts involved, mostly IPs. MB 23:25, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

MB - I've applied semi protection for two days due to the persistent addition of unsourced or unreferenced content to the article. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:44, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Oshwah That should help. But the version you protected leaves it as a defunct airline, whereas the BBC reports it temporarily stopped flying and hopes to secure more funding and resume operations. I hope someone with more interest in the subject (than I) reverts the latest changes. MB 23:54, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

MB - I didn't perform a mass reversion to the article, because some of the revisions did contain additions that were cited by (what looked like to me) sources that were reliable. I didn't want to wipe all of the changes out for that reason... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:56, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Update: I managed to find a revision that, while it doesn't resolve every concern and remove them, did appear to be a good start in the right direction. I went ahead and restored the article back to that revision (diff). ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:01, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

How can i increase format size in wikipedia 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.

---

How can i increase format size in wikipedia editing — Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgingf (talk • contribs) 14:25, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

In wiki editing same formet and size applicable? Can we change letters size and Font Georgingf (talk) 14:38, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Please go to the Teahouse where you'll be assisted by experienced editors. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 14:45, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Uset:Dusti ,Thanq for your suggession.

Can i ask you a question about usename polict?

Georgingf (talk) 14:55, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

The place to ask questions is either on my talk page or at the Teahouse, not here. Please use one of those two pages. This is not the appropriate page. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 15:01, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Dusti i am unable to post page to your talk page :

Georgingf (talk) 15:06, 20 April 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 with competency issues still not learning after two blocks

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.

---

• Likeit2004 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Likeit2004 has competency issues that have not been resolved after two blocks and a heap of warnings on his talk page. These competency issues, and some attitude problems, have already resulted in two blocks in March and just recently. Here is what I wrote at WP:AIV for those:

• Likeit2004 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – On Family Guy (season 17) (diff): vandalism after final warning. Persistent disruptive editing. Multiple copyright issues listed on talk page - Continues to upload images without FURs, arbitrarily replaces existing, entirely appropriate non-free images with others. In one case he replaced one appropriately named image with a duplicate that he had uploaded with a "worse" name (I warned him about this 11 days ago but he repeated his actions - and just did it again!), makes multiple arbitrary colour changes in articles and does not communicate.

Copyright issues persist to this day. Still uploading images without FURs. Still giving images bad names. Still not communicating.

• Likeit2004 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – On File:Barrescuevol12.jpg: vandalism after final warning. Editor persistently uploading images without required licensing and/or non-free use rationale in violation of WP:NFCC. I'm sick of warning this one and trying to fix his messes. I gave him a final warning yesterday,[233] but it's been ignored.

Still uploading images without licensing.

His competency issues are not limited to one area, he covers everything. Some recent, i.e. last 24 hours, issues:

• File:Ellens1.jpg and File:Ellens2.jpg and uploaded without FUR or license.
• File:Dance-momsseason8.png uploaded without FUR or license. File:Dance-momsseason8.png didn't have an article to be used in. Instead he added it to Draft:Dance Moms (season 8) which he moved to article space 3 hours later. The version that he moved was clearly not ready for article space and was moved back. Likeit2004 is well aware that articles need to be sourced.
• Still (sadly) on Dance Moms, here he transcluded the non-existent season 8 article to the List of episode pages. This is a typical issue, where he does everything out of order, adding content to pages when the content does not exist and won't exist for hours, days or never.
• Creating multiple, or alternate pages for the same subject. For example, List of Ellen's Game of Games was created and then abandoned a minute later. Six minutes later he created List of Ellen's Game of Games episodes as its replacement but made no attempt to redirect the abandoned article. Similarly, El Circo de PR was created and then moved to Draft:El Circo de PR 7 minutes later and abandoned for El Circo de La Mega which has existed since 2008. Likeit2004 now seems to think that draft space is a repository for dead and abandoned articles.
• Creating articles that are incomplete and clearly not ready for article space. In a similar fashion to uploading files without required information he created Ahora Con Oscar Haza which I is assume is a TV program but consists of nothing more than an unsourced infobox.
• Even though I warned him about uploading files without required licensing etc only a few hours earlier,[234] he uploaded File:El-circo-logo.png and File:Elcirecodelamegatv.jpg less than 3 hours later with no license. Strangely, he was able to upload File:Baylnmegatv.jpg half an hour earlier with the required information. It's almost as if he only adds the required information when he wants to. Other images, such as File:Familyguyseason16dvd.jpg and others linked in red on his talk page are never fixed.
• Created I'm Just a Girl Who Can't Say D'oh as just an unsourced plot summary.[235] Note the link to a totally different episode at imdb although you do have to give him credit for including {{copy edit}} and {{more citations needed}}.[236]

These examples are just from the last day. Other examples are persistent recreation of articles such as The Simpsons (season 31). He has recreated this article five times now.[237][238][239][240][241] On only two occasions has he added a source. Such articles are contrary to MOS:TV. The consensus is that season articles require substantial content or at least a sourced episode table for their creation. MOS:TV says that mere renewal notifications should be in the lede of the List of episodes page. The source that Likeit2004 added was exactly that. I have warned him about articles being created prematurely[242] but, like other warnings, this has fallen on deaf ears. I had to ask him to name files more appropriately after he uploaded a number in the format "File:Barrescuevoxx.jpg". The "volxx" part of the name means nothing, it doesn't correspond to actual season numbers and some have changed the article on which they were used so I assume he's just uploading the images and assigning them randomly, which is inappropriate and contrary to WP:NFCC in that the files are only being used for decoration. Most did not include FURs or licenses and some have been deleted for that reason. The naming issue continues and, while it is not a huge issue, it demonstrates that this editor is unwilling or unable to comply with simple requests. I'm sick of trying to fix his mistakes, especially when he makes the same ones over and over again. I really don't think he is competent to edit Wikipedia. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:55, 18 April 2019 (UTC) And then there is possible block evasion. Materialscientist blocked 173.169.151.161 for a month on 11 April, at which time Likeit2004 was on a 1 week block. The intersect contribs are interesting. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:50, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Block until an adminstrator determines that they should be given another chance The user ignores warning. They have recieved a longer block already and should have noticed that they were doing something wrong(based on their editing pattern).Lurking shadow (talk) 16:29, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

I blocked indef; they will need now to convince an administrator that they can edit Wikipedia without other editors wasting an enormous amount of time to correct their errors.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:56, 19 April 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.

"Ethnic" 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.

---

...or "ethnic cleansing", or "disappearing". User:Isildurada claims an ethnogenesis of sorts has taken place in Portugal; see this edit. I could have taken this to the edit warring noticeboard, or just blocked for edit warring, or just blocked for NOTHERE, but I'd rather I not be the only one arguing that someone who says, in their edit summary, "yes we have... much less will non europeans define what we are and try to re-write history". In other words, I propose an indef block for NPOV, racist, disruptive editing. Note that user was blocked before for edit warring and disappearing Africanness from Europe--this was the last in a series of more than a dozen such edits. That the editor got off with a 24-hour block is regrettable. Also pinging User:Cristiano Tomás, who reverted on Portuguese people as well. Drmies (talk) 00:28, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

I blocked the user indefinitely for continuing to edit war and for using Wikipedia as soapbox. El_C 00:35, 20 April 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:Thefearmakers

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.

---

Thefearmakers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has persistently added unsourced material, OR, and personal commentary to various film- and music-related articles for over two years. Despite reverts and several warnings on their talk page, they continue to do so unabated. Some more recent examples:

• 28 October 2018 removed cited text without explanation[243], were reverted and given a warning[244]
• 6 February 2019‎ added unreferenced trivia[245], were reverted and warned[246]
• 6 February 2019 were given a general warning to "Please stop adding unsourced material and your own analysis/original research to Wikipedia articles. Information that is pertinent/notable can be added if supported by reliable sources, but trivia should not be added as you have been doing."[247]
• 19 April 2019 added personal commentary[248], were reverted and warned with uw-nor3[249]
• 19 April 2019 re-added some uncited text to the same article[250], were reverted and warned that they risked being blocked[251]
• 20 April 2019 again re-added some unreferenced commentary to the same article[252], were reverted[253] and now we're here

They have been editing since December 2016, advised of the applicable policies, received multiple reverts and warnings (including of a possible block), so there isn't an excuse. A quick review of their edits shows that they are of the same personal commentary/OR/unsourced type, usually trivial, and in an unencyclopedic style. An extended block may be necessary to break them of the habit. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:07, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

I have blocked Thefearmakers for a week for repeated violations of core content policies after repeated warnings. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:49, 20 April 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:Moylesy98

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.

