Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1021

User:Vane323

Since 9 October, I began to undo the editions of the user Vane323 in the article Lo que la vida me robó. Since then, it has initiated a long dispute over the content Vane323 is adding. Although I have reverted several times, and I leave messages in his discussion, the user does not respond to the messages and uses the edit summary to talk with me. I already asked him to stop adding irrelevant information about who killed some characters, but he doesn't stop.-- Bradford ✉ 16:04, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: note Special:Diff/920767127 and Special:Diff/920767239 popped up in recent change patrolling (first one handled by Jebcubed, second one handled by myself), so it might be worth keeping an eye on this thread. Thanks, SITH (talk) 18:47, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Help with WP:IDHT, WP:NPA, and WP:INCIVIL behavior from IP

Once Bermuda was protected due to edit-warring from 104.218.174.219 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) in response to reverts from myself (I recognize that I made too many reverts as well, I thought that referring to the existing discussion and that the subsequent revert edit summary was completely invalid) and ultimately The Grand Delusion who made the RPP request, the IP editor jumped to the article talk page to make baseless accusations against me.

Despite 2 explicit NPA warnings on the IP's talk page and 3 requests to stop in the article talk page referring to several baseless accusations / personal attacks:

1. Warning 1 and request to stop NPAs 1 for:
   • Personal attack 1
     • revert trolling; user has wilfully ignored numerous authoritative sources over a period of six months in bizarre campaign of misinformation
   • Personal attacks 2-4 in rant 1:
     • You are now removing accurate, sourced statements purely as a wilful campaign of misinformation.
     • instead choosing to ignore such, snipe at other users and revert pages to poorly sourced, blatantly false claims.
     • Your bad faith demands to use the talk page as some sort of attempt to block other users from correcting your edits are disgusting.
2. Warning 2 and request to stop NPAs 2 for:
   • Personal attacks 5-7 in rant 2:
     • Your ongoing refusal to actually engage other editors on this site for the past six months is pathetic.
     • You have made no attempt to refute or even acknowledge the multiple, authoritative sources on population figures provided to you and instead continue to force through your edits
     • It should certainly be ridiculous enough for you.
3. Request to stop NPAs 3 for:
   • Personal attacks 8-11 in rant 3:
     • I see you continue to ignore all sources provided to you.
     • You claim that you are engaging in discussion. Where? (Moreso WP:IDHT than NPA)
     • You do not respond to questions, suggestions or ideas posed to you, instead your responses are little more than simply pasting your claim that we should only use your source across every page.
     • As mentioned...REPEATEDLY...you have had six months on some of these sources and have said nothing; you clearly aren't interested in doing so. That is not building consensus.

These accusations come from a gross mischaracterization of a past civil discussion on my talk page with another editor. The IP's ranting is disruptive, consists of personal attacks (WP:WIAPA #5), and persistent despite requests to stop. The content issue is a genuine topic of discussion, but the IP refuses to actually talk about points I raised in the past and instead make repeated false accusations of "trolling", "misinformation", "ongoing refusal", "pathetic", "force your edits through", etc.

Sorry for the bother. I could have perhaps spent more time elaborating on why those accusations were false and addressing the sources presented in the IP's second rant, but I figured that civility would have been afforded by the first or second warning. The IP hasn't commented on any of its edit-warring warnings, NPA warnings, and requests to stop accusations. — MarkH21 (talk) 03:04, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Malyasian IP attacks Singaporeans

See archived link at wp:ANI: [2][3][4]

• 2001:D08:2082:72C9:1:0:C89:93B6 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
  
• 2001:D08:1013:B64A:1:2:84C3:E309 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
  

Vandalism by Unintelligible personal attack. Gundam5447 (talk) 15:09, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Blocked these two for 48h--Ymblanter (talk) 15:29, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: This is a long-term problem (search AN and ANI for "2001:d08") that I think could benefit from a longer-term rangeblock. At Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1019#Malayasian IP attacks Singaporeans, I've identified the seven (of 256) /40 ranges within 2001:d08::/32 that are the source of the problem. I think this user does more damage by attacking other IPs than any possible inconvenience that may occur to others in that range that would have to create accounts. IIRC, they also perform lots of unsourced, mostly chinese-language edits to Singaporean television shows that I doubt are getting any sort of verification. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 16:45, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

I am familiar with the problem, but I prefer to leave range blocks to administrators who can better estimate the effect of collateral damage from the range block.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:54, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

• 2001:D08:DB:E328:BD96:FAC1:2763:881B (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
  
• 2001:D08:1201:4640:1:0:4662:F7A2 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
  
• 2001:D08:2080:C2E5:1:0:2EED:6164 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
  

Vandalism by Unclear personal attack. Even if I warn, an IP address is changed and repeated. Gundam5447 (talk) 09:33, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

• 2001:D08:1030:BAD4:1:0:955D:8D38 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
  
• 2001:D08:1281:F0E5:1:0:53D5:6348 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
  

Vandalism by Persistent impersonation. Even if I warn, an IP address is changed and repeated. Gundam5447 (talk) 13:44, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Wave of Vandalism Incoming

• Versions of Justice League
• Justice League (film)

There has been a fan controversy over the 2017 film Justice League and the supposed existence of a version called the Snyder Cut. Apparently the hardcore Snyder Cut fans don't like what Wikipedia has to say about it, because the Snyder Cut twitter is now urging as many people as it can to create single-purpose accounts to change the articles to their preferred viewpoint.

One IP editor 2405:204:5702:ABC2:0:0:130D:18A4 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has already joined the party. I requested the semi-protection of Versions of Justice League and notified Talk:Justice League (film) of what is going down. I would recommend administrators keeping an eye on both pages. DarkKnight2149 17:11, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

And here's another single-purpose account that just joined in - Bjthegeek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Nearly all of their edits are trying to remove the same information they don't like from Versions of Justice League and they claim to be a part of "the movement". They have a history of edit warring with these edits as well. Clearly WP:COI. DarkKnight2149 07:17, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

If it gets out of hand, we can use WP:ECP. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:51, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

User talk:Nwafor Andrew

Just read this. Nwafor Andrew has repeatedly uploaded copyvio images. Plus he continues to recreate an autobiography of himself Nwafor Andrew. He has been warned multiple times but has continued to do so without discussing. Again, just read his talk page. From AnUnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 23:35, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

• Per User talk:Nwafor Andrew#Contested_deletion, it would appear that the article in question is not an autobiography; rather, the username is simply incorrect. Moaz786 (talk to me or see what I've been doing) 00:17, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Still, wouldn't that be impersonation? From AnUnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 02:39, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Has created new inappropriate page Wikipedia:NattyB and still hasn't communicated. From AnUnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 21:29, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

That page was where he moved his user and user talk pages to the Wikipedia space. I undid that move. —C.Fred (talk) 23:04, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Edit warring in Operation Peace Spring/2019 Rojava offensive

• 2019 Rojava offensive (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• A4516416 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Vanilla Wizard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Takinginterest01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Sakura Cartelet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 86.50.68.196 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This page is currently subject to community sanctions as part of the Syrian Civil War, which I'm informed limits users to 1 revert of logged-in users every 24 hrs.

There appears to be substantial dissent over a variety of topics [especially the page name], resulting in users User_talk:A4516416, User:Takinginterest01, User:Sakura_Cartelet, and IP address User_talk:86.50.68.196 appearing to exceed the 1 revert/day limit.

I don't feel qualified to comment on whether the reverts in question are of clear vandalism [which would not be subject to the sanctions], and so think that an administrator should ideally sort it out. Reyne2 (talk) 05:59, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Neither page had the {{Editnotice SCW 1RR}} editnotice present, I have added it now. I will warn the relevant users as well. However, users may not have been aware of this set of restrictions. ST47 (talk) 07:00, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Naturally, both sides immediately proceed to break 1RR again. I'll full protect the article if this keeps up. ST47 (talk) 07:30, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

No, it's better to issue blocks than fully-protect such a high profile article. Note: I had already semiprotected the article for one week. El_C 16:30, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Requesting different discretionary sanctions on 2019 Turkish offensive into north-eastern Syria

Hello, the page 2019 Turkish offensive into north-eastern Syria is under community sanctions of Limit of one revert per 24 hours restriction when reverting logged-in users on all pages related to the Syrian Civil War and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, broadly construed. I would say that such sanctions are detrimental when editors are adding live updates to the article about the ongoing battles. The additions just overwhelm 1RR. For proof of that, Slatersteven discussed that We are not a live news feed on the talk page, to which EkoGraf replied that We have always, for the past seven years, provided live updates as you put it regarding the capture of territory or casualties sustained during an offensive or a battle in the Syrian war. We also did the same thing during the previous two Turkish offensives into Syria. So there is no reason not to do so now as well. I’m thinking we need a different sanction, maybe 3RR plus consensus required for restoration of disputed material. starship.paint (talk) 00:22, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

@El C, ST47, and Reyne2: who commented in the above. starship.paint (talk) 05:25, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Not the red text again — my poor eyes! Anyway, under what DS did you envision the new sanction to be applied as, instead? It seems that the most suitable restriction would be under the current SCW General Sanction. I have no objection to removing 1RR and applying consensus required, instead. El_C 05:46, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the text colour change (déjà vu!) El_C 05:55, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, this seems to fall under the Syrian Civil War since Turkey/SDF are participants... starship.paint (talk) 06:00, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Technically, I'm not sure how to even modify {{Editnotice SCW 1RR}}. I suppose it could substituted...(?) El_C 06:33, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

At any case, I would rather hold off until ST47, who applied the GS, weighs in. El_C 06:42, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Consensus required is fine, although I believe it's generally harder to police and allows more "gaming" than 1RR. However, this isn't like AE discretionary sanctions where an admin may place the sanction on a given article. The SCW/ISIL 1RR is automatic, just like the ARBPIA 1RR, consensus would be required in order to change it. And yes, we'd have to update the editnotice and talk notice templates to support this, as I don't believe it's been done before. ST47 (talk) 06:46, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Much as I agree that "consensus is required" can be gamed by obstruction I feel it may be the only way to deal with the tendency for the page to have every announcement by the Turkish media immediately put in no matter how trivial or transitory.Slatersteven (talk) 08:50, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

And the latest series of "but we must update with the latest news, its all out of date" renders 1RR meaningless.Slatersteven (talk) 14:33, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Well, since there hasn't been any objection, and I do see Slatersteven's point, shall we say For articles related to the 2019 Turkish offensive into north-eastern Syria, where the standard 1RR restriction is overly detrimental due to live updates to a current event, an administrator may temporarily replace the 1RR restriction with the standard Consensus Required provision. The 1RR provision should be reinstated once the article is no longer receiving frequent updates. @El C:, @Slatersteven:, @Starship.paint:, sound reasonable to everyone? I shall see about updating a template. ST47 (talk) 20:47, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Sounds good. El_C 21:00, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

No objection. starship.paint (talk) 00:12, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

• I object. This is exactly the sort of article that needs 1RR under the WP:GS/SCW&ISIL regime. The potential for conflict between editors is high, and live updates, produced amidst an information war between the relevant sides in the conflict, are likely to be unreliable. Wikipedia is not a news website. The priority should be on WP:V, and WP:NPOV, and these things are assisted by a slower editing pace, especially for such a controversial topic. Editors will still be able to update the article under the 1RR regime, provided they attain consensus for their edits. If none of the SCW&ISIL articles have required an exception to 1RR up until now, why should this article? RGloucester — ☎ 21:11, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

  @RGloucester:, it seems that the issue is that some editors are providing live updates using sources that other editors object to as non-neutral or unreliable. 1RR isn't slowing down the editors inserting that information, since each individual edit does use a different source to update a different fact. However, since this happens multiple times a day and to multiple different sections of the article, there isn't any practical way for editors to keep the POV/unreliable information out of the article, as they quickly exhaust their one revert per day. In a nutshell, with 1RR, the default state is inclusion of each new edit (either it is inserted and no one wants to use their 1 revert per day on it, or it is inserted, reverted, and reverted back), with Consensus Required, the default state of a controversial edit is no inclusion without consensus. ST47 (talk) 21:22, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

There are obvious solutions to that problem, available under WP:GS/SCW&ISIL. Semi-protect the article, if the problem is a bunch of new accounts or IPs. If it's established editors, issue topic bans to those repeatedly inserting non-neutral or unreliable content. Don't loosen restrictions when there is a problem with NPOV/reliability, ENFORCE the existing sanctions! RGloucester — ☎ 21:45, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

@RGloucester: - you would topic ban editors for using Turkish sources in an article about Turkey? Just asking. starship.paint (talk) 00:12, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

I would oppose such an act, what really needs to be done is to enforce wp:notnews. One way is to just say one edit per user per day.Slatersteven (talk) 09:13, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

ST47 said that editors are repeatedly inserting unreliable or non-neutral sources. If this is so, yes, they should be topic banned. If they are not doing this, their edits are no problem, and there is no reason for this discussion at all, and certainly no reason for lifting 1RR. It's up for the administrators enforcing sanctions to make a determination as to whether these edits are problematic or not, and if they are, stop them from being made. They can't just remain aloof and pretend to be neutral while articles are being filled with content not suitable for Wikipedia. RGloucester — ☎ 09:18, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Could another admin please take over a paid editor?

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

---

I'm trying to explain the realities of paid editing and legal threats to User:Fgbmarketing on their talkpage. The only reply I've had so far is this fairly alarming edit summary. Despite the legal threat, and the paid editing, and the way they call themselves "we" rather than "I" (suggesting a role account), I haven't blocked so far. Obviously the user is simply unaware of our rules, and needs them explained. A positive thing is that they haven't so far reverted me again. Anyway, the thing is, they've fallen silent, and I need to go to bed. I'm in a whole different timezone. Could somebody take over, please? Bishonen | talk 22:14, 14 October 2019 (UTC). PS, by "take over", I merely mean watch their page and watch First Guaranty Bank. Bishonen | talk 22:39, 14 October 2019 (UTC).

I've got an eye on it for a bit. 331dot (talk) 23:06, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Given the variety of severe problems with this account and its contributions, I have blocked the editor indefinitely. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:35, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

I have added the bank's denial of the allegation of racism to First Guaranty Bank and done some copy editing to bring the material closer to the neutral point of view. Other eyes on the article would be helpful. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:30, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

I've just made one further minor tweak. Nick Moyes (talk) 08:03, 15 October 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.

Gabrielkat's WP:OWNERSHIP's problems

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.