---

Moylesy98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has just come off a block for edit warring and has resumed hostilities. Short of an indefinite block, I think that the only way this can be dealt with is by means of an editing restriction:-

"Moylsey98 is permanently prohibited from adding an image to, removing an image from, or changing any image contained in, any article or list."

He may propose additions, removal or changes at talk pages. Any additions, removals or changes may be made by any editor of good standing if there is consensus for same. Any breach of this restriction to be enforced by a block of not less than three months duration. Mjroots (talk) 13:26, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Moylesy98 has been notified of this discussion Mjroots (talk) 13:30, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

• And 5 minutes later they're indef blocked? C'mon give the guy a chance to at least reply!

I would support this indef block (rather than a TBAN) because it's fundamentally behavioural and failing to see what the rules (do source, do follow consensus, don't edit-war) are, rather than narrow enough to filter. Maybe they can make some case for "OK, I get it, I'll stop" and we could at least try that. But surely they get time to respond, at the very least? Andy Dingley (talk) 13:38, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Seriously, I don't see the point. They've been blocked four times this year alone for doing exactly the same thing over and over again, and they clearly haven't understood why they've been blocked. The latest block was for two weeks, and they came back straight away with reverts of the exact same material that got them blocked for edit warring (i.e. replacing good images with their own sub-par ones), with edit-summaries like "Reinstatement following removal by a spammer" and "Deliberate removal of image owing to jealousy". We can only have limited patience with this, I'm afraid. If they come back with an unblock request that addresses the problems, then yes we can try a limited unblock, but they need to understand why they keep being blocked first, and they clearly haven't. Black Kite (talk) 13:42, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

OK, he's indeffed but has TP access. We can discuss the proposal and it can be made a condition of unblocking. Mjroots (talk) 13:45, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

We should at-least unblock them to make their case here. Blocking a few minutes after talking here is extremely unfair. I would support a block, but give them enough rope, so that they can respond. The Duke 18:17, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

• They've just posted an unblock request which is going to be rejected on sight: it's a reasonable case for what they believe to justofy their editing, but it's entirely not an unblock request, as it doesn't address the reason for blocking. As such, yet another blocked editor is just going to have their unblock request refused summarily, leading to yet another angry ex-editor.

Their "request" still fails to address the underlying problem, and is a complete misunderstanding of how image selection for articles is, or should be, done. As such, it shows no long-term hope for a real solution and unblock here. But we have to at least explain this to them! As it is, we're steaming straight into the typical, and terrible, standard WP response and we need to do better. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:48, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Meh, I have difficulty seeing any of this as a real failing on our part. Lots of people have tried to talk to Moylsey98 long before it came to this. I see plenty of non templated comments on their talk page, including from you. Moylsey98 has barely responded (even from looking at their contrib history). They've shown zero real willingless to learn and seriously engage with people to try and understand where they're going wrong. It's not like they've come back and done things slightly differently each time. They've generally just done the exact same thing. By their own admission, the only real reason they've been adding the images is for spam like reasons, they want to promote their own work. As with a number of spammers, their COI means they likely genuinely believe their work is better than anything else, but really there's no reason for the community to waste a lot of time educating them when they're so unwilling to learn. If individual community members want to try and teach them that's fine. But there's zero reason to waste time at ANI on what's a clear cut case. If people are able to teach them on their talk page, they're free to request an unblock and I'm sure some admin will get to it. But it's not something the community should be expected to spend a great deal of time on. Nil Einne (talk) 03:47, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Let's not forget this is not the first time Moylesy98 has been at ANI. Even given that this discussion Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive981#User:Moylesy98 was perhaps not worth responding to, I recall this discussion Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1002#Uncivil and threatening comments by User:Moylesy98 on an issue fairly related to what's going on here was at ANI for quite a long time which is also supported by the time stamps. And their block log shows they were unblocked for all of it [254]. And Special:Contributions/Moylesy98 shows a small number of edits during a fair amount of that time. So frankly, we've already given this editor way more latitude and waited more than long enough for them to seriously engage with us than we needed to. They've completely failed to do it any meaningful way, and instead have just continued to spam (by their own admission) in numerous ways. If anyone ever gets through to them then good. But really it's no major failing on our part that we didn't. Nil Einne (talk) 04:00, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

P.S. I'm actually a strong believer that we're way too reluctant to unblock someone to allow them to participate in an AN//I discussion about them. IMO the copying over from talk business is more complicated for everyone than it needs to be. Unless there's good reason to think the editor isn't going to obey the condition, I think we should as a matter or routine on request, unblock someone to allow them to participate in the discussion about them with the understanding it's the only thing they're allowed to do. Any violation of this condition will of course lead to an instant reblock, and is likely to destroy their chances. (And we should perhaps also remind editors that WP:Bludgeoning discussion is likely to harm them.) But in my mind, this isn't really an issue here because 1) No one really seems to think the topic ban proposal as a replacement for the indef is worth it 2) They haven't asked. (This comes up most often with cban appeals.) That said, if a serious proposal did develop and Moylesy98 were to request, I'd support it here as well. Nil Einne (talk) 04:14, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Black Kite - would you be amenable to Nil Einne's suggestion of unblocking in order to participate here? Nil Einne - the reason nobody is addressing my proposal is that they are all arguing over the merits of the block. Mjroots (talk) 06:21, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

I support an indef block. But only once we've at least tried to explain it and given them a chance to respond. Even if that doesn't work. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:58, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

In haste, I may have more time later, but I wanted to comment before this was closed. I am not an admin. I have seen editing from User:Moylesey98 which has lead me to believe that there might be difficulties in both understanding and writing in English. I alluded to it in [255]. They may have difficulty in making an unblock request. A young editor (that is young in development of skills; I am unsure of their age) might become better. A young editor might be understandably proud of a new camera and want to see their images used. I have seen images added by him which I found as good as most, and deserving of a place in articles. I have not time to find them now.SovalValtos (talk) 10:26, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

No need to rush. The closure made earlier was my fault, and because I didn't realize that the proposal was still ongoing... :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:39, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

I have now found how to see some of User:Moylesey98's image uploads to commons[256]. I think there are images of value. They do not have to be of immediate use and even poor quality images may turn out to be of value in the future when some unsuspected aspect of the image is identified as being of use. I think some of his images may have been denigrated, which could have exacerbated the situation. A few examples in the gallery should give an indication of how this editor's contributions might be of value. If totally blocked their interest in contributing to commons as well might be lost. The lack of competence in other aspects might well persuade admins to block for a while. I would not object if that were the case as much effort has been spent on dealing with this editor's incompetence already.

• 
  Defiant and Earl of Mount Edgcumbe at Tyseley
• 
  Hunslet 0-6-0 no 3696 "Respite"
• 
  Andania's builders plate
• 
  Avonside 0-6-0 no 1883

To clarify for you, the problem isn't that Dave occasionally takes good enough photos that are, or might be, useful. The problem is that he doesn't seem to know what he's doing, so he takes many more poor quality photos than the accidental good ones. But then he persists in insisting that "his" photos, are included in articles, regardless of whether they are better than others. If they happen to be better than others, we should include them at least until better ones are available. But more often than not they're not, and we therefore shouldn't. If you want a few examples, take a look at these:

• 
  Composition wtf?
• 
  shutter speed too slow! You need 1/500 at least.
• 
  horrible shadow across the subject which is in the middle of the frame
• 
  overexposed mess
• 
  Composition - subject in the middle of the frame
• 
  Distracting snowstorm
• 
  Overexposed sky, odd composition
• 
  A mess of nonsense in front of your subject.
• 
  It's mostly a tree!
• 
  subject in the middle
• 
  too dark
• 
  This is a photo of... nothing in particular.
• 
  Yes, take photos of the crowds, though this is not really of them nor of the engine, which is placed too centrally. Also, sky overexposure.
• 
  subject in the middle, overexposure...
• 
  Overexposed sky, and top of firebox.
• 
  Taken from the side in shadow;
• 
  meh
• 
  Subject in the middle of the frame, exposure problems from bright sky, subject in shadow.
• 
  The sky is overexposed in this one but it is illustrative and should be used in the article.
• 
  This is OK

He's got a Flickr account where there's pages and pages of this stuff. Tony May (talk) 04:50, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

• Let's not get all steamed up about this. EEng 08:48, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

  tldr - I completely lost track. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 04:54, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

  Shame, you missed vital points.SovalValtos (talk) 07:30, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

  I want to express my disappointment at the limited participation. EEng 14:22, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

  Now, now let's not derail this discussion. --Blackmane (talk) 02:02, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

  Okay, that's enough, this conversation terminates here. All change please, all change. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:35, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

  You heard Ritchie: that's the end of the line. Roll along, now. Leviv ich 16:22, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

  Seems like discussion's come to a halt. EEng 19:20, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

  Someone got.... board. --Blackmane (talk) 04:13, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

I am not an admin, just an editor who has come across User:Moylesy98. Please could someone explain what more is required here in the way of comment/proposals/action for progress to be made, as progress seems to have stalled?SovalValtos (talk) 20:35, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

• User:Black Kite has indeffed the user, which seems to be a reasonable solution to the problem. --DBigXrayᗙ 06:03, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Per the discussion on Moylesy98's talk page, Black Kite is amenable to an unblock with the condition of the editing restriction I proposed as a condition of unblocking. Now that we've finished arguing about the merits of the block, perhaps we can now discuss my proposed editing restriction. Mjroots (talk) 20:27, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
    • In this edit [257] the question of WP:COMPETENCE was first raised. I was reluctant to do it before but I agree that is an issue, particularly concerning 'the ability to communicate with other editors and abide by consensus'. There are concerns with the other three competencies listed in What is meant by "Competence is required"? A restriction on changing images would only be addressing one symptom of the problem. More is needed. Would it be possible to limit him to editing talk pages, so that he could suggest article edits?SovalValtos (talk) 11:15, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

• Weak Support: Mjroots edit restriction. But real concerns there will be a difference of views over something or other that will soon escalate into Moylesy98's simply being blocked again (hence weak). I'm not 100% convinced from the discussion on Moylesy98's talk page that they are a mindset that will not end up in a further problem, but I think there has been some progress. I feel interactions between Moylesy98 and Tony May have high risk of escalating to a ban/block for Moylesy98 (I've thought that for a long time .... while the issues arising from Moylesy98's constributions are not specific or restricted to Tony May it seems likely it s an interaction with Tony would likely be the part of the lead up to a further.... voluntary IBAN here would be great but possibly not practical or workable). I don't know if a restriction on the number of articles/images edited in a period would also help. I'll disclose I've entered into a discussion with Tony may on an article this morning though I actually had drafted (and lost) a somewhat similar response here about two days ago. I've also been watching this evolve since at least beginning of March. I do hope Moylesy98 can see we are trying to be helpful but I am so concerned of the risk of a further block/ban Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:37, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Djm-leighpark I also have doubts re this issue. But that doesn't mean that we shouldn't try. Tony May has been told not to change images placed in articles by Moylesey98, and as far as I know is adhering to the instruction. Whether an IBAN between the two is needed is probably better discussed separately. Mjroots (talk) 08:45, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

I missed [258] before my support !vote and it is bad it is bad that I missed it and will look incredible that I missed it. I also note the comment on the talk page and am aware of some posts I have made in the interim that may be swaying me but I am really concerned while I support @Mjroots proposal I view the chance of success as is remote. It feel it only is possible that only with some form of informal request edit system actioned by empathetic user(s) and possibly by some form of Adoptee relationship to mediate interactions that disaster would be avoided.Djm-leighpark (talk) 13:31, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

• Is this still the discussion about the choo-choo pictures? EEng 19:49, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

• Never was about content ... it was about disruptive behaviour or whatever, and trying explore if there was any way of avoiding a indefinite block on someone and guidance for how it might be lifted. It is about trying to explore a way allow someone to re-participate in a friendly way, a somewhat noble aim. Its unhealthly and inappropriate this has been at ANI for so long and some sort of empathetic closure would be nice and perhaps within the derived spirit of WP:5P4. Positive guidance on user talk page about what might be needed to appeal a block (not just appeal but indication of acceptable behavior and indication of expections) to successfully re-integrate into the community might be a better way forward. I might be prepared to do such a thing but I had to clear another matter first and I have multiple commitments currently. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:20, 20 April 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.

Regarding my recent edits

Now I'd like to make it clear to everyone that I am about to wirte a lot so please be patient.

Regarding my recent edits on wikipedia, yes I have been a pain at times and when I have realised my mistakes as for example when I thought occupants were not needed on air accidents were there no survivors I made a quick and urgent redo. Look I'm not perfect ok, but until recently I decided to fix up some old accidents regarding Aeroflot, please see here: Aeroflot accidents and incidents. I have been fixing the infoboxes, the date formats, the summaries and adding occupants, ok to the vast majority of you, thats nothing. But I'd rather get those pages up to date regarding the layout and formatting.

To start it off, I've had a user User:Samf4u send me messages stating editing the old Aeroflot pages are unconstructive. To make it clear how is it unconstructive to redo those old rarley edited pages. To him that it is considered uneeded but bear in mind after a minor discussion with another user I found that having dates set out as d/m/y was considered the best layout so thats what I did. In which I later changed into a function after I saw some popular accidents use said format. Anyways regarding Samf4u, we fell out recently and until now I've had about 3 of these unconstrucitve posts of him, in which I deleted and I will explain why:

A) The template he sent me says this and I quote " If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page". In which I did, he said he doesn't talk to disruptive users. So the template to me is rendered useless.

B) The template helps me in no way what-so-ever. I read the link about unconstructive edits once. My edits on the aeroflot accidents are not uneeded.

With my talk there are times when I delete parts from it. It's not that I 'cant take CRITISISM' as one user believes. It's the fact that if I don't need it anymore or it does not serve a purpose to me then I don't keep it. Until recently as of this past 30 minutes while I'm tpying this message, I've had this user: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/The_face_of_the_moon. Undo my edit with Sam's template on. Like Ive said multiple times. I do not need it there, the template is a blatant lie as with the last two lines because I cannot discuss the 'unconstructive editing' with him.

I do want to improve but If everything I do is unconstrutive what is contructive. I love being here and the fact that I am being helped is something I appreciate. I've changed a lot since I firs started. I have discussions, or at least try to. But my goal today was to clean up the Aeroflot accidents, but if I cannot do something that people consider unconstrutive then what is the point? I mean they haven't touched it and before someone says that the pages are fine, have a look for yourself.

I am not here to deliberatly cause trouble or anything like that. There are air accidents that hit home to me. And after seeing small issues on a page, its how I became a user here, to make the pages look more presentable and not abandoned as with some of the Aeroflot accidents.

Again I love being here and making changes that I see are good, I have common sense when it comes to editing like dont add silly stuff like foul langage etc etc. And in a way my Autism does get to me, but it does make me think creativly. I want to do good I seriosuly hand on heart mean that. But when I get my talk page undone by spam users such as these: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/The_face_of_the_moon its an utter pain. I don't mind the odd occasion bumping into people I dislike its when I get my page messed around with and comments such as 'i cant take CRTISISM' is what annoys me.