---

Gabrielkat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has had WP:OWNERSHIP problems for at least four years now (see this issue with another editor, Part 3 and this one from over a year ago). He was blocked for the this behavior in 2015 and was given a "final warning" on his talk page. However, his behavior has persisted throughout the years and seemingly hasn't changed. I don't cross paths with this editor very often, though I remember he would makes similar reverts on a page on my watchlist. He would revert an editor but then make the same exact edit a few minutes later. He said in 2015, "Let me update the weekly episode count" when reverting another user who did it first. I recently just stumbled across a talk page conversation about this same issue and couldn't believe it was still happening; so I am filing a report on behalf other users who have been unjustly reverted by this editor because they have severe ownership issues that date back almost five years. The most recent incident is here, when he reverts an IP but restores the information himself the exact same minute. Something needs to be done about this chronic behavior that is driving away editors from wanting to edit; as the IP wrote on the talk page, "I'll just note this page as another one that's a waste of time to edit." Drovethrughosts (talk) 18:53, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

I've often found that he reverts other editors just to readd the same information moments later, such as what he did with the IP editor. He doesn't show a willingness to discuss or even acknowledge his behavior on his talkpage as he will revert anyone that brings it up. Back in April he reverted another editor who had updated The Orville Season 2 page as the season finale had aired, but as the "episode had not finished airing" for him he decided to revert that editor. When I restored the edit, he did the same for me too. I made the effort to discuss on his talkpage but was swiftly reverted. [5] Funny thing is, he added the same information minutes later, which again is bad faith editing on his part. This does seem to be a very long running issue for him. Esuka (talk) 19:38, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

This has gone on long enough. I've indefinitely blocked Gabrielkat pending an unblock request that addresses this years-long behavior. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:18, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Good move. I would hope that in their unblock request they will undertake to use edit summaries in future as part of actively improving their communication with other users. Nearly 72% of their major edits have no edit summary, and this needs to change. Reverting without a rationale is both rude and non-constructive. Nick Moyes (talk) 20:27, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) There's a lot of nonsense that occurs every day as a result of people treating Wikipedia as needing to be up-to-the-second accurate instead of its declared longer-term view. A lot of this hyper edit-warring would go away (or at least have an objective criterion to lean on) if we settled on and enforced policy of not reporting on television broadcasts, web series, music events, etc. until at least 24 hours after their latest original air time. Same is true of news events (i.e. wars) where people want to report on every comment in any blog or tweet regarding the tiniest bit of completely unencyclopedic detail. Add to that the endless stream of promotional nonsense and just outright vandalism. Every day, I look at change histories almost completely devoid of meaningful contributions, lamenting the waste of good will, talent, and effort of so many. Just what are we doing here? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 10:04, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree with that AlanM1. The main countervailing trend though is that over time, up-to-the-minute information eventually gets pruned and decrufted to focus on just what is encyclopedic. It can be hard, without a crystal ball, to tell what will be important in the future to understanding a topic and what is just recentism, but luckily this can always be fixed. 107.77.203.73 (talk) 13:27, 15 October 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:Justin86e

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

---

Hello, esteem sysops. 😊 I bring this matter here because bringing it up in WP:AIV and in the talk page of the esteemed sysop User:Diannaa was inconclusive.

User:Justin86e is currently blocked for 31 hours for disruptive editing. But two days before it happened, I noticed that this user is not here to build an encyclopedia because his editing exclusively consists of vandalism, disruption, sabotage, hoax, and self-reverted bad actions. There is not a single good contribution in his record. Therefore, a permanent block is in order. But owing to a feeble degree of WP:SNEAKY in his action, the harmfulness of them is not immediately obvious. The following is an extended version of the report I prepared for AIV.

Summary every edit User:Justin86e had performed until two days ago, when I first reported him

Diff	Affected article	Short summary, initially posted in AIV	Extended description
[6]	DVD Player (Windows)	Irrelevant content copied from the Windows Media Player article	This one must be obvious to everyone: The release table of one software product does not belong to another unconnected software product's article.
[7]	WebOS	Bombardment of irrelevant navboxes	Navboxes that have no business being on this article are added to it not once, but twice! To disguise this act of hoax, the navboxes are selected in such way that their title has the barest minimum connection to the topic at hand. Thus, it is easy to mistake it for a genuine edit.
[8]	DreamWorks	Major content replacement hoax	This is how the page should look: [9]. This is how Justin86e made the page look: [10]
[11]	Production company	Content copied from elsewhere	This user has selected a random place in middle the article and created a heading "A" there, then proceeded to insert a large number of links that all start with A there. If you scan that revision of the article from top to bottom cursorily, you'll see it: [12]
[13]	List of United States over-the-air television networks	Childish content faking, reverted by User:Mrschimpf	Here, the editor has replaced appropriate links with inappropriate links, but in a way that avoids careless scrutiny. Notice how he inserted "Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)" between "Federal Communications Commission" and "(FCC)", turning it into "Federal Communications Commission Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) (FCC)". Also, Walt Disney Television and The Walt Disney Company are both companies but switching these two is almost never appropriate.
[14]	International BBC television channels	Childish content faking	Notice how a random piece of text, "[[Fox Networks Group]] [[ITV plc]] [[BBC Worldwide]]" is inserted between "RTL" and "(20%)".
[15]	2 Entertain	Fake contents	This one is actually more difficult to see, unless you look at the results.[16] Try reading the following sentence aloud: 2 Entertain was a London-based UK television production company in the film production company 1950s. TPA had a Canadian is a British video and music publisher formed by the merger of BBC Video and Video Collection International in 2004. Perhaps the non-vandalized version looks more sane to you: 😉 2 Entertain is a British video and music publisher formed by the merger of BBC Video and Video Collection International in 2004.
[17]	Lists of corporate assets	Childish addition of misleading phrases, reverted by User:Mrschimpf	This one is easier to see. For example, the !editor had changed "Belo, United States" to "List of assets owned by Belo, United States", but the former is desired. There are six instances of such bad behavior.
[18]	List of Pixar films	Adding a fake name, reverted by unregistered editor	Will Arnett has truly been part of the Ratatouille, but not in the capacity of a screenwriter. He was the voice actor the Karl Horst character.
[19]	Film	Link hoax	Disguises the link that is supposed to go to United States via pipe, so that it goes to Flag of the United States instead. The closeness of these two topic makes detection hard.
[20]	Arms of Canada	Link hoax	Changes the links to United Kingdom, England, and Scotland to Flag of United Kingdom, Royal Arms of England#Royal Banner of England, and Royal Banner of Scotland, disguising them via pipe.
[21]	Helmet (heraldry)	Minor hoax	The phrase "Arms of Canada" is randomly inserted in an irrelevant place
[22]	3 (disambiguation)	Minor link hoax, reverted by User:Bkonrad	Any sane person is expected to know that "Channel 3" in UK is not associated with "ITV (disambiguation)" but with "ITV (TV network)".
[23]	History of the flags of the United States	Minor mischief (removal of a link)	Randomly removing a link is still vandalism, right?
[24]	Monarchy of Canada	Harmless bad edit, reverted by User:GoodDay	Just see the diff

Normally, we have to notify accused parties when we bring their cases to ANI, but I think, as a matter of Wikipedia:Revert, block, ignore, I must not do so this time.

Thanks for being with me and reading this boring table. 👍

flowing dreams (talk page) 13:53, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Support indef block or topic ban from all topics related to electronics, telecommunications, and the United States, broadly construed. This editor is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia, and his edits are troublingly subtle as the reporting editor noted. I can see this level of subtle vandalism escaping the notice of antivandalism patrollers while degrading the quality and usefulness of the affected articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.203.73 (talk • contribs)

• Indefinitely blocked. The OP assumes that this is a subtle and malicious vandal, but that's not the impression I get; they look more like a case of WP:CIR to me. Outright vandals tend to make no constructive edits, which is not (IMO) the case with Justin86e. However, from the point of view of the disrupted articles, it makes no difference which it is; constructive editors still have to waste time watching the editor and reverting the bad edits, and I should think some edits that make articles worse are missed, too. The "flag" edits such as this one and for instance formatting a dab page like this is really too bad. And as for calling this article a "stub",[25] words fail me. If somebody would like to mentor the user, please speak up. Meanwhile, I have indeffed them on the principle that they do substantially more harm than good. Thank you for the work you have put in, User:Flowing dreams. Bishonen | talk 18:46, 15 October 2019 (UTC).

Indeed, for what it's worth from me. And thanks to Admiral of the Fleet Bish for enough-is-enoughing this. Those of us whose volunteer contributions are focused on this kind of encyclopedia-disrupting misbehavior are grateful. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 20:21, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

My pleasure, Bishonen. I agree that it is not possible to correctly label such people. We're not in their brains. All we can see is the outcome and their refusal to heed the warnings. Plus, there wasn't an "Administrators Intervention Against the Disruptive and the 99% Harmful" noticeboard. Just AIV and ANI. flowing dreams (talk page) 01:57, 16 October 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 reversions, ignoring sources, and refusal to discuss on Talk page by other user

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

---

I hope this is the right place to address this and that in doing so here I am not acting inappropriately. I hope very much to avoid an edit war. There currently is an issue with an editor (the user User:Yacoob316) on the Kerma culture page. They continue to edit the Language section of that page to represent certain sources in a way that does not reflect them. I have left explanation in the edit notes (which I believe explain my reasoning) and attempted to discuss this with them on the Talk page (creating a topic where I cite the sources and discuss their claims in detail) as well as leaving a message on their own Talk page, but they have continued to re-enter their own preferred edits with repetitive explanations in the history notes that seem to indicate that they have not read or listened to my explanations. They seem unwilling to listen, engage or discuss, and I am not sure what to do. Thank you for your help in this matter. Here are links to the edit History, my topic of the article's Talk page, and my post ion the User's Talk page below: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kerma_culture#Sources_and_language_affinity_of_Kerma. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kerma_culture&action=history https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Yacoob316 And (more recently, below, the talk page topic started by Yacoob316 — where I have also attempted to engage them in discussion): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kerma_culture#both_cushitic_and_nilotic_languages_were_spoken_in_kerma_according_to_julian_riley Skllagyook (talk) 19:50, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

For starters, both of you need to stop reverting the page. If you continue to revert, either of you, you'll be blocked for edit warring. You need to discuss it now. I'll comment on the talk page later about the content of the dispute. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 00:12, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

@CaptainEek: Thank you. And what you have said is noted (I will not revert again until some resolution is reached). However it did not seem that discussion was working (I feel that I did what I could to discuss, but that my explanations were persistently ignored and never addressed by the other user). Currently the other user has not reverted or re-made the edit/edits since being warned about edit warring, but I worry that once the 24-hour period ends (or maybe sooner), they may resume their aforementioned edits. Hopefully your comments on the Talk page will help to resolve this issue for all involved. Thank you again. Skllagyook (talk) 00:33, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

@CaptainEek: However I will continue to discuss the issue. I have/had also responded somewhat repetitively in places, but only to assure that the other user (Yacoob316) did/does not misunderstand my explanations/points (since they seemed to have more than once misunderstood the sources). I have recently continued the discussion on the both the article's and the other user's Talk pages, in order to to further clarify/express more clearly my explanations (and will continue to do so if needed). Skllagyook (talk) 22:00, 13 October 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.

Renew rangeblock for genre warring IPs

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.

---

Swarm blocked Special:Contributions/2A02:C7D:1A3E:5D00:0:0:0:0/64 for three months but the block expired a year ago. The person has resumed genre warring disruption in music articles. Can we get a booster shot on the block? Binksternet (talk) 20:22, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

I have reblocked the /64 range for one year. Notified User:Swarm in case they want to comment. EdJohnston (talk) 16:57, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Nothing to say but thank you for taking care of it. Best, ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 01:43, 15 October 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:Birbal_Kumawat

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 falls under "chronic, intractable behavioral problems," I hope. Since 2017, user has continually (and destructively) edited Wiki articles in favor of their own fanatical misconceptions about English grammar, often citing nothing and forging ahead based on original 'research', if that. Not to mention their repeated off-topic edits to talk pages in order to discuss or even address the subject of the article rather than the article itself.

Somehow, user hasn't really ever been warned (except informally, having gotten a couple responses in an edit summary or on an article talk page), even though every single one of their destructive article edits has been reverted that I could see. That's why I didn't report this at AIV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by M. I. Wright (talk • contribs) 05:41, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Birbal_Kumawat hasn't edited since August. Hopefully he won't be back, but if he is, at minimum he should receive a warning regarding making legal threats. This [26] is definitely one, and this [27] may possibly be, though I'm not sure exactly who it is aimed at - possibly everyone who writes in English except him... 2A00:23C7:B701:A101:FDF5:5796:4432:4CD5 (talk) 06:39, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

@M. I. Wright: That editor has only made eight edits, thus far, in 2019 and ten in 2018. It's hardly a chronic or intractable problem that needs ANI attention right now, especially as they haven't been demonstrating their rather curious grasp of how to write and communicate in good English since August. I'm sure they're proud of their English skills (far better than my own foreign language abilities, I must say). Nevertheless, they're not as good as they think they are, and are probably rather proud of making self-important but rather foolish edits to talk pages, all full of hollow bluster, as helpfully linked to above. Edits like this get quickly reverted - but they're done in good faith, even when misguided. I'm happy to keep a watch on their future edits and guide them, if needs be. (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~. Or, you can use the [ reply ] button, which automatically signs posts.). Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 09:59, 14 October 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/s, BLP issues

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.

---

Gardenstatelaw keeps changing the lead of the Michael Sorrentino, a reality TV castmember, to emphasise the subject's "felony conviction" as what he is "best known" for -- despite that clearly not being the case (RS don't cite his conviction in their articles, but rather "Jersey Shore castmember XX..."). Considering the subject is a BLP, I've reverted Gardenstatelaw's edits on the grounds that the edits are clearly not WP:NPOV, they're WP:UNDUE, and also factually incorrect. I have no qualms about the content being discussed in the article (his conviction), - as the article currently stands - but how Gardenstatelaw has edited the article is clearly inappropriate.

Gardenstatelaw's has proceeded to make a series of legal threats, as well as falsely accuse myself and another editor of being the subject's agent/paid editing, and refactor talk page comments:

• threat to sue me here and here (and threat to investigate me)
• refactoring my talk page comment
• accused another editor of being subject's publicist and me of being his agent

If another pair of eyes could look into this issue, that would be greatly appreciated. Kind regards, —MelbourneStar☆^talk 02:54, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

lblocked. El_C 02:57, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

• Well at least the lead doesn't recite that Sorrentino was offered ten thousand dollars by fashion retailer Abercrombie & Fitch not to wear the company's clothes. A spokesman for the company explained that "Mr Sorrentino's association with our brand could cause significant damage to our image." EEng 06:52, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
• Tread lightly here, or you might get sued in a court of law in Trenton, New Jersey. 207.38.146.86 (talk) 12:27, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't allow legal threats. You're as good as blocked. GoodDay (talk) 12:39, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

What, nobody remembers Mr. Treason and "SUE YOU IN A COURT OF LAW IN TRENTON, NEW JERSEY"? --Calton | Talk 14:29, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Ha ha ha -- I wonder whatever happened to that guy. Antandrus (talk) 14:48, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Prolly got screwed over by a court of law in Trenton, new Jersey. If so, karma has a sense of humour. —v^_^v ^{Make your position clear!} 04:25, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

---

Sportected the article earlier today due to (likely) related socking. El_C 04:27, 15 October 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.

Antisemitism?

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.

---

In this comment on 2019 Halle synagogue shooting, @Jzsj:: A. States " media is more sympathetic to the Zionists". B. Equates German Synagogue congregants with Zionists.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.193.112.146 (talk • contribs)

You should have notified the user I will do it now. --Shrike (talk) 19:57, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Oh good grief. This is worth running to AN/I for why? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:30, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Eh from reading the comment I think he was just stating an observation that can be backed up by looking at a couple of major newspapers. There is nothing actionable here. Close this thread. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:24, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

I read the rest of the discussion, and tbh I don't see why mentioning Palestine was necessary, and it was clearly inflammatory, but it still doesn't rise to the level of a sanctionable offense. If anything is warranted, its a WP:TROUT, and nothing more. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:30, 15 October 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.

Unsubstantiated reports of a death

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

---

See recent edits to John Tate, where several editors have added reports of his death, however none supplying an RS, although one provided this tweet. Is there some standard procedure followed in a situation like this? Paul August ☎ 21:46, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, he remains alive until there's a reliable source supporting his death.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:49, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes of course, what I meant was is it standard practice, for example, to protect the article in such cases? Paul August ☎ 21:56, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Depends. In this case, it all started today, and with the exception of one editor, everyone is either an IP or not autoconfirmed, so I've semi'ed it for three days.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:03, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Fine. Paul August ☎ 22:05, 16 October 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.