Before I end this off, I want a friendly calm discussion as I really have had enough and I just want to be calm and cool around everyone. If theres a page about improvements or anything like that I'll go there. OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 17:21, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

You are required to notify any user involved in this ANI discussion on their talk page. I have done so for you.--WaltCip (talk) 17:46, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm blocking The face of the moon per NOTHERE and almost certainly not being a new user. OrbitalEnd48401, from one ASD editor to another, it's best to keep ANI posts as concise as possible; I had to reread this a few times to figure out what the problem was here, it's easier to just point to the problematic edits with a brief explanation. I'll leave the part of this involving Samf4u to others. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:49, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

I'll just add that there is no reason to think that Samf4u has anything to do with that user, and I support the block. Thanks Blade. Drmies (talk) 20:13, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

As an editor that has had a reasonable amount of interaction with OrbitalEnd48401, I do seriously think OE and the new mysterious The face of the moon may be the same person, in what I can only describe as some weird misguided attempt at implicating Samf4u in wrong doing. Andrewgprout (talk) 21:15, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Andrewgprout, that account is just some troll here to stir up trouble. Please don't make accusations of sockpuppetry without strong evidence. —DoRD (talk)​ 12:31, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Wait you’re accusing me of doing that? I would like an Administrator to check the IP’s in which that user used. That is not me. I am NOT an attention seeker like that. What utter garbage. To hear that come from you Andrew? Oh my god, I’m speechless. I don’t know how could come up with such an accusation Andrew but goddamn that without a doubt has made me lose my mind. I need a break, I’ll answer your questions tomorrow, please just wait for me to come online tomorrow because if that’s what being said when I’ve been without signal most of the day, thag has terrified me. OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 21:22, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Can you please answer this before I hop offline. Why did Sam say my edits were unconstructive, I haven’t hurt the articles or anything. I’m annoyed that anything I do gets undone when I’m here for the best intention. It’s frustrating. OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 21:24, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

If you have a disagreement with Samf4u over how they described your edits, why don't you ask them on their talk page? I have no idea why that would be an ANI issue, unless they continually describe your edits in the same way and refuse to discuss it. Nil Einne (talk) 04:36, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

I have to say, way too many people have been reverting OrbitalEnd48401's WP:OWNTALK page removals for my liking, not just the blocked editor. Yes it may not be ideal behaviour but since they're entitled to do it, they most we should do is counsel against it and let them if they really want to keep at it. Reverting benefits no one. Ultimately if they cause problems and ignore any advice given, they'll be blocked. Diffs can be used to demonstrate that people having been trying to talk to them. In other words, the best way we can deal with any poor behaviour is not to demonstrate poor behaviour ourselves, and reverting legitimate removals is clearly that. Nil Einne (talk) 05:14, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks @Nil Einne:. I appreciate that. Again Samf4u refuses to talk to me please see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Samf4u#Unconstructive

As a quick side not, I know myself not to tamper or disrupt others talk pages unless it’s offenseive or breaks the policy. OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 11:40, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Special:nuke of blocked sock.

Hello! I stumbled across a blocked sock that has a few too many page creations to tag manually. Could a willing admin nuke the creations?

• Tyt0791 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  

Thanks, Kb03 (talk) 13:48, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Why should I delete (for example) Emelia Brobbey? The article doesn't appear to qualify for A7 or G11. Although I can only find coverage in tabloid newspapers from a quick search, it's certainly worth looking into. In the case of Buokrom, longstanding consensus has said we generally don't delete places that are not blatant hoaxes. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:57, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

•  Done Eligible as G5 deletions. Creations by a blocked sockpuppet.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:04, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

You did not answer my question. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:13, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

No need since they were eligible per G5 as Kb03 had rightfully requested. You recreated a page made by a prolific sockmaster.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:26, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Ritchie333: I was in class, sorry for the somewhat delayed response. I requested deletion of those articles as they were creations of a blocked sock, and as such, were eligible for G5. Kb03 (talk) 14:54, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

I have no opinion on who created the article; I just thought Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red could do something with this. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:02, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

• @Berean Hunter: Obligatory reminder that there's nothing wrong with maintaining or reinstating good edits by blocked or banned users, nor is it mandatory to delete them. WP:5P1 is the only reason we're here. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 20:36, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  • You're not telling me anything new. I pointed out that it was a sock creation because he had not acknowledged it. He has since replied that he has no opinion on who created it but if that is the case, he shouldn't have replied to a specific request at ANI for handling G5 deletions unless it was to offer evidence that it wasn't a sock. It wasn't an ambiguous request so it shouldn't have been met with the A7 or G11 strawman argument.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:29, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

The original report was for a sock creation. There would be no need to point out that it was a sock creation, or that such creations are eligible for deletion. Ritchie is a highly experienced admin. There would be no reason to tell him that he restored a creation by a banned user, unless you were implying that there was something wrong with it (which there isn’t). He had already laid out an argument that the article should not be deleted, which you didn’t even acknowledge. You just rubberstamped the G5 even though another admin expressed interest in preserving good content that would not be otherwise eligible for deletion, and then patronizingly “educated” him while ignoring the point he was making. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 14:17, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

It seems that you and I will have to agree to disagree. I'm willing to let others support or oppose my actions here and if a consensus forms to the contrary, overturn my deletions.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:51, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Horizonlove -- edit warring, obvious NFCC violations, BLP noncompliance

User:Horizonlove's failure to comply with BLP and NFCC requirements has been noted by several editors,[259][260] most actively by me. Horizonlove has made no effort to address the policy issues involved, insisting mainly that so long as an image meets "fair use" requirements, failure to meet other NFCC requirements -- particularly regarding replaceability -- should be ignored. This is obviously not compliant with NFCC policies.

For example, Horizonlove uploaded File:FirstLadiesofDisco.jpg for use in the infobox of First Ladies of Disco. First Ladies of Disco is an active musical group. Horizonlove acknowledged in their use rationale that "The image is replaceable". Instead, Horizonlove insists that this replaceable image of living persons can be used should remain until someone provides a "better image". (see edit summary [261]) Horizonlove has restored this obvious NFCC violation five times in the last two days, four time today alone, sufficient to justify a 3RR block. (Note that removing image is exempt from 3RR limits; replaceable nonfree images are unquestionable NFCC violations.)

Horizonlove's behavior with regard to File:TheWeatherGirls.jpg is quite similar. The file is acknowledged as nonfree replaceable. (Even a cursoty Ebay search turns up several apparently free alternatives.) The group is currently active, although it has undergone several membership changes. Horizonlove has repeatedly restored the image, violating 3RR today, insisting that it must be retained unless a "better" alternative is produced. This is plainly not compliant with NFCC policy.

Finally, with regard to Martha Wash, Horizonlove has violated WP:BLP requirements by repeatedly adding and restoring the statement that Wash is a "devout Christian" while citing ostensible sources which do not ascribe such a statement of belief to the article subject. Horizonlove acknowledges that Wash has not "publicly self-identified with the belief" (particularly wrt the "devout" phrasing), saying that "It's safe to say she is a Christian and one of her favorite songs is "God bless the road")[262] and "She has gospel songs: "God Bless the Road", "You Lift Me Up", "I'm Still Standing", etc. She was also in a GOSPEL group which is mentioned in the article" [263]. While these inferences might be seen as reasonable, editor's inferences cannot be substituted for the express statement of belief required by BLP. (Cf the lengthy dispute over how to characterize Jodie Foster's sexuality.) Moreover, since at least two editors had challenged the statement, and none had supported Horizonlove's position, Horizonlove was required by BLP policy to achieve talk page consensus before restoring the disputed content. Horizonlove has also violated 3RR with regard to File:PurpleRoseRecords.png, the nonfree logo of a record label owned by Wash. Policy and practice are clear and well-established; as WP:LOGO states, a nonfree logo may be used in an article whose primary subject is the label itself, but it may not be used as an identifying image in an article on a different subject even if the subject is related. No Apple logo in Steve Jobs, no Def Jam logo in Rick Rubin, no Tesla or SpaceX logo in Elon Musk.

I could presumably have easily secured a simple 3RR sanction for the File:FirstLadiesofDisco.jpg edit warring alone, but the general pattern of behaviour needs to be addressed. As another editor commented in an unsuccessful AFD Horizonlove initiated, Horizonlove's editing is marked by "a flat refusal to accept community decisions".[264] Horizonlove has made no effort to address the governing policy issues, simply asserting their own views as to what ought to be allowed.

I therefore propose that Horizonlove be indefinitely blocked until they accept that 1) NFCC policies prohibit the use of replaceable nonfree images; and 2) when content is disputed under policies like BLP or NFCC, which place the burden of proof on the editor seeking to retain content, they will not restore disputed content without an appropriate talk page consensus. Perhaps a continuing 1RR restriction would be appropriate after the block is lifted. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 19:14, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

I'll address everything in the order of what was stated. This has nothing to do with other editors, only one (Hullaballoo Wolfowitz). Hullaballoo Wolfowitz started an edit war and is simply trying to hide by his own interpretations of Wikipedia polices. Starting with the File:FirstLadiesofDisco.jpg, I added a "fair use" rationale to the image, stating its use. I gave a total of six reasons why this is acceptable to use on the First Ladies of Disco page and it has not appeared in any other articles than the one mentioned. Under Wikipedia policy, that is acceptable. I also did the same thing for File:TheWeatherGirls.jpg. However in that case, it also a historical image as one of the members in the photo is deceased which I noted again under "fair use" rationale. When it comes to Martha Wash, two issues are happening there. User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz insists on removing sourced information that notes Martha Wash as Christian. While it was not directly stated in the "Call Me Adam" source that I provided, it was heavily implied. But it was also stated that she was in the final chapter "Red Kimono" of The Fabulous Sylvester book, for which I listed the book a source. Additionally, Wash has been a gospel group (mentioned in the article) and has gospel songs that she has released in the past. Still, User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz wishes to be unnecessarily combative about that part. As for "While these inferences might be seen as reasonable, editor's inferences cannot be substituted for the express statement of belief required by BLP. (Cf the lengthy dispute over how to characterize Jodie Foster's sexuality.) Moreover, since at least two editors had challenged the statement, and none had supported Horizonlove's position, Horizonlove was required by BLP policy to achieve talk page consensus before restoring the disputed content.", I don't know who the second user is that Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is referring to as nobody has changed that information but himself. And I don't see how his example has anything to do with this situation. It would make no sense for a singer who isn't a Christian to release gospel songs on their own albums or to have been in a gospel group. So Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's Jodie Foster theory doesn't apply in this case. The second issue involves the File:PurpleRoseRecords.png, which was used only in Martha Wash#Purple Rose Records that specifically talks about the company itself, which Wash owns. I would have created another page, but I felt that was unnecessary because there may not be enough content to move it to another page, so I posted the logo there [on the Martha Wash]. I don't see how that violates the Wikipedia policy when the logo is being used the company's part of the page.

To suggest a one-way indefinite block is highly inappropriate and foolish for following Wikipedia image policies. I did everything by the book and when I pointed that out to User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, he began an edit war. Now if I am temporarily blocked for the edit war, that is fine because it takes two people to war but User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz should definitely share that block. However I have followed through on Wikipedia policies involving those images and its uses. Horizonlove (talk) 19:51, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

I blocked for 31h. An indefinite block would be indeed an overkill at this point, but if the user continues this behavior after the expiration of the current block a longer block will be in order.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:17, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

I endorse the block. Horizonlove, here is some advice: Complete and rigorous compliance with NFCC is mandatory. You are simply not allowed to call someone a "devout Christian" without an explicit self-identification. I removed that from the biography. As for edit warring? Abandon that behavior if you want to keep editing Wikipedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:26, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

In addition, Horizonlove's reasoning about gospel music is deeply flawed. Atheist and agnostic performers can and do sing gospel songs for artistic reasons, and it is a well-known fact that many Christmas carols were written by Jews. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:33, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Editing on SNC-Lavalin Affair by User:Curly Turkey and others

Hi, I'd like to get an outside look at the talk page discussions and article edits on this page. Certain edits by Curly Turkey have I think been uncivil. ("this kind of bullshit", "Jesus Christ, this is exasperating. (...) Do I have to hold your hand and walk you through our sourcing guidlines?", "Aside from your contempt for our sourcing guidelines, you seem to have a vested interest in including "LavScam" in the lead paragraph", "don't make a fool of yourself, Legacypac", "The belligerence some of these editors continue to show—and the facile dismissal of all evidence provided—demonstrates this is a behavioural issue that won't be solved through discussion. The bad faith is so thick you can cut it with a knife—just take a look at Legacypac's FUD that I'm pushing some unnamed "agenda" below." (Referencing this by Legacypac), "I've brought you to task over the intransigent, bad-faith, POV-pushing, policy-violating manner in which it is presented. ANI will decide whether you'll get away with it.")

Other edits have had less than civil remarks in the edit summaries, like "a single-mindedness that should be treated with great suspicion", "WP:WEIGHT is WP:POLICY; if you continue to violate policy, we can sort this out at WP:ANI, if you'd like", "learn how to use a source"

I am also concerned about certain of their arguments regarding sources, but I don't know if this is the right place to talk about that. All other editors currently in the discussion also have disagreements with many of their policy arguments, and accusations of misbehaviour of different types have been raised by others. I have tried to be calm and reasonable, as well as to ask for more specificity in P&G citations, but I don't feel it's helped much.

I have said something to Curly which I'm not sure about civility status on: "You don't need to ping me twice in the same reply to me on a page I'm watching. It comes off as aggressive and condescending, which I'm sure wasn't your intention." I would like some outside advice or input, or something, on the whole state of the discussion and what the bar for civility is, because I thought it was higher than this. The relevant talk page sections begin at Curly Turkey Edits. Curly has also opened a section on my talk page, Sourcing, about a couple reverts I made which make me think I've lost my patience. Safrolic (talk) 05:36, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

I would like to second what Safrolic has written here. Things have not improved since. Other editors have tried to engage with Curly on improvements to the article but we are not able to discuss content. Curly simply accuses anyone who disagrees with him of bad faith. When asked what specifically he thinks needs to be improved he tends to go silent or shift to allegations. This is becoming extremely disruptive. Unfortunately, I do not see this de-escalating without intervention.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk)

Now User:Bradv has started edit warring [265] (second removal) and misrepresenting the talkpags discussion. When I reverted them once, adding yet another ref, they claimed it was all right wing media. Curly turkey needs a topic ban and Bradv needs a talking to. Google LavScam and look at how pretty much every media outlet in Canada and places like CNN (hardly right wing) are using this term. This is a politically charged topic and our job is to follow the socerces not whitewash the page and downplay everything. If many many media outlets call something X we also note that in the lede. Legacypac (talk) 06:08, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

This isn't appropriate or helpful. I asked for outside input, and mentioned others, for a reason. Bradv's got good judgment. Safrolic (talk) 06:18, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Legacypac, I took a look at the article in response to the conversation started here, and saw a pretty glaring NPOV issue right off the bat. I've now started an RfC. – bradv🍁 06:14, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

If there is a glaring NPOV it is because Curly turkey has been butchering the page. You never participated in the talkpage discussion. Explain your edit warring and removal of three sources. Legacypac (talk) 06:19, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

So ... you're personally attacking every editor who calls out your POV-pushing ... Littleolive oil, myself, Bradv ... who next? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:47, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Suspected astroturfing at SNC-Lavalin affair

The following is an incomplete draft of an ANI report I've been working on. Long as it is, many issues and diffs are yet to come. Sorry I did not have the time to make it more concise and readable. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:47, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

While attempting to copyedit SNC-Lavalin affair, I kept running into sourcing issues: description of something as "illegal" where none of the three cited sources did; description of a hashtag as a "colloquialsim", later reverted three times[266][267][268] with the same source about the term as a hashtag; Padding of a quotation with multiple sources, when only one gave the full quote; and so on ...