• There's a single RS, sourced to family/friend tweets. Comments at Talk:John Tate#Report of death. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 12:05, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

User:Debresser

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 was hoping I wouldn't have to bring this to AN/I, but I am at my wit's end. And I want to nip this in the bud before it escalates any further.

The problem is not that he disagrees with other editors, or with me. It's the highly aggressive, belligerent, WP:UNCIVIL, and toxic manner in which he conducts himself (i.e. WP:BULLY, WP:Personal attacks, WP:HARASSMENT, and WP:POLICE) that I take exception to. I'd be more understanding if this was a one-time or out of character incident (and that is what I initially believed when we had the same dispute two years back), but it's not. He has a history of acting this way toward people who disagree with him, at least in this particular area, and instead acts like an enforcer (ignoring WP:CCC).

To recap, User:Debresser has been edit warring on this category for days, becoming more and more belligerent and attack-y with each revert: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:North_American_Jews&diff=920962885&oldid=920733399

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:North_American_Jews&diff=921038473&oldid=921022628

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:North_American_Jews&diff=921215848&oldid=921046023

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:North_American_Jews&diff=921217302&oldid=921217117

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:North_American_Jews&diff=921218981&oldid=921218635

Admittedly, my initial revert comment toward him could have been better. I accept full responsibility for that.

I left a quick warning on his page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Debresser&diff=921217640&oldid=921163925

His response was to leave a similar warning on my own page (although I had only reverted twice), without signing it: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:The_Human_Trumpet_Solo&diff=prev&oldid=921220361

He later lied about it, and said that another user had left the warning. See his number 4: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category_talk:North_American_Jews&diff=prev&oldid=921220032

He later left a semi-threatening message on the talk page of another User (User:Rainbowofpeace) who had reverted him. This message contained blatant personal attacks: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rainbowofpeace&diff=prev&oldid=921221448

He later amended this post, but it still contact personal AGF attacks: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rainbowofpeace&diff=prev&oldid=921365356

Last I checked, he's still at it - stating his opinion as fact and lobbing hostile invective/insults in my direction: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Canadian_Jews&diff=prev&oldid=921369332

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Canadian_Jews&diff=prev&oldid=921426165

I am at a loss as to what should be done. He's made many valuable contributions on other topics, but this one seems like it may be too personal.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 19:53, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Blocked one week for edit warring. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:38, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

The Human Trumpet Solo was also edit warring. Will they receive a block? Note that Cullen328 has upheld Debresser's edit, so perhaps NinjaRobotPirate would like to revisit this. Just also noting that THTS has been trying to add that information for weeks, with no visible consensus on the talk page. I wish admins would look a little deeper into issues before dropping blocks on established editors. Mr Ernie (talk) 07:56, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Anyone familiar with our policies and guidelines and their implementation should know that being right rarely justifies edit warring with a few exceptions (e.g. reverting vandalism or blatant BLPvios). As for blocking THTS, any admin can decide. But as a general principle which again people familiar with our policies, guidelines and their implementation should know, when it's 2 vs 1 it's far more likely that the 1 will be blocked without the 2. Especially when a neutral third party has told the 1 "you're skirting very close to the line and really need to cut it out". This is not to say edit warring is justified but it's recognised that certain kinds of edit warring are worse hence why we have 3RR etc. Treating 3RR as some sort of right to revert 3 times every 24 hours most definitely does not help, since the policy is clear that's not what it means. Nor does approaching a new editor explaining how "evil" the other editor is rather than concentrating on the disputed content. Nil Einne (talk) 08:28, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

As Nil Einne pointed out, one side doesn't "win" just because the other side was blocked. When someone makes four reverts in 27 hours, is warned to stop edit warring, and takes the same edit war to another article, where they begin the same pattern of repeatedly reverting every edit their opponents make – yes, that can result in a block. The right move is to take this to some form of dispute resolution. If nobody involved in this dispute does that, they'll all probably end up blocked eventually. Or I guess all the pages they edit will end up fully-protected, but that seems like a bad situation for anyone who wants to work on these pages without joining in on the edit war. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:40, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Ah ok so you didn’t look into the details of the content then and since you’ve got the letter of the law on your side you are right. Thanks. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:19, 16 October 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 177.101.41.0/24

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/177.101.41.0/24

This range has, sporadically for 5 months, been adding false info to cartoon articles. All edits in this range appear to be one individual as evidenced by the edit summary pattern. I am requesting a short block for the range as one IP was active today. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:13, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Blocked for a week--Ymblanter (talk) 18:37, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: Merci! EvergreenFir (talk) 18:51, 17 October 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 keeps adding a short sentence about a streaming service

Sajal27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) I tried to talk to this user, about a streaming service that you can view on youtube. But when I tried to find out any news about it to be used as refs. The name; Muse Asia comes up short, without any mentions about it. Or a type of press release too. My first thought, was anything to youtube fell under the rule/ guideline WP:ELP, if should the youtube channel has a check to its name. But it doesn't. Then the user ignored to talk further about this and re-added it. Tainted-wingsz (talk) 09:15, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Most of their edits were undone. If they ignore the warnings and add it back. Then did you try Aiv? 99.203.50.238 (talk) 17:08, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Those edits were undid because of WP:PROMOTION. Until I knew about that on this page. But in the past few days, err a week since this edit. Sajal27 has been adding Muse Asia. Then after I gave the notice, Sajal27 re-added the same sentence. And I'm not sure if this is a start of a slow pattern. Tainted-wingsz (talk) 20:51, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Accusing a BLP reporter at a national newspaper of lying and using Wikipedians

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 we please have a friendly warning to My very best wishes to avoid accusing BLP reporters at national newspapers of lying[28] and using[29] Wikipedians for their own purposes, and to avoid comparing notable and highly critical RS[30] to "Russian state-controlled media"?[31] François Robere (talk) 19:53, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Let us keep this shit in one place please.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:55, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Ymblanter, Which place should said excrement be kept in, perchance? I see there was discussion on Jimbos talk but it seems to have been archived, unless I'm missing it. But it looks like this thread might be here to stay, in which case someone giving a neutral sparknotes version of the situation would be helpful. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 04:35, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

I only commented about the source. However, I do hope that no one from WP will give any interviews to this newspaper and to this journalist in the future. My very best wishes (talk) 05:14, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Can't agree on that. His WP-related articles are often very interesting, and he has a generally good understanding of WP-processess/whatevers, especially compared to many other journalists. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:58, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

This is a spin-off of the WP:AN discussion in which the referenced statement was made. The discussion has been ongoing for several days.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:21, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

User talk:Jimbo Wales, Talk:Warsaw concentration camp, Talk:Reliability of Wikipedia, WP:AN and finally :pl:Wikipedia:Kawiarenka/Ogólne, with some WP:CANVASSING going on between them. Note I didn't start any of these. François Robere (talk) 11:35, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not in the business of protecting outlets from critique. I don't think MVBW did anything actionable here, though I think, on the balance, they're probably wrong about whether the source should be considered unreliable. And I'd suggest you all might want to take a break from Poland stuff. Simonm223 (talk) 12:37, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Critique is fine, but accusing a reporter of lying and abusing sources is beyond just "critique"... François Robere (talk) 12:52, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Nah, it's really not and I'd suggest you should probably take a breather for a bit and stop trying to get people you don't like in trouble on the drama boards. Simonm223 (talk) 12:56, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

So if I said you - Simon - are lying and manipulating other editors, it'll be perfectly fine? Not WP:PA or something like that? François Robere (talk) 15:05, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

WP:NPA does not apply to non-wikipedians; I have seen zillions of insults (expressed as opinion) pass on talk pages related to BLP (take a look at any Trump-related page) that we don't really bat an eye at. There is BLPTALK concerns in this area to be certain, but in context of this specific situation, where we have an RS reporting on things that happened in Wikipedia that we have insight to, and judging how much of that article to use here, its understandable that there are things calling out the article having "lies" and other manipulations by those actually involved. It would be far different if we were talking an RS wholly unrelated to Wikipedia and started throwing out "the reporter is clearly lying!". It is a unique situation specifically on this Haaretz piece that I think we need to understand those that have claimed their words were manipulated to be able to vent that facet as to be able to judge what's appropriate for inclusion. --Masem (t) 15:13, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Benjakob is a Wikipedian. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:02, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

My concern was only about this specific publication. I had no idea this author has other publications, such as ones linked on his page. After looking at them, I think the author is generally a good journalist and well familiar with WP business. But this his article is different. Perhaps he was misled by Icewhiz and decided to "make an example" of contributors he perceived as "enemies". My very best wishes (talk) 19:01, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Looking through the discussions, I can't tell if this was a known fact for those involved. That user is certainly not participating in these discussions so it wouldn't be obvious this way. I know some have said they emailed the writer but I'd assume those were based on Haaretz capacity, not through wikipedia, but it is not clear. But that said, we're also talking about what this person did outside Wikipedia rather than their WP contributions. This does change the situation, but it all depends on how well known this was, something I can't read from current discussions. --Masem (t) 16:17, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

It was not known to me. El_C 16:23, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

I make a point of not looking into the real-world identities of wikipedians. As such, I had no knowledge that the author of this article was a wikipedian. If they are, then WP:NPA might apply; but if they were found to be dishonest, it might constitute off-wiki harassment, so I'm uncertain this is an avenue we want to pursue much farther. That said, I have been called much worse things than a liar by other editors before without them getting much more than a templated warning. Simonm223 (talk) 17:12, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Why should we give editors privileges we don't even give RS?[32] François Robere (talk) 17:40, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

We are permitted to use this sort of judgment to decide whether to use a source (ie. whether it's reliable) - "this source seems sketchy for [reasons]" can include leaps of logic that wouldn't be sufficient to put something into an article (partially because such discussions can help direct us in terms of what sources to look for.) In particular, it can also help establish which claims are WP:EXCEPTIONAL, ie. "this claim contradicts obvious evidence, so we need better sourcing for it" is an argument you can make on source up to a point. There are significant limits to that sort of logic, of course; it becomes increasingly untenable the higher-quality the source is or when there are multiple sources saying the same thing... but "hold on, there's reasons to think this is wrong, so let's slow down and wait for another source" is an argument that people are at least permitted to make, on talk. No one is suggesting we leap straight to saying "but they're wrong, according to Wikipedia Editor X" in the article space and cite it to a Wikipedia talk page, which is what that link is closer to requesting. --Aquillion (talk) 19:42, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

At a glance, those seem, to me, to be within the realm of legitimate questioning. WP:BLPTALK specifically says it's about Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices, ie. it's permissible to raise objections to the author of a source, even ones that other people might disagree with or feel are unfair, provided it's within the context of discussing whether and how to use that source and the objections are not so plainly ridiculous as to be unrelated to content choices. "You can't imply that the author of this piece might have a bias that would lead them to distort the truth" would have a chilling effect on discussing sources (especially since in this case they're citing another source saying that, by my reading?) If it were completely groundless speculation, maybe you'd have a point with your objection, but the first link directly lays out their reasoning in a way that seems hard to dismiss as utterly frivolous. --Aquillion (talk) 19:30, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@François Robere:This long, rambling complaint letter in the New Yorker seems so vastly divorced from your ongoing complaints with MVBW that I'm uncertain what you're getting at. But again, I'd suggest that all this thread is doing is wasting people's time. I shan't be participating further. Simonm223 (talk) 19:33, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

That was a question to Masem, who was opining that we should give editors certain review rights that, in practice, we withhold from RS. François Robere (talk) 20:52, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

I've no problem with stating a source "may be biased", I've a problem with stating without proof that a source is "lying". There's a big difference between the two, and in Wiki-world the latter would usually count as WP:ASPERSIONS or WP:PA, though still not enforced. How poor is Wikipedia's culture of discourse if "you're a liar and you exploit others" could be considered an acceptable turn of phrase!

(Interestingly, "you're a racist" is still beyond the pale.) François Robere (talk) 21:17, 17 October 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.

Uncivil user

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

---

Amaury has been making uncivil attacks remarks at editors (mainly inexperienced users) on various articles. He’s called editors "idiots", "dumb", and he also called me a immature child. He’s also accused me of WP:STALKING (actually WP:HOUNDING), despite me watching his contributions only to make sure he doesn’t make violate WP:CIVILITY. I do admit, I have made some mistakes as well, I personally attacked him]] at the The Casagrandes talk page (At first thinking it was criticism, I then realized it was in fact a personal attack and that it’s not allowed to say these things on WP and I removed it) and I may or may not have violated WP:HOUNDING. I was patient with this user at first, but due to still being somewhat of a inexperienced editor, may have accidentally crossed the line, and for that I apologize and will just not deal with these kind of things next time. I had good intentions, trying to make sure Wikipedia was friendly, but I more or less contributed to the thing I was trying to stop in the first place. So basically I’m also more or less reporting myself, because I’m not somebody who directs all the blame to others. I plan to take a WikiBreak after all of this for a while. HurricaneGeek2002 (talk) 00:48, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Diffs: 1. Me asking why he reverted edits on [[Kim Possible (2019 film), I was too aggressive with the word "now", user called me a little kid 2. Instance of him calling well intentioned editors "dumb" 3. Both of us being hypocritical on personal attacks 4. My own violation of CIVILITY

HurricaneGeek2002, Not often that folks report themselves at ANI, but glad you have the maturity to understand you may have been in the wrong. That's a lot better than most editors. If you feel taking a Wikibreak is best for you, that's fair. To be honest, your actions were really not bad at all. People have been way, wayyyy more uncivil on Wikipedia. Just take this as a lesson to learn from, and remember to stay cool, even when others aren't. Regarding Amaury, while they should also remember to focus on content not the contributor, there is nothing actionable here. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 03:57, 17 October 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:Ebizur

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.

---

Reporting Ebizur (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Removal of sourced content by User:Ebizur from the article Haplogroup O-M175. See here. The source clearly mentions "India (Tripura)", but the user is hellbent on removing it, despite the fact that other regions have both the country name and the state/region name mentioned. As an example from the article, I've re-interted "India" in the list text, O-F14422* India (Tripura (Riang)),[1] Myanmar (Yangon). since mentioning "Tripura" alone with a country Myanmar would not be in same footing.

• Secondly, the user is Harassing me and his showing typical WP:OWN characteristics. Despite I opened up a discussion in the article talk

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Haplogroup_O-M175&type=revision&diff=921697405&oldid=921697060 - used the phrase "absolute moron, like yourself"

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Haplogroup_O-M175&diff=next&oldid=921700251 - called "a troll, or you are an Indian nationalist and ethnic chauvinist"

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Haplogroup_O-M175&diff=prev&oldid=921701711. - used the terms "ugly troll" and "idiot" - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 09:49, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

• You have filed a similar report at WP:ANEW, even though both of you have been edit-warring. You have also failed to notify Ebizur of the ANI report (you did for the EW report). Notwithstanding, the personal attacks and snark coming from the other user is well past uncivil; I have therefore blocked Ebizur for 24h.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:40, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

@Bbb23: Sir, I reported at WP:ANEW after Ebizur reverted my edit for the 4th time. That's why similar reports. As for the notification, I thought typing "[[User:Ebizur]]" mentioned above would do it. My apologies for not explicitly notifying them in their talkpage. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:31, 17 October 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.