I've tried to fix the article in various ways: adding sources, rewording, and removing inappropriate sources. I've run into considerable pushback from other editors there, including one who asserts sources are "not required to support all the material in the paragraph, that's ridiculous" while removing a tag.

One example alternate term: "Wilson-Raybould scandal", 75,800 hits

"LavScam", 71,500 hits

The most concerning behaviour has been the insistence on including the term "LavScam" in the lead sentence. The term is one of a large number of terms that have been used to describe the issue, including "Wilson-Raybould scandal", "PMO scandal", "Trudeau scandal", and a list of variations of the article title that I removed as redundant and predictable. The only term the editors have fought to restore is "LavScam", despite the fact that several terms (that are not variations of the current title) return a greater number of Google hits (see screenshots).

Early on, I characterized the article's issues as "sloppy", but the single-minded pushback over "LavScam" has made me suspicious. I searched for how the media used this term and found it rare or nonexistent in outlets such as CBC News, the National Post, and the Toronto Star, but the favoured term in the right-wing tabloid the Toronto Sun—in fact, two thirds of hits in a Google News search are from this single source ("Lavscam": 4940 hits, '"Lavscam" -torontosun.com': 1,650 hits). To put things in perspective: Trudeau Lavalin: 665,000 hits; Trudeau Lavalin -LavScam: 655,000 hits. "LavScam" barely registers at all, and a supermajority of hits come from a single source.

I then went back through the article talk page and found a previous dispute these editors had had with User:Littleolive oil over who to highlight in the lead. The affair is a divisive one in Canada, and there is no consensus over who is to blame. Legacypac repsonded with this POV:

"I prefer the PM's picture. This scandal is about him, not the former AG who was allegedly pressured"

The AG being Wilson-Raybould; newssources differ on who is to blame, and many of them have named the scandal after Wilson-Raybould, the Prime Minister, or SNC-Lavalin.

Legacypac's first edit to the talk page was commentary "The most interesting part is how SNC paid for the son of a dictator to tour Canada hiring expensive call girls for him." Legacypac and Littleolive then engaged in some editwarring until this comment was finally removed: [269] [270][271][272][273]. Legacypac clearly has a POV and has a history of fighting for it on this article. Other editors who have participated include Harris Seldon, Darryl Kerrigan, and Safrolic.

... Work in progress: Persistent WP:IDONTHEARTHAT behaviour, and dismissal of empirical evidence and policies, including WP:INTEGRITY, WP:WEIGHT, WP:OR, and WP:SYNTH ...

The consistent pushback against my attempts to clean up the article's sourcing, dismissal of numerous policies, single-minded focus on the term "LavScam", explicit expressions of POVs ... these have me suspicious of an astroturfing campaign there. At the very least, these editors have demonstrated an unwillingness to respect Wikipedia's sitewide sourcing policies and, consciously or not, have repeatedly introduced and reinforced (sometimes through editwarring) POV into a politically-sensitive article. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:47, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Re: "not required to support all the material in the paragraph, that's ridiculous", that was my error- I thought we were talking about a paragraph with multiple citations for specific sentences, and that you were saying the source for only the last sentence, was also required to support all the material in the paragraph I thought was cited already. It was that leap/reaction which I was referring to above when I said I think I've lost my patience. Safrolic (talk) 08:00, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

There was and is material in that paragraph that does not appear in any of the citations in the paragraph. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:02, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

My sin here, and that of some others, has simply been disagreeing with Curly Turkey on the question of whether the term LavScam should be included. There seems to be some question about other edits and sourcing but I don't believe I have "participated" in that conduct. My disagreement with Turkey was limited, I believe, to placing the term LavScam back in the article when others agreed it should be there (Turkey excluded) and disagreeing with Turkey in the Talk page. It is regrettable that we find ourselves here. There have been assumptions of bad faith largely all around (by myself included). It is clear though that on the distinct issue of the inclusion of LavScam in the article, which seems to have become the main lightning rod here, Curly Turkey has formed the view that others cannot disagree with him on this issue without acting in bad faith. That is regrettable. That is why we are here.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 17:42, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Update: there's now an editwar ongoing between Legacypac and Bradv over "LavScam" in the lead,[274][275][276] in the middle of which Legacypac removed a {{Cite check}} template, despite the number of problematic citations that continue to turn up. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:09, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Check his diffs carefully because he is not being very accurate here. Just as anexample I removed a check cite tag while adding another cite. Legacypac (talk) 18:55, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

This is a straight-up lie—not only did Legacypac not add a cite, no cite has been added by any user since that edit. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:11, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

I think he's referring to his edit immediately before that one [277], where he adds a third reference, to the Toronto Sun, in addition to the two he restored after bradv removed the lavscam thing. I don't think it was a good source, or a good chain of edits, or that it addressed the actual concern re: the lavscam thing, or that that specific bit was the only reason you put that tag up. But I do think it's inaccurate and unfair to call what he said here a straight-up lie. Safrolic (talk) 21:24, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Does not compute: Legacypac's edit comment was "Don't need that tag", and the {{Check cite}} tags the entire article, which I've been systematically checking over the sources of for more WP:INTEGRITY violations. No, Legacypac was straight-up lying and spreading FUD. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:38, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Every other editor on the page is disagreeing with Curly and yet he persists on verbal assaults on other editors. This has gone too far. Time to remove Curly from the article as he is being very disruptive. Legacypac (talk) 02:33, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

I concur. Curly Turkey is being disruptive and uncivil, and quite evidently does not WP:HEAR very well. Regardless of any problems that might exist with the article, he is in no way assisting with any resolution. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:23, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

(Aside from being the only one who has identified and fixed any of the many policy-violating sourcing issues ...)

We're left with the same WP:IDHT about policy adherence that we've had since the beginning of this drahmah—policy enforcement is the "disruption" they object to, and which led to the earlier campaign against Littleolive oil (who identified WP:WEIGHT issues, POV issues, WP:INTEGRITY issues, and other issues until being bullied off the page).

Several of the editors involved are brand new with only a few hundred edits to their names (PavelShk, Safrolic, Harris Seldon, Darryl Kerrigan), so it's not so surprising that they'd misunderstand or undervalue our sourcing policies—a couple of them have admitted so themselves. Legacypac's vitriol and FUD appears have emboldened them to his ends, and they've followed his example in editwarring to retain policy-violating sourcing. One example: there is currently an WP:INTEGRITY-violating source in the article (the quotation that precedes it does not exist in the source cited)—and this group refuses to allow it to be fixed, editwarring to keep it in its WP:INTEGRITY-violating state. Here are my attempts to reason with them about it:[278][279][280] Yet it remains. This example is lower priority than some of the others (such as the "illegal" one I link to above"), but it illustrates the unnecessary effort needed to fix anything in this article.

So many other issues remain—the article still needs a full source check for WP:INTEGRITY given the numerous violations, and it has suffered from cherrypicked sources supporting particular POVs, as well as WP:OR and WP:SYNTH issues.

Our sourcing policies are not optional—particularly in a politics article involving BLPs—and cannot be left to the discretion of POV-pushers. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:16, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Here's a prime example of the exasperating IDHT from Darryl Kerrigan, from today:

DK: "You proposed multiple alternative names along with LavScam."

CT: "I proposed no such thing, and have responded to this WP:IDHT repeatedly. I pointed out it was a violation of WP:WEIGHT to single out "LavScam" when other, more common alternatives were available, and then pointed out that giving prominence to a term that appears in a fraction of 1% of sources—the majority of which are to a single source—is a violation of WP:WEIGHT."

DK: "Your arguments here have have been shifting, often vaugue, circular and ultimately dishonest."

CT: "you keep saying this, and yet I see no diffs to back it up. It's simple: follow our sourcing policies. Find me a diff of something I said that is not essentially that"

DK: "Try reading discussion of LavScam above where you propose alterate names ..." (none of the requested diffs)

CT: "I never "proposed" alternate names (and you've provided no diff that I did). I listed names that appear as or more frequently as "LavScam" and explicitly stated so. I also explicitly stated that including "LavScam" would require listing the alternate names per WP:WEIGHT, but that I was opposed to doing so for readability reasons. I strengthened my standing oppose when it was discovered that the term is used in a small fraction of 1%, 2/3 of which were from the Toronto Sun, per the same WP:WEIGHT argument."