Edit warring using multiple personae

2A02:587:2961:6600::/64

• 2A02:587:2961:6600::/64 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

Please, block the range. IP socking and edit warring by WhiteStarG7 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki), alongside another their IP sock 94.66.59.149 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)). Incnis Mrsi (talk) 07:37, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done, for 2 weeks--Ymblanter (talk) 18:21, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Just a note… WhiteStarG7 and IP socks were never blocked here before, hence there was no block evasion. It’s a disgrace for the site that reports like WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1017 #IP socking in edit wars are ignored, but it is a fact. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:32, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, I blocked for disruptive editing, after checking that most of the edits for the last two weeks were not productive, including blatant vandalism--Ymblanter (talk) 18:36, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Recently discovered that WhiteStarG7 has been socking as Special:Contribs/2a02:587:ac7d:4200:f8bf:94d7:65b7:7f6d within the same /32. Unfortunately that bad edit evaded my eyes. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 13:22, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

There was just one edit in this range, in August. I would not block at this point.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:59, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Hey, I am not paranoid to request blocking for a two-months-old IP having one bad edit. I merely build case against the master which is evident on account of [33]. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:17, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Iraqi insurgency (2017–present)

Also note that the sockmaster conducts a vicious edit war in Iraqi insurgency (2017–present) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) with many personae available (2A02:587:2961:6600:: is currently knocked down thanks to Ymblanter). Generally, all the user’s contributions consist of edit warring (in various articles) and planting fakes, which coincide in this instance. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 20:14, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Now, I started with 48h, let us see what they do next.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:53, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Quad11, Jack Peterson, COI, and fraudulent sources

Jack Peterson (not his real name) is a guy from Chicago who was associated with the incel movement. He has since distanced himself from that movement. A biography was written about him in 2018 by hijacking a redirect to an unrelated person. Since then, the article has been edited by not only Peterson himself (as Jackdiamond2080) and many Chicago IPs. A couple of days ago Quad11 expended the article and renamed it to "Jack Peterson (filmmaker)". I started a discussion on the COI discussion board, but Quad11 removed the new material, moved the article to "Jack Peterson (spokesperson)" and deleted my report from the noticeboard.

I am bringing this here because the sources used by Quad11 were fraudulent. The reviews of Peterson's movie were contracted and paid for. Reel Romp will publish a review for about $25. Film Courage will publish a Q&A interview for $300. There are about 50 links to filmcourage.com. It is probably worth looking at the articles involved for evidence of COI and notability concerns. Meanwhile, someone might want to look more closely at Jack Peterson (spokesperson) and associated editors. Bitter Oil (talk) 15:30, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure how this works, I removed the fraudulent (?) sources so the problem should be resolved. It was my understanding that, once a subject reaches notability, new references are less strict when it comes to notability guidelines. However, I reversed the recent edits as suggested because I'm not entirely sure of Wikipedia's rules on that. Regardless, the potentially paid references (and related material in the article) are now removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quad11 (talk • contribs) 18:26, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

User:Tmayerferg101

This user continues to make unsourced additions to personnel sections in Depeche Mode articles despite receiving a final warning for this at the beginning of October. I didn't bother adding another one today because in all their time here, they have yet to explain or communicate the reasons for (what I believe to be) their disruptive behavior. Examples of their unsourced changes can be seen here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here & here with edits specifically focused on adding vocal or instrumental details to these sections. As someone that owns all the band's albums, I have yet to see these details in the artwork and the editor refuses to cite. Please could an admin remind the editor of the importance of WP:V. Robvanvee 15:00, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

These don't much appear to be unsourced: [34]. Many of the sources add note who was singing/playing the various songs. I would concur it isn't WELL-sourced and could be better, but I'm not seeing the level of disruption you're alleging. WP:NOTPERFECT applies. Buffs (talk) 18:08, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm not alleging anything that isn't the case as far as I can see. They make repeated unsourced changes and additions despite being reverted with explanatory edit summaries, have received a final warning for it and have yet to communicate at all on their talk page or any talk page for that matter regarding these issues. Furthermore, I'm not suggesting anything happen to this user other than a gentle reminder from an admin so please point out at what point exactly I allege any specific "level of disruption" from this editor? Robvanvee 18:19, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

While you are at it, please show me where this editor has ever cited a source? I'll show you where they have added spans of unsourced info to articles. Robvanvee 18:34, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Tmayerferg101's edits are clearly unsourced, and to an extent, disruptive. The sleeve notes of Depeche Mode's albums do not list individual credits/instruments for each band member, and if many of the sources do list such credits, how come Tmayerferg101 never cited these sources? Ever since this user started editing last October, not once did they provide an edit summary or cite a single source. Even when the user is reverted and/or warned, they never make an effort to communicate with others – instead, they simply resume their unsourced additions. snapsnap ^(talk) 19:24, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

When you're adding them to an info box, it's usually assumed it's in the text somewhere and isn't required per WP:LEAD. Buffs (talk) 22:25, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

You're completely missing the point. Did you even bother to check out the diffs Robvanvee provided? Tmayerferg101 doesn't even make changes to the infobox, they're just persistently adding content to the personnel section that is not supported by the album's sleeve notes or any other sources in the article. WP:LEAD does not apply here at all. Like I said, the user never cites sources, never justifies their edits and hasn't once made an effort to communicate with other editors. There's a clear case of disruption on Tmayerferg101's end. snapsnap ^(talk) 02:05, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

I was using that as an example; sorry if I wasn't clear. These additions can all be sourced relatively easily and I don't see it as disruption. Buffs (talk) 15:41, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

That's beside the point and does not excuse Tmayerferg101's behavior. As it's been said a gazillion times, the user never cites sources or provides edit summaries – how is any of that constructive editing? WP:V states, "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution", which is something Tmayerferg101 has clearly failed to do. snapsnap ^(talk) 03:16, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

"Can be easily sourced" you say. Are you suggesting we run around after them adding sources to their edits? Do you understand the policy of verifiability as SnaSnap and I have have already pointed out? I feel like we are attempting to explain this to Tmayerferg101 and to you at this point...over and over. Please take the time to read this. It's a big part of Wikipedia. Robvanvee 09:44, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm well aware of WP:V. However, one could make the argument that this is self-evident from the subject of the article. It's like demanding a third-party source for an article about a book that says a book was published by XYZ publishing or that the author was John Smitty or that it's 496 pages or any other material that is literally part of the subject. It's all right there in the cover/credits, just look. The material here seems to fulfill all criteria in WP:SELFPUB (a part of WP:V), don't you agree? Buffs (talk) 16:23, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

No I don't and I'm tired of going around in circles. I've added 5 more diffs in case you have not had a chance to view their page of contributions and to be honest I'd rather an admin view the diffs and decide. Robvanvee 18:17, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

And you're still missing the point, Buffs. No, WP:SELFPUB does not apply here (neither do the other policies you mentioned). The liner notes of Depeche Mode albums do not assign specific credits for each band member, they merely list the members' names (see here, for example). Just because X is usually the band's bassist does not necessarily mean X played the bass on a given album. Tmayerferg101 is violating WP:V and WP:OR by inserting information that is not supported by the present source (in this case, the album's liner notes, as noted at the top of the personnel section) while failing to provide a source for their edits. Honestly, I'm done trying to get our point across, and I'd much rather hear from an actual admin. snapsnap ^(talk) 03:24, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Complete disregard for this discussion as Tmayerferg101 continues to add unsourced info here, here, here and here. Robvanvee 18:00, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

User:Pilose399

WP:SPA and probable WP:COI editor on Judge Rotenberg Educational Center. The user is whitewashing the facility's human rights violations. Most of this user's edits are reverts and he has never discussed on the talk page. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 17:21, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

This is clearly slow-motion edit warring from Pilose399 and, unless there's some compelling answer he gives here, given the lack of effort to discuss I think an indefinite block is in order; indefinite in this case would mean until he agrees to discuss these edits on the talkpage. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:32, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

And he continues to revert. The sooner this guy's banned, the better. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 19:31, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Bump. User continues to revert. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 15:42, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

I warned him with You still have not responded or taken action to the inquiry regarding your appearance as an undisclosed paid editor. If you make any additional edits without complying you may be blocked from editing. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:19, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

I have now warned him with You may be blocked from editing without further warning if you make any further edits without responding to the inquiry you received regarding undisclosed paid editing. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:57, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Suspicious changes to demographics numbers in Religion in X articles

Over the past few days, I've noticed IP editors (likely the same one given the similarity of the addresses and the edits) making changes to the demographics sections of Religion in Fiji [35] and Religion in Suriname [36]. In both cases, demographic numbers were tweaked without any change in the provided sources. Now, for what it's worth, the demographic information at both of these articles is quite outdated and needs to be updated, so there is a chance that these are good faith edits. Nevertheless, without proper sourcing the edits are detrimental to the project. I think it's likely that other Religion in X articles have been affected as well, but the two IPs involved in the above diffs have not made edits anywhere else. I would appreciate having more eyes on this, and if the editor(s) making these changes don't respond, I think a range-block may be in order. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:28, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Please note similar edits by CJH927. The ips seem to have started after the named user stopped. User left something of an apology/explanation on their talk page, and haven't responded since. Hydromania (talk) 07:21, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the edit to religion in Jordan is a misreading of the already existing source, not necessarily a deliberately misleading or unsourced contribution. Hydromania (talk) 07:23, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Request for block review

I have blocked User:OAbot for adding links to references that appear to violate copyright (to CiteSeerX, a web site that scrapes copies of pdfs from other web sites and makes the scraped copies available itself). CiteSeerX does provide provenance of the copies that it links, which in most cases go to web sites of the papers' authors or publishers, but in many cases do not. In the case that triggered the block, CiteSeerX linked to a copy of a paper that had been made available online by two researchers, neither of whom was the author. It may well be the case that those researchers' use of the paper is fair use, but it doesn't make it fair use for us. If these links were outside of the references section, they would certainly violate WP:ELNEVER, and when OAbot went through the bot approval process, this issue was discussed and the addition of CiteSeerX links was taken off of the list of approved bot tasks. Nevertheless, User:Nemo bis (whom I will notify of this thread, and who is one of the bot operators) has added this feature and has been adding these links at a high rate with no evidence of human supervision.

Because I was part of the original discussion of CiteSeerX links on OAbot, Nemo bis has suggested that I should be considered WP:INVOLVED. Therefore, I am asking for review by other administrators of this block. Specifically, of the following three questions:

1. Should it be considered a blockable offense to add full-text non-author and non-publisher links to otherwise-paywalled references, after a warning not to do so?
2. Have Nemo bis and OAbot violated their bot approval?
3. Am I involved, and if so should I lift my block and allow a different admin to take over here, or does a consensus on the earlier two questions make that moot?

Meanwhile, I will have no objection if any admin unilaterally takes action to modify or remove my block. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:27, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I went ahead and notified Pintoch as well, since they're one of the other bot operators involved in OABot as well. OhKayeSierra (talk) 01:46, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I did already leave a notification on the bot talk page, also. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:49, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

@David Eppstein: I saw that it's running on the Toolforge. Dumb question, but when you blocked, did you disable autoblock? There'd be a lot of potential for collateral damage otherwise. I'm editing from my phone, and I'm having a hard time seeing the block log myself. OhKayeSierra (talk) 01:55, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

I reblocked with autoblock disabled just in case. Not an endorsement of the original block. ST47 (talk) 02:12, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realize this was an issue. Will take note for future reference. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:26, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I'm not an admin, but I fully concur with Headbomb's assessment of the issue at User talk:OAbot. OABot 3 was about flagging existing identifiers as free, and adding free dois and hdls and the like. CiteSeerX has been deemed too contentious to add automatically in the past and OABot 3 does not overturn that consensus. I also see your actions as acting purely in an administrative capacity to block a bot that's operating out of the scope of its task per WP:BOTBLOCK, so I don't see WP:INVOLVED applying in this instance. OhKayeSierra (talk) 03:37, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) Looks like a good block per WP:BOTPOL. Looking at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/OAbot 3 a number of editors, including a BAG member, were against the addition of new CiteSeerX links, and it seems there was no consensus for the task to include that functionality. The trial approval was explicit in that it only allowed the conversion of existing URLs to IDs, and the task function which was approved explicitly said "maintenance" of CiteSeerX IDs. There's no indication that the approval covered addition of new CiteSeerX links or IDs, and there is indication that such an interpretation was opposed. This edit clearly adds a new CiteSeerX link. Copyright issues aside, the bot seems to be operating outside the scope of its approval and should be modified or the additional task approved before unblocking. Wug·a·po·des​ 04:52, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
• Bot operator here. It's fine to have strong personal preferences on citations: for instance, I strongly dislike links to Academia.Edu (which is not good practice) and if someone added them to a citation added by my I may replace those links, but I wouldn't go around saying that the user has infringed copyright or violated policy, because that's normally not the case per WP:COPYLINKS. Of course CiteSeerX is in a much stronger legal position than such commercial websites, personal websites etc.

  I have offered to develop a blacklist feature allowing users to prevent the addition of certain links, also to avoid the repetition of mistaken links if any. Some users have endorsed the suggestion but so far nobody has expressed an interest in using it. As soon as someone will ask me to be able to use a blacklist, I will implement it; until then, the usual per-page blacklists are possible with {{nobots}} and friends.

  Sorry if I'm less responsive than usual, I'm currently busy at a workshop with WU copyright experts in Warsaw. Nemo 07:27, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps I've misunderstood something but AFAICT this isn't to do with personal preferences. The consensus thus far is that CiteSeerX too easily allows potential copyvios so any CiteSeerX link needs to be checked to ensure it's not likely a copyvio per WP:COPYLINKS etc. Given this, the bot was approved with the condition it does not automatically add CiteSeerX links, it can only maintain existing links. If you feel Academia.Edu is the same, you're welcome to propose the same for Academia.Edu although I think, not being an expert on bot policy, as a bot operator you're also welcome to just disable automatic adding of Academia.Edu. While you're welcome to your personal feelings about CiteSeerX, until you've convinced the community otherwise the bot needs to obey approval conditions. If you can't convince the community about your opinion of CiteSeerX, you're welcome to propose a whitelist where editors can choose to add CiteSeerX using the bot. These editors will need to understand their responsibility to check the links for copyright compliance. Nil Einne (talk) 11:26, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

• Hi all, thanks for the notification. I am not involved in this run. I would agree with the assessment that Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/OAbot 3 made it reasonably clear that CiteSeerX ids should not be added (although it could perhaps have been stated in a clearer way). It looks like Nemo_bis has just misunderstood the scope of the approval. It would be worth listing the parameters that can be touched by the bot in this run (|citeseerx= not being one of them). Cheers − Pintoch (talk) 18:21, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I think it's too strong to say that citeseerx cannot be touched. I would not object to converting urls that point to citeseerx into citeseerx parameters, for instance. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:03, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
    • Ah ok, as you can see I am following this from afar… I am sure you all will be able to define properly what works or not. − Pintoch (talk) 19:12, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

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.

---

Goodfactpedia (talk · contribs)

Goodfactpedia is WP:NOTHERE. See his userpage, here is his first edit and this blatant POV template. Aman.kumar.goel (talk) 15:44, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

• They're definitely disruptive ([37], [38]), and with all probability also a sock of someone, because genuinely new users don't know how to create templates ([39], [40]). - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 17:30, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

• And their short career here, in this incarnation at least, has now come to an end, thanks to a CU-block applied by Bbb23. So this can be closed. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 17:45, 19 October 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.

TPA probably should be removed too based on this. Nate • (chatter) 00:13, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive AfD behavior of User:Sk8erPrince at AfD Ryan O'Donohue 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.

---

Sk8erPrince was previously indefinitely blocked topic banned for 6 months for behavior at AfDs and then after the topic ban was lifted it was reinstated because Sk8erPrince the behavior. Next, Sk8erPrince was indefinitely blocked for creating a sock account to continue disruptive behavior at AfDs. It is unclear whether the topic ban for Sk8erPrince at AfD was ever lifted. Note: Both topic bans were lifted (the latest on Sept 1, 2019). however the tendentious editing and placing the repeated AfDs on the Ryan O'Donohue article is disruptive.