DK: "The best anyone has been able to get out of you is that maybe you are talking about "Wilson-Raybould Scandal" as an additional term" (!!!!!!) (again none of the requested diffs)

Here's where I first mentioned "Wilson-Raybould scandal":

CT: "there's also "Wilson-Raybould scandal" and its variations, "SNC scandal" and its variations, "PMO scandal", and so on. Listing them all would not be against the guidelines, but would be ridiculous and hinder readability. They may be appropriate elsewhere in the body, but cluttering up the lead paragraph with them benefits no reader."

Note that not only do I not "propose" it, I explictly propose against its inclusion, as I have consistently throughout these discussions. This can be re-explicated only so many times before it's obvious one's dealing with deliberate WP:IDHT belligerence. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:37, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

CT: you really, really should consider that everyone else here – do you want a poll? – sees "deliberate WP:IDHT belligerence" as applying to you. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:00, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Regarding my recent edits

Now I'd like to make it clear to everyone that I am about to wirte a lot so please be patient.

Regarding my recent edits on wikipedia, yes I have been a pain at times and when I have realised my mistakes as for example when I thought occupants were not needed on air accidents were there no survivors I made a quick and urgent redo. Look I'm not perfect ok, but until recently I decided to fix up some old accidents regarding Aeroflot, please see here: Aeroflot accidents and incidents. I have been fixing the infoboxes, the date formats, the summaries and adding occupants, ok to the vast majority of you, thats nothing. But I'd rather get those pages up to date regarding the layout and formatting.

To start it off, I've had a user User:Samf4u send me messages stating editing the old Aeroflot pages are unconstructive. To make it clear how is it unconstructive to redo those old rarley edited pages. To him that it is considered uneeded but bear in mind after a minor discussion with another user I found that having dates set out as d/m/y was considered the best layout so thats what I did. In which I later changed into a function after I saw some popular accidents use said format. Anyways regarding Samf4u, we fell out recently and until now I've had about 3 of these unconstrucitve posts of him, in which I deleted and I will explain why:

A) The template he sent me says this and I quote " If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page". In which I did, he said he doesn't talk to disruptive users. So the template to me is rendered useless.

B) The template helps me in no way what-so-ever. I read the link about unconstructive edits once. My edits on the aeroflot accidents are not uneeded.

With my talk there are times when I delete parts from it. It's not that I 'cant take CRITISISM' as one user believes. It's the fact that if I don't need it anymore or it does not serve a purpose to me then I don't keep it. Until recently as of this past 30 minutes while I'm tpying this message, I've had this user: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/The_face_of_the_moon. Undo my edit with Sam's template on. Like Ive said multiple times. I do not need it there, the template is a blatant lie as with the last two lines because I cannot discuss the 'unconstructive editing' with him.

I do want to improve but If everything I do is unconstrutive what is contructive. I love being here and the fact that I am being helped is something I appreciate. I've changed a lot since I firs started. I have discussions, or at least try to. But my goal today was to clean up the Aeroflot accidents, but if I cannot do something that people consider unconstrutive then what is the point? I mean they haven't touched it and before someone says that the pages are fine, have a look for yourself.

I am not here to deliberatly cause trouble or anything like that. There are air accidents that hit home to me. And after seeing small issues on a page, its how I became a user here, to make the pages look more presentable and not abandoned as with some of the Aeroflot accidents.

Again I love being here and making changes that I see are good, I have common sense when it comes to editing like dont add silly stuff like foul langage etc etc. And in a way my Autism does get to me, but it does make me think creativly. I want to do good I seriosuly hand on heart mean that. But when I get my talk page undone by spam users such as these: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/The_face_of_the_moon its an utter pain. I don't mind the odd occasion bumping into people I dislike its when I get my page messed around with and comments such as 'i cant take CRTISISM' is what annoys me.

Before I end this off, I want a friendly calm discussion as I really have had enough and I just want to be calm and cool around everyone. If theres a page about improvements or anything like that I'll go there. OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 17:21, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

You are required to notify any user involved in this ANI discussion on their talk page. I have done so for you.--WaltCip (talk) 17:46, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm blocking The face of the moon per NOTHERE and almost certainly not being a new user. OrbitalEnd48401, from one ASD editor to another, it's best to keep ANI posts as concise as possible; I had to reread this a few times to figure out what the problem was here, it's easier to just point to the problematic edits with a brief explanation. I'll leave the part of this involving Samf4u to others. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:49, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

I'll just add that there is no reason to think that Samf4u has anything to do with that user, and I support the block. Thanks Blade. Drmies (talk) 20:13, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

As an editor that has had a reasonable amount of interaction with OrbitalEnd48401, I do seriously think OE and the new mysterious The face of the moon may be the same person, in what I can only describe as some weird misguided attempt at implicating Samf4u in wrong doing. Andrewgprout (talk) 21:15, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Andrewgprout, that account is just some troll here to stir up trouble. Please don't make accusations of sockpuppetry without strong evidence. —DoRD (talk)​ 12:31, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Wait you’re accusing me of doing that? I would like an Administrator to check the IP’s in which that user used. That is not me. I am NOT an attention seeker like that. What utter garbage. To hear that come from you Andrew? Oh my god, I’m speechless. I don’t know how could come up with such an accusation Andrew but goddamn that without a doubt has made me lose my mind. I need a break, I’ll answer your questions tomorrow, please just wait for me to come online tomorrow because if that’s what being said when I’ve been without signal most of the day, thag has terrified me. OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 21:22, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Can you please answer this before I hop offline. Why did Sam say my edits were unconstructive, I haven’t hurt the articles or anything. I’m annoyed that anything I do gets undone when I’m here for the best intention. It’s frustrating. OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 21:24, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

If you have a disagreement with Samf4u over how they described your edits, why don't you ask them on their talk page? I have no idea why that would be an ANI issue, unless they continually describe your edits in the same way and refuse to discuss it. Nil Einne (talk) 04:36, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

I have to say, way too many people have been reverting OrbitalEnd48401's WP:OWNTALK page removals for my liking, not just the blocked editor. Yes it may not be ideal behaviour but since they're entitled to do it, they most we should do is counsel against it and let them if they really want to keep at it. Reverting benefits no one. Ultimately if they cause problems and ignore any advice given, they'll be blocked. Diffs can be used to demonstrate that people having been trying to talk to them. In other words, the best way we can deal with any poor behaviour is not to demonstrate poor behaviour ourselves, and reverting legitimate removals is clearly that. Nil Einne (talk) 05:14, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks @Nil Einne:. I appreciate that. Again Samf4u refuses to talk to me please see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Samf4u#Unconstructive

As a quick side not, I know myself not to tamper or disrupt others talk pages unless it’s offenseive or breaks the policy. OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 11:40, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Special:nuke of blocked sock.

Hello! I stumbled across a blocked sock that has a few too many page creations to tag manually. Could a willing admin nuke the creations?