1. Sk8erPrince nominated the article Ryan O'Donohue in July 2017 for the first time and then received a Indefinite 6 month topic ban from any edits relating to deletion process on English Wikipedia August 5, 2017 The ban lasted 6 months. Here is the discussion and topic ban at WP:ANI The editor had the topic ban lifted and The Topic ban was then reinstated at ANI 18 days later. The editor again appealed and was given one final chance September 1, 2019.
2. While topic banned in (March 2018) Sk8erPrince started a sock account called MizukaS Specifically to nominate this article for AfD a second time. Sock Investigation confirmed at that time March 2018 User:Sk8erPrince was indeffed. Seems to have been unblocked September 2018?
3. Next Sk8erPrince nominated this article for a third time and is now WP:TENDENTIOUS and disruptive on the AfD. It is unclear whether or not the Indefinite topic ban from any edits relating to deletion process on English Wikipedia was ever lifted.

I propose Indefinite topic ban from any edits relating to deletion process on English Wikipedia

• Support as proposer Lightburst (talk) 03:34, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello there. I'm not sure why you thought an ANI report is necessary when you have made no attempts to discuss any issues you have with me on my talkpage. I consider myself to be someone that can be reasoned with, and I am open to other perspectives. Quoting one of the points at the top of this page...

Before posting a grievance about a user on this page:

*Take a look at these tips for dealing with incivility

*Consider first discussing the issue on the user's talk page

*Or try dispute resolution

In any case, since you decided to file the report with no warning, allow me to defend myself.

First of all, I would like to clarify that my Tban *did* get lifted through an AN discussion, which you could view here. That should ease any doubts regarding my AFD permissions. At the moment, I have a total number of zero editing restritions. Personally, I feel like you should have checked whether or not my TBan was actually lifted - after all, participating in deletion processes and discussions with a TBan is a serious offense, and I would be immediately sanctioned. The fact that you did not lowers the merit and credibility of your report.

Speaking of credibility, "Sk8erPrince was previously indefinitely blocked for behavior at AfDs and then was later indefinitely blocked for creating a sock account to continue disruptive behavior at AfDs" is factually incorrect. I was only ever indeffed once on this account. The first time I was blocked, it was for a duration of 6 months, and it was for civility issues rather than AFD (though my TBan was restored following the end of that discussion). Anyway, check my block log if you would like to double check.

Secondly, while I did sock as MizukaS in the past to circumvent AFD restrictions, I had already served my time with an indef block that lasted for 6 months before I successfully got it appealed. I understood that socking is wrong and deceitful and that if I wanted to participate in any deletion processes, I would have to appeal my TBan; which I did.

The only intent I had for the third and final AFD nomination of the Ryan O'Donohue article is to have a thorough discussion regarding the subject's notability. The first nomination was speedy closed because I had a Tban at the time, and the second one was closed because I was socking. They were closed due to procedural reasons; hence, there was never a proper AFD discussion for the subject. As the nominator, I remain unconvinced that the subject is notable; however, I will accept the outcome gracefully and I shall not renominate the subject for a 4th AFD discussion.

It is also important to note that AFD1 was conducted in July 2017, AFD2 was conducted in Februrary 2018, and AFD3 was nommed in September 2019. Individually, the AFDs are about 1 year apart from each other. Given the span of 2 years, there was plenty of time for editors to search for reliable sources and further expand the article. If I had renommed the article for AFD every single month, then there is an actual issue. In any case, given the thorough discussion in AFD3, there is no point in objecting the outcome; hence, there will not be a 4th AFD.

Lastly, I would like to clarify that I did not insult any of the editors that participated in the 3rd AFD; I simply disagreed by linking policy. In AFDs, there are bound to be agreements and disagreements. I have no objection to backing off of this particular discussion and let it run its course, since I had said my piece there already; and to also avoid blugeoning. I trust the closing adminstrator's judgement and I will not object the outcome.

PS: I would like to do a quick analysis of the AFD - basically, I was debating whether or not WP:NACTOR alone is enough to keep an article; I have reasonable doubts regarding that, so I challenged the Keep camp by asking for significant coverage regarding the subject. The only sources I was able to find were trivial mentions, and in my opinion, that does not qualify for WP:SIGCOV. Nowhere did I belittle them; it was simply a disagreement. Since the AFD is nearing its end, the closing adminstrator could determine which side has more merit. Sk8erPrince (talk) 04:38, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

You are correct about the first 6 month topic ban. However I have corrected the record to show that the ban was reinstated so you were twice topic banned. Lightburst (talk) 19:19, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose- Sk8erPrince is not under any current editing restrictions and their behaviour right now doesn't justify imposing a new one. I suspect this is more about removing someone with different opinions from the AfD process, than about any sort of actual disruption. Reyk _YO! 04:52, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

• Comment Sk8erPrince has good point here that whatever else, your failure to talk to them over your concerns especially considering the age of most of what you highlighted makes opening an ANI discussing them questionable. Even more so since there seems to be no reason why you didn't talk to them, it's not like they banned you from their talk page or something. They had problems in the past but it's been a while now. If they're falling back into those problems and I'm not saying they are, then talk to them about it first. To illustrate the problem, you say "It is unclear whether or not the Indefinite topic ban from any edits relating to deletion process on English Wikipedia was ever lifted." Then the very next sentence you say "I propose Indefinite topic ban from any edits relating to deletion process on English Wikipedia". So basically your suggesting we hold a discussion over something which may be completely unnecessary. If Sk8erPrince is already topic banned, they can be reminded of their topic ban and unless they successfully appeal it, future violations can be enforced. As it turns out the topic ban was lifted, I'm sure you would know this if you asked Sk8erPrince about it. But you didn't. Nil Einne (talk) 05:54, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

  BTW, the comment number 1 is always also very confusing given your later comment. If Sk8erPrince was topicbanned for 6 months in 2017, then this topic ban will be over unless it was extended in some way but you did not highlight any extension. So there would be not "it is unclear", since it's clear. But the topic ban you highlighted (more direct link [41]) was not a topic ban lasting 6 months. It was a topic ban with a minimum of 6 months required before an appeal. (A very common requirement.) This is an important distinction. Nil Einne (talk) 06:06, 11 October 2019 (UTC) 12:49, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

  P.S. When I wrote the above, I wasn't aware the topic ban had only been lifted less then 2 months ago. This makes any return to past misbehaviour far more concerning. And looking at the AfD, the number of replies Sk8erPrince seems to have made does seem concerning. I still stick by my comment though, it's very difficult to assess an ANI when no attempt at communication has been made. In fact, in some ways, this further illustrates the problem. If you'd opened an ANI and told us 'they were topic banned, the topic ban being lifted on 1 September' this would be far more effective then 'they were topic banned, maybe they're still topic banned but let's hold a discussion over the exact same topic ban anyway'. Nil Einne (talk) 06:25, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Nil Einne, I understand that excessively responding to the opposing side of the debate constitutes as bludgeoning, which is why I clarified that I shall not comment on that AFD any further and let it run its course. In the future, I will make no attempt to refute *every single* Keep vote (or vice versa) in AFDs. I went overboard this time, and I admit that I could have done better. Ultimately, it is up to the closing admin to determine which side has the stronger arguments. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 06:40, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

• Support topic ban, but only on Ryan O'Donohue-related topics I see little to no evidence of abuse beyond topics related to R O'D pbp 04:27, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Discussion about now corrected opening: Corrected to: Sk8erPrince was twice topic banned and reinstated, also Sk8erPrince was once indeffed for socking

@Nil Einne: I did tell them in the AfD to stop the behavior. And then I found out this has been a pattern with the user and it has resulted in a six month ban with a final warning. Seems the editor is determined to delete this article - even going so far as to create a sock account for that purpose. The editor is WP:BLUDGEONING the debate at AfD and here. To clarify - the editor was indeed ideffed for socking. But was given six month suspension for the type of uncivil behavior at AfD. The past and present behavior is well outside the norms of acceptable WP behavior. The last WP:ANI result, the six month ban from AfDs, and the socking indef along with present behavior, show that the discipline did not have the desired effect. Lightburst (talk) 14:03, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

@Lightburst: If you want to have a serious discussion with someone over their behaviour, you should do so on their talk page. AFD isn't the place to discuss someone's behaviour. It may not be unreasonable to leave a simple comment, 'I think you should cut it out' or similar, but clearly any proper discussion, which should be held before opening an ANI, cannot be held on an AFD. We have very good evidence for this since you told use 'I want to topic ban this person, but actually maybe they already have that exact same topic ban'. It's almost impossible to recover from that since it's very difficult to believe you've actually had a proper discussion with an editor over their behaviour when you didn't even know if they are already subject to the exact same topic ban you were proposing because you never asked if their topic ban had been lifted. Also we do not 'discipline' people on wikipedia. Nil Einne (talk) 14:30, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: Good suggestions regarding communicating on talk page, however not required - "suggested". I did not consider this a dispute between me and the editor, so dispute resolution is not appropriate. This is an editor who repeated the same behavior that resulted in a ban for behavior in the WP community. We have established that the editor was topic banned for 6 months and given a final warning. It is clear that I do now know that the ban was lifted with a Final Warning, also clear that the discipline has not had the desired effect. You can decide not to call it discipline, but being banned from Wikipedia is discipline - and it is progressive and corrective - not putative and destructive. I am pointing out an editor who has engaged in a pattern of disruptive behavior. Lightburst (talk) 14:50, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Turns out the editor was AfD topic banned twice after having the 2017 topic ban lifted the editor repeated the behavior and was again topic banned for the same reasons. This is likely why the editor was issued a final warning.. I amended the statement. In addition the most recent topic ban was just lifted September 1, 2019. I made the corrections to the opening statement and provided links Lightburst (talk) 17:36, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

You made an erroneous report on me with no attempt at communication on my talkpage, as well as getting the timeline and several points wrong; on top of that, you did not even try to verify whether or not my TBan was lifted. Sure, you may not be *required* to talk over the issue with me on my talkpage first, but it is still highly recommended. Why else would that point be mentioned at the top of this page?

There are plenty of other things that are not required on Wikipedia, such as writing edit summaries. People still write them anyway because it is a customary practice on the project, and they are helpful to everyone involved. It is a good idea to engage in customary practices, even if you are not required to do so.

And while I admit that I was verbose in the 3rd O'Donohue AFD, accusing me of "attacking" other editors when I present counterarguments is ridiculous. [1]

In the past, I participated in AFDs uncalmly and *actually* belittled the opposing party, instead of quoting policies in my rebuttals. For the sake of comparison, here are some links to older AFDs, when my behavior was truly problematic: [2] [3]

For all intents and purposes, I'd say that I participated in the third O'Donohue AFD in a relatively calm manner. If presenting valid, policy-quoted counterarguments is considered to be "attacking", then I find your understanding of the AFD process as well as your understanding of its established norms to be questionable.

At what point have I "bludgeoned" here? So it's wrong to provide my own defense and point out factual errors in your highly misleading report? You only backpedaled when others pointed out the mistakes in your report; which greatly damages the credibility of your report. Also, to quote the Requesting Blocks section from the blocking policy page: Users requesting blocks should supply credible evidence of the circumstances warranting a block. In this case, it's a TBan that you are trying to impose on me, but the same logic applies. So far, your report has proven to be discredible on the grounds of uncertainty, lack of proper research on my history as well as presenting factually incorrect information, which makes me to believe that you did it with the intent to mislead.

Evidently, a lack of research has been conducted on how many times I've been indefinitely blocked, which you could easily verify by checking my block log. I was only indeffed once, yet you claimed that I was indeffed twice on this account. You also did not verify whether or not my deletion process restrictions were lifted before you filed the report. With such uncertainty and a lack of any attempt to talk over the issues first, I am sure you could see that the validity of your report is highly questionable.

Last but not least, your claim that that I made a sockpuppet to specifically to renominate the O'Donohue article for an AFD is also factually incorrect. Let me quote that part of your report real quick: While topic banned in (March 2018) Sk8erPrince started a sock account called MizukaS Specifically to nominate this article for AfD a second time. While not an excuse, the sockpuppet was made to circumvent my AFD restrictions; the edit count on the sock clearly shows that it was made with more than just renomming the O'Donohue article for AFD. Consequently, I paid the price for such an offense, and I had already served my time.

With that, I have said my piece. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 22:34, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

I was the one who initially closed the first topic ban discussion for Sk8erPrince and registered it at Editing Restrictions. In a review of the case I see nothing wrong here, Sk8erPrince has correctly nominated an article for deletion citing a justifiable reason for his case for which others have agreed (in point I fact I am of the mind that the article should be deleted, I see no major credits to justify having it here). That being said, I do see that Sk8erPrince has replied to each of the Keep !voters to the effect of attempting to explain why exactly their keep votes on NACTOR grounds are incorrect. Accordingly, I would remind Sk8erPrince that such activity - while technically allowed - can be construed as disruptive editing, and accordingly would recommend that the editor refrain from commenting or replying to the other side, we are all of us going to have different opinions and that should be OK. Remember, its about consensus, not about !voting, and accordingly administrators will take the stronger arguments in the debates. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:00, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Request to close

Given the recent closure of the O'Donohue AFD, can we please close up this report? As per what I've said above, I will leave the article alone and I will not renominate it for deletion. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 03:26, 17 October 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.

Pattern of low-key, slow-moving disruption

Kashmiri Munda (talk · contribs) is providing useful additions to nobility articles, but seems to have a knack for unnecessary capitalization (in particular "Life Peerage" and "Hereditary Peerage"), despite being informed about WP:Capitalization. There is no response. This behaviour reminds me of blocked user A H Butt (talk · contribs) using the exact same tactics. Maybe they are operating multiple accounts.

HandsomeFella (talk) 09:37, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Kashmiri Munda is now violating WP:BRD by reverting back. HandsomeFella (talk) 15:43, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

I see exactly one attempt, a few minutes before you posted here, to explain the situation to him, then an immediate vand4im warning and a report here. Slow down a bit. Give him a some time to respond. --Jayron32 16:26, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

• @HandsomeFella: I agree with you about the socking. It would be best to take the user to SPI: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/A H Butt.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:14, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
• Just some background information about the names. "Butt" is a common Kashmiri surname (sometimes rendered as Bhat). "Munda" means boy in Punjabi and there are a significant number of Punjabis in Pakistan administered Kashmir and to a certain extent in Indian administered Kashmir as well. Most likely these 2 accounts belong to the same user.--DreamLinker (talk) 18:37, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Renstar85

• Renstar85 (talk · contribs · count)
• Dipak Misra (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Continued addition of unsourced BLP despite multiple warnings, starting last year. - FlightTime (open channel) 21:03, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Note All user edits are to that page only, possible COI/Paid issues also. - FlightTime (open channel) 21:11, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Obvious WP:COI 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.

---

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

I'm pretty certain this user is Jasper Rine. The account exists almost exclusively to edit negative information out of the Jasper Rine article (and negative information out of other articles that pertain to Rine), and the few other edits are articles that appear to be related to his field of study. There is an obvious conflict of interest here. DarkKnight2149 05:00, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

That article has serious problems; negative claims about living people need to be sourced to reliable secondary sources, not YouTube videos. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:05, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

It was restored only due to the conflict of interest. If you take responsibility for the edit, feel free to remove it. Nonetheless, a quick look through the edit history shows that this account almost exclusively exists to promote Rine. DarkKnight2149 05:11, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Whether or not it was a conflict of interest, the material should not have been restored - WP:BLP is controlling here, and your restoration of unsourced and poorly-sourced negative claims about Rine is out of order. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:13, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

As I said, I don't feel strongly about it one way or another. It was removed purely on WP:COI grounds, so if you take responsibility for the removal, go ahead. No one's stopping you or objecting. DarkKnight2149 05:15, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

You're missing the point. Your restoration of the material was absolutely inappropriate, and the kind of thing that's likely to get you blocked if you repeat it. WilyD 09:40, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm hardly missing the point, you should see my reply below. If you insist on carrying this on, I suggest you continue it down there. DarkKnight2149 10:13, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

I've read below, and it indicates pretty strongly that you're completely missing the point. Your reversion was wholly inappropriate, and you've been unwilling to admit that you screwed up. If you're unwilling to own that you made a totally inappropriate edit, and plan to continue committing violations of the policy on writing about living people in the future, I'd be happy to block your account until you've familiarised yourself with the policy. Indeed, a critical bit is that you're allowed to edit articles about yourself to remove clear errors and potentially libellous information Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Dealing_with_articles_about_yourself WilyD 11:59, 17 October 2019 (UTC)4

WilyD I think that the original editor does not fully understand the BLP policy. If you review the edits in question, one was a totally non-notable incident (an argument in a classroom over a stolen laptop) that is sourced to a YouTube video. The other does appear to have to have some notability (involving tenure for another professor) but the linked source did not fully support the statements being made. It may be that this second issue does belong in the Rine article, but it would need to be better written and thoroughly sourced to conform with the expectations for BLP. It was wrong of Darkknight2149 to restore the content without carefully reviewing the source, even if it turns out that the person who removed it had a COI. COI does not trump BLP, and we do not include unsourced material in a BLP solely because someone with a COI wants to remove it. 208.185.237.210 (talk) 12:57, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

This is more or less correct. The second paragraph that was restored was totally unsuitable. The first one, I could believe some modified version of it (but not the one that existed) might be restorable. But yes, not only does COI not trump BLP, BLP trumps COI like a bulldozer running over an orchid. WilyD 13:09, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Darkknight2149 I think the message to take away from this is that BLP policy trumps the COI behavioural guidelines. If you suspect that an account has a COI, by all means raise the concerns at COIN, but before restoring negative content to a BLP, you need to look at it carefully - is the sourcing reliable, and does it properly support the content? If not, it's a BLP violation, and it should not be restored, no matter who removed it or why they did it. If you choose to restore it, you take responsibility for the content and its sourcing. Hope that makes sense - NorthBySouthBaranof has removed it again now, so I don't think any further action is required here, but just something to bear in mind for the future perhaps. GirthSummit _(blether) 09:33, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: Given how sporadically Jforsayeth has edited in the past (sometimes going years at a time between edits), I see no reason to assume they won't edit again.. Except on the off-chance that they create a sock puppet because of this report.

As for BLP, I didn't look too deep into the sources, but I do know that it was backed by citations and external links (which were restored along with the content). I saw cited content removed for purely personal reasons and I acted accordingly. If NorthBySouthBaranof looked deeper into the sources and found them to be unsatisfactory, the onus would be on him to remove them. Jforsayeth also could have started a discussion elsewhere about the content, but instead chose to violate our policies for his own interests. DarkKnight2149 10:13, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

@NorthBySouthBaranof: I'm curious, did you look into the external links when you did your source check? Considering that you didn't remove the external links along with the body content and you claim that there's no secondary sources, I don't think you did. DarkKnight2149 10:13, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Darkknight2149, with respect, I think you ought to take this a bit more seriously. We mustn't restore negative material to a BLP without checking the sources carefully - both their reliability, and whether they actually support the assertions. It's not enough to see that there are some citations there - we have to check before restoring, otherwise we risk violating policy, which is a Bad Thing. That's my advice anyway - do with it what you will... GirthSummit _(blether) 11:08, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Girth Summit - To me, it's likely that Darkknight2149 did not review the sources before restoring the content. I did, and I noticed that the source related to the Laptop incident was actually just a YouTube video with no indicia of notability or reliability. The source related to the Chapela incident was better, but it did not fully validate the claims made in the article. 208.185.237.210 (talk) 13:38, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

The last edit was years ago. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:08, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: Is that really an appropriate defense when the account has edited sporadically over the years? At one point, there was a five-year gap between edits. It's clear that it operates when it has a reason to operate or when the user spots information pertaining to Rine it doesn't like. DarkKnight2149 05:13, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

What is clear is that the Jforsayeth account made its first edit to the Vine article on the 22nd of January 2010, and its last edit to that article 6 days later. Nothing else is 'clear' other than the fact that you chose to violate WP:BLP policy, after taking it upon yourself to act as judge and jury on an account which has only ever made 17 edits, none of which seem in any way to have been to the detriment of Wikipedia. 86.134.75.242 (talk) 09:07, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

What isn't clear is whether or not you have decided to come here in good faith, or if I should open an WP:SPI. Your IP address has never made an edit to Wikipedia before now, you are strangely emotionally invested in this, and you suspiciously chose to scew the facts. That "first edit" you are referring to is the first edit to the account, period. The account has edited almost exclusively in Jasper Rine's favour, also changing cited content at other articles to paint him in a more positive light (case of point). The username also checks out with Jasper's real name and occupation. The clear bias and purpose of the account is as blatant as can be. DarkKnight2149 10:13, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

It's very likely they're Jasper Rine or someone closely connect to them. If they're having to pull BLP violations from Wikipedia, then we're the ones who are fucking up, not them. WilyD 13:16, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

(ec) I have 'scewed' no facts. And what exactly wrong with being biased against Wikipedia being used as a platform for BLP policy violations? If the account was Jasper Rine, he was fully entitled to remove the material, according to policy at the time. He'd be fully entitled to remove it now. WP:BLP is policy: "contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion". Removed by anyone, including the subject of an article. WP:BLP is not open to negotiation. WP:COI is a guideline. A guideline that has significantly changed since the edits in question. And even under current guidelines, the correct response to edits from a new account with a suspected COI is to inform the contributor of the existence of the WP:COI guideline, and only after they have been informed of the guideline, seek assistance here if they won't comply. As for 'emotional investment', I'd have thought that calling for entirely pointless SPIs was a prime example. Or do you really think that it would be possible to link edits made 9 years ago (presumably from the US, if your suspicions are correct) with a UK-based dynamic IP that changes maybe once a month? 86.134.75.242 (talk) 13:21, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

I just have to say.... wow. No, one does not have to be a sock puppet of the accused account to find problems with what you're saying. In claiming "The account has edited almost exclusively in Jasper Rine's favour, also changing cited content at other articles to paint him in a more positive light" - that additional example that you put forth is also from the first week of that account being in action. In the other four articles that account has edited in the almost 10 years since then, "Rine" was not even mentioned (assuming that you exclude things like "urine" and "endocrine".) Trying to paint this as some account that's constantly circling, looking squelch Rine-related material is in strong conflict with the actual record. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:27, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

• @Darkknight2149: Can you please point us to where you have both explicitly acknowledged your error in restoring BLP violations and undertaken to be more careful in the future? Without such assurances, I imagine the community might have to consider a topic-ban from BLPs in order to ensure no further breaches of one of our most important policies. Cheers, ——SerialNumber54129 13:05, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Comment: I'm really troubled by the BLP violation inadvertently restored by Darkknight2149 (talk · contribs) on the page Jasper Rine. If you look at this this diff, you can see that he added material that was sourced to a YouTube video. I'm concerned that in his zeal to stop a user with a potential conflict of interest, he had trampled over the BLP policy without realizing it. It's crucial that material like this not be added (or re-added) to articles, and while it's important to combat conflicts of interest, it is wholly inappropriate to do so by restoring policy-violating content to the article. 208.185.237.210 (talk) 12:48, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Am I to believe that this entire rigmarole is happening because of two edits that took place ten years ago?? Good grief. 107.77.204.109 (talk) 14:14, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

• Darkknight2149 isn't going to go on a spree of BLP disruption. However, it couldn't hurt if he entrolled in the Counter-Vandalism Unit Academy to get a stronger background in policy and patrolling disruption. Sometimes patrolling can be tricky. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:53, 17 October 2019 (UTC):*

Darkknight2149, if you'd like to take up NinjaRobotPirate's suggestion above, I am a CVUA trainer and have a slot open - I'd be happy to take you through the course. If you're interested, let me know and I'll set up your training page

Bother - sign, and re-ping Darkknight2149. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:37, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

• To clarify, I do not believe that Darkknight2149 is a bad faith or disruptive editor, and I don't think that this behavior is a chronic problem or anything that warrants some kind of sanction. I am just saying that it is important for him to really try to understand the BLP issue here since his above comments make it seem (perhaps wrongly) as if he is not fully cognizant of it. He seemed to believe that you can write anything you want in a BLP as long as there is a citation, and that it is required to restore even problematic or dubiously sourced content if it is removed by someone with a COI. I just want to be sure that he understands that this approach is incorrect and that when reverting stuff like this he should read the sources themselves to ensure that they are WP:RS (which a youtube video usually isn't) and that the source actually says what is there. The fact that the person who removed the content -- 9 years ago -- had a COI doesn't matter for negate the policy requirement for reliable sources and verifiable content. That's all. 208.185.237.210 (talk) 15:20, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
• You're probably right, but I'd want to see them at least acknowledge they're wrong here stop trying to escalate things before I'd be confident the situation is resolved in the short term. WilyD 15:45, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Comment from Darkknight2149

Whoa, whoa, whoa.

I just got out of bed, and as soon as I checked my Wikipedia account, I nearly had a stroke. This is a chaotic mess. While I am willing to listen to other users, I am not scrolling up and down a cluttered thread trying to play "whack-a-mole" against every comment that pops up as 378 people swarm me and trip over each other to make the same accusations. I'm not about to let my blood pressure go up over a good faith reversion of obvious WP:COI editing. If you expect me to read, consider, or reply to anything here, I would suggest:

• You completely reorganise this thread in a structured manner, and everyone explains their concerns to me in a calm and ordered fashion. Not sure how anyone expects me to keep track of everything and properly defend myself in this jumbled thread.

• If you are an IP address who didn't start editing until 1-2 days ago, I suggest you make a strong case for why you are not a sock puppet / meat puppet and how you found this thread, because I'm about to open an WP:SPI.

• This is the first time I have ever been accused of WP:BLP, so any sanctions placed on me are going straight to the supreme court. I know that at least 12/17 of Jforsayeths edits are made for the reasons of painting themselves in a positive light, and the other few are just stray edits at other articles. If Jasper had a concern about WP:BLP, he could have easily brought it to the attention of other editors. Maybe I didn't look as deep into the sources as I should have, but I do know that they were indeed there and The Inquirer (which I'm not familiar with) cites ABC News and the laptop incident was backed by a video. The Ignacio Chapela scandal section also appeared to be backed by the university website. And it was clear to me that the edits were removed by the subject of the article purely to improve his image. Also here, he ended up slightly rewording a sentence to paint himself in a more positive light. So yes, this is a strong case of WP:COI.

Until these concerns are met, you can contact me on my talk page like Girth Summit has done, as long as 500 of you do not swarm me and I can reasonably respond to it without breaking into hives. Girth, I will be replying to you soon. DarkKnight2149 21:00, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Darkknight2149, your understanding of BLP is wrong, and that's what most of us are taking away from this thread. Instead of digging in please try to understand what other experienced editors have told you above. Here's a key line for you to digest from the policy page - "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." Mr Ernie (talk) 06:43, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Response from 86.134.75.242

There is no conflict of interest in removing violations of WP:BLP policy. If you really need to go to Arbcom to have that explained to you, feel free. 86.134.75.242 (talk) 21:43, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Wow, Jasper. Thank you for proving that an WP:SPI is 100% neccessary: [42], [43], [44]. It's fascinating to me that IP addresses that didn't start editing before 1 or 2 days ago keep showing up here as well. In fact, all of your edits are from this dispute. DarkKnight2149 22:26, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

No, all of my edits are not from this dispute. I have been editing Wikipedia longer than your account has been registered. I am however editing with a dynamic IP, which changes relatively frequently, as an when my ISP chooses to do so. I could of course register an account (I have held one in the past, but no longer have access to it since I don't have the password) but nothing in any Wikipedia policy or guideline obliges me to. I suggest you confine future replies to the actual issue under discussion here, rather than throwing out wild accusations. 86.134.75.242 (talk) 22:39, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Further to this, I think that DarkNight might do well to familiarise himself with what WP:COI actually says about handling suspected COI editing:

If you believe an editor has an undisclosed COI and is editing in violation of this guideline, raise the issue in a civil manner on the editor's talk page, which is the first step in resolving user-conduct issues, per the DR policy, citing this guideline. If for some reason that is not advisable, or if it fails to resolve the issue, the next step is to open a discussion at the conflict of interest noticeboard (COIN). COIN is also the place to discuss disclosed COI that is causing a problem: for example, an acknowledged BLP subject who is editing their own BLP. Similarly, if you're editing with a disclosed COI, you can ask for advice at COIN.

During the COIN discussion, avoid making disparaging remarks about the user in question, their motives or the subject of the article(s). Post whatever public evidence you have to support that there is a COI, or that it is causing a problem, in the form of edits by that user or information the user has posted about themselves...

Even if Jforsayeth had been violating WP:COI guidelines (which is debatable, to say the least, given what the guidelines said at the time of the edits in question, and given what WP:BLP has always said about removing unsourced or poorly sourced content), this in no shape or form justifies in any way the behaviour of DarkNight, who seems to have decided that a nine-year-old 'guideline violation' justifies turning a stub article on an academic into an exercise in poorly-sourced negativity. Evidently DarkNight expects individuals who have made a couple of dozen edits to Wikipedia to be more familiar with WP:COI guidelines than DarkNight appears to be. 86.134.75.242 (talk) 22:31, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

I certainly expect you to stop WP:BLUDGEONING and attempting to WP:SANCTIONGAME the discussion, especially when there's an WP:SPI being filed on you as we speak. You've said your piece, now the best thing you can for yourself is to let the chips fall. Your behaviour is beginning to mirror that of Twitbookspacetube, another user and a banned troll known to do this at ANI discussions. DarkKnight2149 22:41, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Given that Darkknight2149 has now chosen to escalate matters by attempting to hide legitimate discussion, and by making further unfounded personal attacks (i.e. accusations of being a banned user and a 'troll' based on no evidence whatsoever - after previously accusing me of being 'Jasper'. Is DN actually suggesting that Jasper Vine is Twitbookspacetube?) [45], I would have to suggest that sanctions are necessary. I would suggest a week-long block to give DN time to read what WP:COI and WP:BLP actually say, and a topic ban from all content relating to living persons until such time as DN can satisfy the blocking admin that they understand said policies. 86.134.75.242 (talk) 22:59, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

• Darkknight2149, I suggest you leave the hatting to the admins. IP, I suggest you just stop talking for a moment. I really want all of y'all to stop talking at least until some poor admin feels like this warrants attention. Drmies (talk) 23:04, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough, though I would prefer that DN not make this thread even harder to follow by moving posts around arbitrarily. [46] When I post a response to something, I do so in the entirely reasonable expectation that people subsequently reading it can see what it is I am responding to without having to backtrack to page history. 86.134.75.242 (talk) 23:18, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

N.B. The 'Retaliation from 86.134.75.242' subheader above is further evidence of bad faith from DN. And rather ridiculous, given the lack of any explanation as to what the heck DN thinks I'm 'retaliating' for. 86.134.75.242 (talk) 06:21, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Read: "Stop calling me out!" If an administrator wants to change it to Response from 86.134.75.243, be my guest. Your intentions are as plain as daylight, and especially after your "defense" at your SPI (which erased any doubt that you are in fact Jforsayeth), everyone can see it. Do yourself a favor and drop the stick... or don't, and continue looking more and more suspicious. DarkKnight2149 06:43, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Paranoia isn't evidence. 86.134.75.242 (talk) 07:01, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

No, but the paragraphs of substantiated evidence against you at SPI (and your self-defeating response to them) most certainly are. By continuing to bludgeon and make personal jabs, am I to assume you have no intention of stopping this behaviour? DarkKnight2149 07:48, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations

Main page: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jforsayeth

See also: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Barts1a

@Jforsayeth: You are suspected of using IP addresses to hide your identity and you are now under investigation.