• Tyt0791 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  

Thanks, Kb03 (talk) 13:48, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Why should I delete (for example) Emelia Brobbey? The article doesn't appear to qualify for A7 or G11. Although I can only find coverage in tabloid newspapers from a quick search, it's certainly worth looking into. In the case of Buokrom, longstanding consensus has said we generally don't delete places that are not blatant hoaxes. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:57, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

•  Done Eligible as G5 deletions. Creations by a blocked sockpuppet.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:04, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

You did not answer my question. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:13, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

No need since they were eligible per G5 as Kb03 had rightfully requested. You recreated a page made by a prolific sockmaster.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:26, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Ritchie333: I was in class, sorry for the somewhat delayed response. I requested deletion of those articles as they were creations of a blocked sock, and as such, were eligible for G5. Kb03 (talk) 14:54, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

I have no opinion on who created the article; I just thought Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red could do something with this. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:02, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

• @Berean Hunter: Obligatory reminder that there's nothing wrong with maintaining or reinstating good edits by blocked or banned users, nor is it mandatory to delete them. WP:5P1 is the only reason we're here. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 20:36, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  • You're not telling me anything new. I pointed out that it was a sock creation because he had not acknowledged it. He has since replied that he has no opinion on who created it but if that is the case, he shouldn't have replied to a specific request at ANI for handling G5 deletions unless it was to offer evidence that it wasn't a sock. It wasn't an ambiguous request so it shouldn't have been met with the A7 or G11 strawman argument.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:29, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

The original report was for a sock creation. There would be no need to point out that it was a sock creation, or that such creations are eligible for deletion. Ritchie is a highly experienced admin. There would be no reason to tell him that he restored a creation by a banned user, unless you were implying that there was something wrong with it (which there isn’t). He had already laid out an argument that the article should not be deleted, which you didn’t even acknowledge. You just rubberstamped the G5 even though another admin expressed interest in preserving good content that would not be otherwise eligible for deletion, and then patronizingly “educated” him while ignoring the point he was making. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 14:17, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

It seems that you and I will have to agree to disagree. I'm willing to let others support or oppose my actions here and if a consensus forms to the contrary, overturn my deletions.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:51, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Horizonlove -- edit warring, obvious NFCC violations, BLP noncompliance

User:Horizonlove's failure to comply with BLP and NFCC requirements has been noted by several editors,[281][282] most actively by me. Horizonlove has made no effort to address the policy issues involved, insisting mainly that so long as an image meets "fair use" requirements, failure to meet other NFCC requirements -- particularly regarding replaceability -- should be ignored. This is obviously not compliant with NFCC policies.

For example, Horizonlove uploaded File:FirstLadiesofDisco.jpg for use in the infobox of First Ladies of Disco. First Ladies of Disco is an active musical group. Horizonlove acknowledged in their use rationale that "The image is replaceable". Instead, Horizonlove insists that this replaceable image of living persons can be used should remain until someone provides a "better image". (see edit summary [283]) Horizonlove has restored this obvious NFCC violation five times in the last two days, four time today alone, sufficient to justify a 3RR block. (Note that removing image is exempt from 3RR limits; replaceable nonfree images are unquestionable NFCC violations.)

Horizonlove's behavior with regard to File:TheWeatherGirls.jpg is quite similar. The file is acknowledged as nonfree replaceable. (Even a cursoty Ebay search turns up several apparently free alternatives.) The group is currently active, although it has undergone several membership changes. Horizonlove has repeatedly restored the image, violating 3RR today, insisting that it must be retained unless a "better" alternative is produced. This is plainly not compliant with NFCC policy.

Finally, with regard to Martha Wash, Horizonlove has violated WP:BLP requirements by repeatedly adding and restoring the statement that Wash is a "devout Christian" while citing ostensible sources which do not ascribe such a statement of belief to the article subject. Horizonlove acknowledges that Wash has not "publicly self-identified with the belief" (particularly wrt the "devout" phrasing), saying that "It's safe to say she is a Christian and one of her favorite songs is "God bless the road")[284] and "She has gospel songs: "God Bless the Road", "You Lift Me Up", "I'm Still Standing", etc. She was also in a GOSPEL group which is mentioned in the article" [285]. While these inferences might be seen as reasonable, editor's inferences cannot be substituted for the express statement of belief required by BLP. (Cf the lengthy dispute over how to characterize Jodie Foster's sexuality.) Moreover, since at least two editors had challenged the statement, and none had supported Horizonlove's position, Horizonlove was required by BLP policy to achieve talk page consensus before restoring the disputed content. Horizonlove has also violated 3RR with regard to File:PurpleRoseRecords.png, the nonfree logo of a record label owned by Wash. Policy and practice are clear and well-established; as WP:LOGO states, a nonfree logo may be used in an article whose primary subject is the label itself, but it may not be used as an identifying image in an article on a different subject even if the subject is related. No Apple logo in Steve Jobs, no Def Jam logo in Rick Rubin, no Tesla or SpaceX logo in Elon Musk.

I could presumably have easily secured a simple 3RR sanction for the File:FirstLadiesofDisco.jpg edit warring alone, but the general pattern of behaviour needs to be addressed. As another editor commented in an unsuccessful AFD Horizonlove initiated, Horizonlove's editing is marked by "a flat refusal to accept community decisions".[286] Horizonlove has made no effort to address the governing policy issues, simply asserting their own views as to what ought to be allowed.

I therefore propose that Horizonlove be indefinitely blocked until they accept that 1) NFCC policies prohibit the use of replaceable nonfree images; and 2) when content is disputed under policies like BLP or NFCC, which place the burden of proof on the editor seeking to retain content, they will not restore disputed content without an appropriate talk page consensus. Perhaps a continuing 1RR restriction would be appropriate after the block is lifted. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 19:14, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

I'll address everything in the order of what was stated. This has nothing to do with other editors, only one (Hullaballoo Wolfowitz). Hullaballoo Wolfowitz started an edit war and is simply trying to hide by his own interpretations of Wikipedia polices. Starting with the File:FirstLadiesofDisco.jpg, I added a "fair use" rationale to the image, stating its use. I gave a total of six reasons why this is acceptable to use on the First Ladies of Disco page and it has not appeared in any other articles than the one mentioned. Under Wikipedia policy, that is acceptable. I also did the same thing for File:TheWeatherGirls.jpg. However in that case, it also a historical image as one of the members in the photo is deceased which I noted again under "fair use" rationale. When it comes to Martha Wash, two issues are happening there. User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz insists on removing sourced information that notes Martha Wash as Christian. While it was not directly stated in the "Call Me Adam" source that I provided, it was heavily implied. But it was also stated that she was in the final chapter "Red Kimono" of The Fabulous Sylvester book, for which I listed the book a source. Additionally, Wash has been a gospel group (mentioned in the article) and has gospel songs that she has released in the past. Still, User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz wishes to be unnecessarily combative about that part. As for "While these inferences might be seen as reasonable, editor's inferences cannot be substituted for the express statement of belief required by BLP. (Cf the lengthy dispute over how to characterize Jodie Foster's sexuality.) Moreover, since at least two editors had challenged the statement, and none had supported Horizonlove's position, Horizonlove was required by BLP policy to achieve talk page consensus before restoring the disputed content.", I don't know who the second user is that Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is referring to as nobody has changed that information but himself. And I don't see how his example has anything to do with this situation. It would make no sense for a singer who isn't a Christian to release gospel songs on their own albums or to have been in a gospel group. So Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's Jodie Foster theory doesn't apply in this case. The second issue involves the File:PurpleRoseRecords.png, which was used only in Martha Wash#Purple Rose Records that specifically talks about the company itself, which Wash owns. I would have created another page, but I felt that was unnecessary because there may not be enough content to move it to another page, so I posted the logo there [on the Martha Wash]. I don't see how that violates the Wikipedia policy when the logo is being used the company's part of the page.

To suggest a one-way indefinite block is highly inappropriate and foolish for following Wikipedia image policies. I did everything by the book and when I pointed that out to User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, he began an edit war. Now if I am temporarily blocked for the edit war, that is fine because it takes two people to war but User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz should definitely share that block. However I have followed through on Wikipedia policies involving those images and its uses. Horizonlove (talk) 19:51, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

I blocked for 31h. An indefinite block would be indeed an overkill at this point, but if the user continues this behavior after the expiration of the current block a longer block will be in order.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:17, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

I endorse the block. Horizonlove, here is some advice: Complete and rigorous compliance with NFCC is mandatory. You are simply not allowed to call someone a "devout Christian" without an explicit self-identification. I removed that from the biography. As for edit warring? Abandon that behavior if you want to keep editing Wikipedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:26, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

In addition, Horizonlove's reasoning about gospel music is deeply flawed. Atheist and agnostic performers can and do sing gospel songs for artistic reasons, and it is a well-known fact that many Christmas carols were written by Jews. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:33, 20 April 2019 (UTC)