@86.134.75.242: You are suspected of either being a sock puppet / meat puppet of Jforsayeth, or a sock puppet of Twitbookspacetube. You are now under investigation. I never thought you were Twitbookspacetube at first, I merely stated that your behaviour was beginning to mimic the disruption of Twitbookspacetube. It wasn't until I saw your violent reaction to this that I began to suspect otherwise.

@2003:D6:2729:FF8D:19DA:2C8:FA93:649C: You are suspected of being a sock puppet / meat puppet of Jforsayeth, and are now under investigation.

If anyone wishes to speak to me about WP:BLP concerns and you expect me to actually see it, please contact me on my talk page. This page is a mess and I'm not juggling through it. @Girth Summit: I saw you left a message, and I will be reading and replying to you pretty soon. DarkKnight2149 03:41, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

The Jforsayeth SPI makes interesting reading. Interesting, that is, if you want to see what a scattergun 'investigation' based on nothing but insinuation, entirely lacking in evidence looks like. As I have already stated above (some may not have seen it, given DN's entirely inappropriate hatting of part of this discussion) I have been editing Wikipedia longer than the DarkNight account has been registered. I am however editing with a dynamic IP, which changes relatively frequently, as an when my ISP chooses to do so. I could of course register an account (I have held one in the past, but no longer have access to it since I don't have the password) but nothing in any Wikipedia policy or guideline obliges me to. And as long as no such policy exists, I reserve the right to comment here. As an IP. Far too many registered Wikipedia contributors treat anyone not a member of their 'club' as inferior beings. Which is bad enough for unregistered contributors of this supposed 'encyclopaedia that anyone can edit', but worse still for those unfortunate enough to be the subject of trashy 'biographies' used as dumping-grounds tor negativity and trivia. I have no idea if Jforsayeth is Jasper Rine, but given the crap posted in that article (and subsequently reposted by DN) I would entirely support them removing it under any circumstances, regardless of what en.WP thinks is policy. The Wikimedia foundation has made it clear that they consider "human dignity" and "Treating any person who has a complaint about how they are described in our projects with patience, kindness, and respect" to be core values for the entire project, and for biographical material in particular, and I would hope that anyone with the true interests of the project at heart would do the same. [47] 86.134.75.242 (talk) 06:36, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

These accusations need to stop. What you are doing is casting aspersions and refusing to understand what people are telling you. Please leave out the sock accusations or you could receive a sanction. Mr Ernie (talk) 06:49, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

DarkKnight has indicated to me they're ready to let the matter drop, and everyone else ought to as well. If there's no objection, this could be archived soon, and we can all move on. WilyD 08:32, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Well, the list of things the community could do with assurances on has now trebled from "knowledge and adherence to BLP" to "knowledge and adherence to BLP / understanding the purpose of SPI / understanding that unfoundeed accusations of sockpuppetry are [[WP:ASPERSION|aspersions"; but if you think it's fine, I won't argue. ——SerialNumber54129 17:26, 18 October 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:Syed Muhammad Taha Zaidi

Syed Muhammad Taha Zaidi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Removal of sourced content on Mus'ab ibn al-Zubayr despite warnings. [48] five times.AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 19:30, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

This looks to be vanilla edit warring and not something that really needs ANI attention. —C.Fred (talk) 20:08, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Could this be a WP:3RR violation?

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring 107.77.203.224 (talk) 19:10, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Uncivil and disruptive behaviour by IP at Talk:Singapore

• 183.90.36.118 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 183.90.37.104 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - currently blocked
• 183.90.36.137 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

A while ago, I did a few edits on Singapore, Talk:Singapore where I encountered this IP. They behave in a really hostile manner towards me. Here are some examples:

• 1,2,3 - A persistent accusing tone and refusal to AGF
• 1,2 - Accuses me of malicious content edits, even on a GA review page. Another editor also tried to persuade the IP to change their tone (link).
• I had closed a section where the discussion was not productive. 4 days later they reverted me, claiming Hardly a wall of text - no need to close section; I had never mentioned anything about wall of text. When I reverted them and asked not to refactor my comments, but to post in a new section, they edit warred to remove it again claiming Nonsense, not refactoring. I am opposing your section close. And this editor is attempting to legitimise himself without actually engaging on the talk page about his vague misleading edits..
• 1 - Attempting to bait/provoke a response. For the record, I avoided responding since I wanted other editors to respond as well, who perhaps might have been able to convince the IP.

This behaviour is really disruptive and not helpful for a collaborative project like Wikipedia. It takes away time from actually improving the articles, to formatting and preparing this report. I am not sure if this is enough to warrant a block. In that case perhaps an admin can convince the IP to read up some of the guidelines, particularly those about civility? Or if editors could monitor the discussion, that would be helpful as well.--DreamLinker (talk) 19:37, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

For a starter, I blocked the third IP for two weeks, which matches the duration of the second IP block--Ymblanter (talk) 19:46, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Ymblanter, thank you for helping me out. I guess for now this is good enough. If the IP reappears and continues the disruptive behaviour, I will let you know again.--DreamLinker (talk) 03:51, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Long term link spamming to promote non notable musician's theory

• 24.246.26.168 (talk · contribs) has for more than two years added links to Ian Ring's website to multiple articles. Looks a lot like a WP:COI. I've reverted a handful and warned the responsible IP, but would appreciate more eyes on the edit history and am requesting reversions. Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:6C57:2675:7756:B1CF (talk) 04:31, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

• I have requested that the site be added to the blacklist, see here. Blackmane (talk) 04:55, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

• Thank you, Blackmane. I've deleted many, but not all of the links. 2601:188:180:B8E0:6C57:2675:7756:B1CF (talk) 12:41, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Dublin genre warrior, multiple IPs

Somebody from Dublin is involved in long-term genre warring at music articles. The usual focus is on pop rock acts such as Imagine Dragons, Coldplay, Train, etc. Typical behavior is to use an IP for a day and then move on to another IP. Below, I have appended a list of involved IPs. A few of these have been blocked, for instance 95.83.249.8. Is there any kind of rangeblock that will stop most of the IPs without too much collateral damage? Binksternet (talk) 17:45, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

• October – 95.83.249.202 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• October – ‎95.83.249.107 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• October – 95.83.249.33 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• October – 95.83.253.91 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• October – ‎95.83.253.195 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• September – 95.83.249.87 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• September – ‎95.83.249.206 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• September – ‎95.83.249.92 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• September – ‎95.83.253.158 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• September – ‎95.83.253.70‎ (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• September – ‎95.83.249.213 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• September – ‎95.83.249.104‎ (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• September – ‎95.83.249.214‎ (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• September – 95.83.253.57‎ (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• August – 95.83.249.125 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• August – ‎95.83.249.174‎ (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• August – 95.83.253.5‎ (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• August – ‎95.83.253.94‎ (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• August – 95.83.249.176‎ (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• August – 95.83.249.188‎ (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• August – 95.83.253.154‎ (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• August – ‎95.83.253.240‎ (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• August – ‎95.83.249.217‎ (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• August – 95.83.253.235 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• August – ‎‎95.83.249.26 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• August – ‎‎95.83.253.105 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• August – 95.83.253.83‎ (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• August – 95.83.253.206‎ (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))‎
• August – ‎95.83.249.251 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))‎
• July – 95.83.249.44 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))‎
• July – 95.83.249.8 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))‎
• July – ‎95.83.249.92 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• July – ‎95.83.253.132 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• July – ‎95.83.249.73 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• July – ‎95.83.249.32 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• July – ‎95.83.249.26 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• July – 95.83.249.211 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• July – 95.83.253.37 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• July – 95.83.249.145 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• July – 95.83.249.108 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• June – 95.83.249.183 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• June – 95.83.249.192 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• June – 95.83.249.17 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• June – 95.83.249.229 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• March – 95.152.62.198 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

Based on my very basic knowledge of IPs and some googling, it appears the range 95.83.253.240/32 would cover all but the oldest one. I'm not sure how much collateral a /32 range has. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 17:59, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

A lad insane, uh, a /32 is exactly one IP :). WHOIS says that the .249 and .253 addresses are on separate subnets (.249 is a /22, .253 is a /23) and the ISP's overall block is 95.83.248.0/21. I can't look too deeply right now, but I'd recommend checking the whole /21 in case there's more of these out there. If it's just .249 and .253, I'd recommend blocking 95.83.249.0/24 and 95.83.253.0/24 to avoid collateral damage. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 18:06, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Oh, and the March entry (95.152.62.198) is in Russia (all of the others are Ireland), so either unrelated, proxy/VPN, or someone's travelling. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 18:08, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Oops, sorry. I guess that demonstrates the "basic knowledge" aspect. :) -A lad insane (Channel 2) 18:10, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Agree with Creffett that a /24 is the widest you should consider, though blocking a couple of those /24's may be OK. Look over the edits of Special:Contributions/95.83.249.0/24 and you will see mostly the work of this one vandal. EdJohnston (talk) 18:11, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

95.83.249.0/24 and 95.83.253.0/24 ranges blocked.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:26, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Bad faith edits by user despite warnings

عمرو_بن_كلثوم is consistently editing on Wikipedia with bad faith despite push back from other editors like here. Edits like these[49][50][51][52][53][54] are problematic, persistent and keep getting reverted for a reason. Moreover, comments like these make his intentions on Wikipedia clear [55]. --Semsurî (talk) 11:30, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Interesting. How is adding an official, sourced map of Kurdistan as suggested by the Treaty of Sevres problematic or bad faith? You can depict anything that goes against your VERY biased POV as bad faith. For some reason, many of the articles dealing with Kurdish issues in Syria simply have serious neutrality issues, and some users who try to keep the status quo are preventing any attempt at adding neutral sources. They insist on using maps and information from suspicious sources, with credibility issues. I have started a discussion on the RSN about theses. Also see the talk pages for Rojava and Rojava conflict articles for more information about the neutrality discussions there. Thanks, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 14:21, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

When editors for years tell you to end this type of editing, it's time to stop.[56]. And removing whole pages to combat what you call Kurdish propaganda is not the way forward. --Semsurî (talk) 15:42, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

This may be a content dispute. It might be more constructive and probably faster to go through WP:Dispute resolution 107.77.203.224 (talk) 19:15, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive IP

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

---

Thinking an IP block be appropriate for User:88.18.117.104. Has only made disruptive (mostly Teletubbies-related) edits in spite of multiple warnings.
Alivardi (talk) 20:52, 21 October 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.

Antisemitic comments?

Re: these comments[57][58] by Tatzref: Tatzref suggests that Jews are trying to "dominate" the online debate on the Holocaust, and that there is some secret Israeli cabal re-writing Wikipedia. This is a classic antisemitic trope, and the only evidence he presents to support it are a piece by a conspiracy-loving saxophonist and a bunch of questionable online magazines. He further suggests, without evidence, that two banned editors are "on somebody's payroll" and behind a hoax on a neo-Nazi website.

The background to the thread is a piece by a major newspaper on the KL Warsaw conspiracy theory,[59] and past PAs against Icewhiz and K.e.coffman.[60] The whole topic area is under sourcing restrictions.[61]

Comments? François Robere (talk) 13:49, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

I have indeffed the user for their outing attempt, which I have also revdeleted. El_C 16:56, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Excessive and irrelevant linking, even down to syllables of words

I've raised this issue before. I can't find the API archive link, but the discussion was here.

The IP editor (I assume there's only one) is still at it. Few IPs seem to be used for more than one day. They intersperse edits which may (without investigation) be good additions with garbage like this:

• 240F:CA:EA:1:E0D6:5DBA:BD26:D676 - 14 October 2019 - diff
  • Debo Roaroya -> [[Anger|Debo]] [[Prison|Ro]][[Watchtower|a]][[Handcuffs|r]][[Physical restraint|o]][[Prisoner|y]][[Prison officer|a]]
  • Gabatt Kababacci -> [[Hippopotamus|Gaba]][[Dumbbell|tt Ka]][[Buphagidae|baba]][[Safe|cci]]
• 240F:CA:EA:1:F036:6C7D:E8A3:A47E - 29 August 2019 - diff
  • Knight [[Pirate|Arslevan]] -> [[Princess Ozma|Knight]] [[Pirate|Ars]][[Stake|le]][[Japanese pottery and porcelain|van]]
• 27.81.2.164 - 4 October 2019 (active from 31 July 2019) diff]
  • [[Amanojaku]] -> [[Amanojaku|Ama]][[Black people|noj]][[Mushroom|aku]]
  • Yogostein -> [[Frankenstein|Yogo]][[Politician|stein]]
• 240F:CA:EA:1:598D:9505:B451:2243 - 1 September 2019 - diff
  • [[Angel|Hielahiela]] -> [[Angel|Hie]][[Ice|lahi]][[Snow|ela]]
• 2400:2652:481:CB00:B8C3:AAEC:8E25:1B8 - 31 May 2019 - diff
  • Kakure Daishogun -> [[Monkey|Ka]][[Crane (bird)|ku]][[Wolf|re Dai]][[Bear|sho]][[Toad|gun]]

I could give more examples; I only searched my edit history back to 31 August 2019, and selected ones with a characteristic edit summary.

This sort of WP:DISRUPTIVE editing can be extremely difficult to find and to repair. I see it only if a link has been caught by User:DPL bot and reported in Disambiguation pages with links. If it's the last edit, reversion is easy; it it isn't, repair may require digging back into the edit history to find the last good version and copy/pasting by hand. I've seen well-intentioned attempts at partial repair by other editors, so it's not only my time being wasted. It's impossible to know how much similar stuff remains undetected.

It has taken me the best part of two hours to research this post; I could have been doing something more obviously useful. Is there any way of stopping, or at least of rapidly detecting and reverting, this sort of nonsense? Narky Blert (talk) 12:42, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

@Narky Blert: I would recommend a post at WP:EF/R. I think we could probably write a filter which could at least flag these. I'm not sure the success rate would be sufficient to disallow the edits entirely, but it's worth a go logging/tagging such edits. Sam Walton (talk) 12:44, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

@Samwalton9: Thanks for the advice. I've posted a notification at Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested/Archive_14#Excessive and irrelevant linking, even down to syllables of words. Narky Blert (talk) 12:49, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

There can't be that many occasions on which double square brackets sit back-to-back without a space between them; something written to detect that should be profitable. Unless I'm missing loads of examples of aforesaid square brackets etc? ——SerialNumber54129 12:47, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

That's true - I wasn't ruling it out entirely, it's definitely possible. Sam Walton (talk) 12:48, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

A search for ]][[ sounds like an excellent idea. Even if not vandalistic, I can't think of a case where it's not going to be a mistake. Narky Blert (talk) 12:53, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

I can, eg "Apple's core product lines are the iPhone smartphone, iPad tablet computer, iPod portable media players..." at History of Apple Inc. A Google search on ]][[ site:en.wikipedia.org -wikidata shows more (though it doesn't exclude ]],[[, so you have to dig around to find them). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:45, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Actually, no, there are spaces in the Apple example, but there are some (strange but acceptable?) examples at Shanghai used in placing images. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:53, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

As long as it's a small (even tiny?) minority, the filter will probably still be beneficial. After all, exemptions can be added to it. ——SerialNumber54129 14:56, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, agreed. And searching further, it seems less common than I feared - the Shanghai example is the only valid search hit in the first 3 pages of Google results. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:59, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Our own insource searching can sometimes be better than Google. I just tried hastemplate:"infobox person" insource:/]]\[\[/ which finds ]][[ in articles that contain an {{infobox person}} as a test (You have to limit the scope of the search when it is using regular expressions). The bad news is that it found 1,145 results, although going through the first few pages shows they are mostly of the [[File: ... ]][[ type. Somebody running a bot could probably knock up a custom search routine to provide a dump of the results omitting those types so we could see any vandalism in the remainder. --RexxS (talk) 01:13, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

• I've blocked Special:Contributions/240F:CA:EA:1:E0D6:5DBA:BD26:D676/64 for three months.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:59, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Odd CU posting?

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.

---

Someone should likely check into this if it hasn’t been already handled. Gleeanon409 (talk) 22:23, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done. One of those pesky LTAs. Nothing more to see here. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:47, 20 October 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.

Eyes on WP:AIV please

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 we have eyes on WP:AIV please, and especially quickly block vandal editor, User:85.255.233.48. as they and I are have spent the last 20 minutes reverting one another's edits at Gary Lineker's Superstar Soccer. Thanks, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:06, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done Now resolved by El C. Thanks, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:11, 20 October 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 Neoplan Rider Studios

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 Neoplan Rider Studios (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems to have a WP:CIR/WP:NOTHERE issue. Their edits are largely massive additions of uncited fancruft that is far beyond the scope of an encyclopedia. They make the same edits after multiple reversions; user talk page messages have been ignored. Almost all their edits use the same edit summary, which does not accurately describe their edits, despite a specific warning to that effect. Many edits appear to be copied from this website, which does not have a compatible license - again, despite warnings. Ultimately, none of their contributions are actually helpful or useful. Note: I have previously blocked this user on Commons because of repeated copyvio uploads. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:17, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Indeffed for multiple reasons. See block notice. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:38, 20 October 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.

71.244.246.185 et al on Autodesk Maya

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

---

Hello I was patrolling the wiki and I noticed what (initially) appeared to be an edit war. However the anon 94.1.34.5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was removing what appeared to be unsourced material while another anon 71.244.246.185 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) kept reverting 94's edits. At first I thought I'd report one (or both) to the edit warring notice board however I then noticed that prior to the edits 71.244.246.185 was also being disruptive on the sandbox (which was reverted by two logged in users). Could someone take a look at this and deal with it? Sakura Cartelet^Talk 19:37, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for reporting this. I will accept a block if I'm given one. But I see they've yet again reverted my revert without explanation. If I revert again, I will definitely have violated the 3-revert rule at this point, so I don't think I should. But please tell me they're in the wrong here. That material I removed was added by blocked user 45.20.151.16 and it was unsourced. It shouldn't be included right? And despite the fact I clearly stated that in my edit summaries, 71.244.246.185 didn't listen at all and kept repeating "reverting vandalism". --94.1.34.5 (talk) 19:48, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

This IP was not assuming good faith. This user was also cussing me out within the edit summary. 71.244.246.185 (talk) 19:55, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm not assuming good faith? You're wrong yet again. I'm just removing unsourced material because, you know, material shouldn't be added to Wikipedia without a source. Furthermore, you're not even acting in good faith by continuing to add this unsourced content and ignoring me by never explaining why it should be included. That's also why I "cussed" you as you say (even though I actually used no cuss words) because you're being really annoying. Answer my question already. Why should this material that is unsourced and was added by a blocked user be included? --94.1.34.5 (talk) 20:02, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I am not going to respond to you anymore. We will let the admins make a final call here. You clearly have not read the rules of this site WP:faith 71.244.246.185 (talk) 20:04, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

And you clearly haven't read the rules on Wikipedia:Citing sources. And I actually have read the rules on Wikipedia:Assume good faith, but the thing is you're clearly not acting in good faith (I already explained why), and that's why I'm not assuming good faith. And your response here clearly shows you know I'm right because you cannot answer my question. --94.1.34.5 (talk) 20:12, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

You removed the sources and then you act like they weren’t there. WP:game you’re gaming the system now. What going to happen is your going to get yourself blocked from this site. I may do the same. But I can get a new IP within 30 seconds, but I don’t know about you. So keep it up. Your just digging the hole deeper. 71.244.246.185 (talk) 20:16, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Where's the sources that I removed???? Here's my edit. There are no sources in there that I deleted! I removed three movies that were added by the blocked user to the already existing list of movies that aren't included in the provided source, and four games also added by the blocked user with no sources whatsoever. Plus Softimage 3D which I really don't see necessary as there's already a link to the successor Autodesk Softimage. I removed absolutely zero sources. You must be trolling here. And nice going admitting you'll get a new IP if you're blocked, because then they'll just block your new one for block evasion. The only one digging their hole deeper is you. --94.1.34.5 (talk) 20:27, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

You removed the source. Note to admins look at his first edit. He removed the source and tried to act like there was t one there.71.244.246.185 (talk) 20:30, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Jesus Christ, I don't know what to say anymore. I already linked to my edit (which is my first edit to Autodesk Maya), THERE IS NO REMOVED SOURCE IN THERE!!! I really hope the admins turn up soon because I'm hitting my head against a brick wall with you. --94.1.34.5 (talk) 20:35, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Then stop responding to me and wait for them. This is just adding to the case. Your behavior is out of control here. You need a WP:cool 71.244.246.185 (talk) 20:38, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

I'll stop responding as soon as you stop giving false information! I'm not gonna sit by and be accused of being a vandal when I'm not one and am just doing the right thing. Also, I'm not sure if you noticed, but Sakura Cartelet only reported you. And that's because you're the one who's in the wrong. --94.1.34.5 (talk) 20:46, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

I guess you don’t know how to read both our names are there. You are al over the place now. Admins please take not that this user is now going off topic. 71.244.246.185 (talk) 20:48, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

YOU'RE clearly the one who can't read. The title of this section is "71.244.246.185 et al on Autodesk Maya". That IP is yours. Then they said "However the anon 94.1.34.5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was removing what appeared to be unsourced material while another anon 71.244.246.185 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) kept reverting 94's edits." and then "At first I thought I'd report one (or both) to the edit warring notice board however I then noticed that prior to the edits 71.244.246.185 was also being disruptive on the sandbox". The fact my IP is also in their message is irrelevant, it couldn't be more obvious that they're only reporting you. This is just absolutely ridiculous, you shouldn't be on Wikipedia. --94.1.34.5 (talk) 20:57, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

94.1.34.5, don't call people idiots anymore. Page protected and 71.244.246.185 blocked for block evasion. ST47 (talk) 21:32, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm so sorry, I was out of hand there. But thank you for solving this situation. --94.1.34.5 (talk) 21:35, 20 October 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.

Topic ban violation from Light show

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.

---

Back in August 2017, the user Light show (talk · contribs · count) was indefinitely banned from making edits related to biographies per Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive962#WP:IDHT behavior from Light show. He already has been blocked more than once for going against that ban as comments on his talk page show. I've just discovered him doing so again, most recently here. While I realize this took place over a week ago and was reverting vandalism, he evidently doesn't care about imposed restrictions and basically is asking to be blocked. Any objections to blocking him indefinitely given his blatant disregard for the ban? SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 16:20, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

SNUGGUMS, that looks to me like reverting obvious vandalism, which is permitted by BANEX, unless I'm missing something. – bradv🍁 16:27, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes it was a vandalism revert, which admittedly wasn't something I thought of in previous discussions (likely because of his past disruptions on pages). My understanding is that he wasn't allowed to make any edits pertaining to biographies at all per this aside from appealing his ban. If it turns out I had the wrong idea what the restriction entails, then I apologize. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 16:32, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The user talk edit in your diff seems to be based on a misunderstanding, because WP:BANEX expressly excempts certain edits, including "Reverting obvious vandalism (such as page content being replaced by obscenities) or obvious violations of the policy about biographies of living persons. The key word is "obvious" – that is, cases in which no reasonable person could disagree". BANEX also says that the editor should claim it as an excemption in the edit summary, but doesn't state that the editor must do so... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 16:52, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Reading through BANEX again, I just noticed the "Unless stated otherwise, article, page, topic, or interaction bans do not apply to the following" bit that leads into "Reverting obvious vandalism" and more, so yeah I simply misunderstood what could and couldn't be done with the ban. Sorry about that. We can now close without any action. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 16:59, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

(EC) Well if it was a community topic ban and I don't see that it can be expanded other than as supported by the community (or a DS topic ban placed) and I don't believe there was even a suggestion to exclude BANEX in any community discussion. I believe what lead up to it was that Lightshow was griping about something relating to biographies in one of the ANs and elsewhere something which is not covered by BANEX and the hope was to get through to them that they needed avoid all biographies and testing the ban was not a good idea. I'm normally a stickler against testing the boundaries but I think this is close enough to obvious vandalism we should let it be. Separately I was wondering how Lightshow came across this since some with such a ban should just ignore any biographies when doing RC patrolling and have removed them an from their watch list. While neither are violations, they could easily lead to them so it is silly for someone serious about the ban not to follow such simple steps. But Lightshow is fairly inactive so most likely they were just checking out the article and noticed the problem. Nil Einne (talk) 17:04, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

• No violation per the first bullet of WP:BANEX. He wasn't specifically refuted from the exception when TBANNED, so it's permitted (the phrasing is the usual TBAN phrasing). An extremely strict reading might take the final line in BANEX and require him to actually mention his use of the exception, but as with other limited ban cases that have come up recently, I'm a firm believer in no harm, no foul. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:49, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
• I'm not seeing a violation here either, They were clearly reverting vandalism which BANEX permits. –Davey2010^Talk 16:55, 20 October 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 behaviour from User:TheEdanJT

This began with an edit war at St Francis Xavier's College, Hamilton, where this user keeps attempting to add dubious and unreferenced information, despite multiple explanations in the edit summaries, on his talk page and on the talk page of the article in questions that he needs a source since the material is contested. I'm only creating this thread, however, as this user has now resulted to name-calling and telling me to kill myself (look up the acronym if you're not familiar with it) since he can't get his way: [62]. I'd appreciated it if that edit was deleted permanently. I think a short term ban is also in order. Damien Linnane (talk)

Blocked indefinitely. I don't think that qualifies for revision deletion. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:10, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE involving Monique Dupree

A user claiming to be Monique Dupree has been doing nothing but editing the Monique Dupree article and reverting a user's attempt to clean the article of policy violations. Clearly a WP:NOTHERE. Pinging @Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: the user who cleaned the article. ミラP 18:33, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

I would prefer if someone took the time to explain how the site works on the user's talk page. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:59, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: I directed the user to the COI guideline but WP:NOTHERE concerns have been raised by the user editing nowhere beside the article the user claims to be the subject of. ミラP 19:12, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Posting templates to someone's talk page isn't really a substitute for talking to them. OK, fine, if nobody else is going to do this, I'll do it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:18, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

I've left them a talkpage message explaining they should go to the talkpage .... something Miraclepine should've done many edits ago, IMHO this should be closed as no admin intervention is needed`. –Davey2010^Talk 19:20, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

User:Natnannachi

• Natnannachi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Fajkfnjsak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Judaism and sexuality (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Natnannachi (talk · contribs) is engaged in a prolonged edit war at Judaism and sexuality. On July 22 he added a large amount of text to the article,[63], which I subsequently removed[64] with the edit summary "1. Original research. 2. Part of this edit was formatted awfully. 3. I'd advise this editor to seek help on the talkpage." Ever since the editor has restored his text 5 times, without engaging in discussion. I posted a warning on the user's talkpage, trying to explain that he should engage in consensus seeking on the talkpage, but to no avail. It should also be noted that this editor has not edited any other article on Wikipedia.[65] Please advice. Debresser (talk) 14:41, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

I notice you called the user a sock back in this edit. Do you have evidence for this? Other than that this seems like a clear case of disruptive editing by the user in question slow edit warring for their additions with no discussions. Canterbury Tail talk 14:55, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

• I've reverted a couple of times too, but they're just blindly edit warring and ignoring edit summaries and warnings. I've warned again, but that's all I can do. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:49, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

• It seems that User:Natnannachi intends to keep reverting indefinitely at Judaism and sexuality. Their last revert even occurred after they'd been notified of this ANI, so I've blocked them for 48 hours. Any admin can unblock if they become convinced that Natnannachi will wait for consensus in the future. If anyone wants to investigate the possible sock issue, take a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Fajkfnjsak/Archive. The now-blocked User:Fajkfnjsak also edited the article in dispute here, Judaism and sexuality, in support of the same material about prostitution. EdJohnston (talk) 17:49, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

• @EdJohnston: A reasonable inference (I thought so too), but the two users are  Unrelated. Regardless, I endorse the block.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:14, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Move without reason

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 you look at these articles' history - Nirbheek and Indian Ordnance Factories Nirbheek, and look at my talk page too. There is no such name, Indian Ordnance Factories Nirbheek. I have given valid reference and the article was on DYK. I check the user talk page and it seems to "problematic" and i don't like to engage in edit war. Therefore, i request admin to talk action. Please direct Indian Ordnance Factories Nirbheek to Nirbheek and "inform" user (Degen Earthfast) too. Thanks. --AntanO 17:47, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

I have reverted the copy & paste move at Indian Ordnance Factories Nirbheek - meaning the only version of the article is at Nirbheek. @Degen Earthfast: if you want to move the page please use WP:RM and if you continue to move-war you will be blocked. GiantSnowman 17:53, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Oh and @AntanO: you should discuss matters with an editor before coming to ANI and you HAVE to notify them. GiantSnowman 17:55, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Since the move was reverted, a proper move request is now due. Alternating to a cut and paste move via redirecting was inappropriate. But user should have been informed that this report has been filed, which was not done. El_C 17:56, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, noted. --AntanO 18:00, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

You, E1_C, do not get to decide what is or is not appropriate just because you disagree with something.Degen Earthfast (talk) 18:34, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Actually, as the uninvolved admin examining this report, I get to evaluate it and issue corrective action, if needed. El_C 18:43, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Wow. Grandpallama (talk) 19:13, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

The move was in accordance with WP precedence even if you do not agree with it, are either of you, Antano and Giant Snowman, claiming ownership of said article? There is no ownership of articles in WP, they can be moved without your knowledge or opinion. See Wikipedia is not a Democracy Degen Earthfast (talk) 18:24, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

That's not really what Giant Snowman and El_C are saying. They're saying that (a) your cut and paste move violated policy, and (b) when someone disagrees with a move, you need to have a discussion before moving it again. That's not an example of them trying to own anything. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:45, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

@Degen Earthfast: - please listen to me, El_C and Floquenbeam and plese stop making wild accusations. GiantSnowman 18:47, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Was your move in line with WP:COMMONNAME? That's precedence, too. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:46, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Manufactured objects are generally known by their brand Name followed by their product, in case of weapons for example see Colt Python, Heckler & Koch G3, ad nauseam. Try looking up Python. Degen Earthfast (talk) 18:59, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

The content dispute, itself, does not belong on this report — it needs to take place on the article talk page. El_C 19:02, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

It's a Naming dispute in which [User:AntanO|Antan]]O has apparently staked ownership AND again Wikipedia is not a Democracy and Wikipedia:Be bold. Degen Earthfast (talk) 19:09, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Instead of bludgeoning us with links to these policy pages, think WP:ONUS is the pertinent link you should review. El_C 19:11, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

I made my point. Antano has apparently claimed this article and objects to any editing done to it, to include moving it.Degen Earthfast (talk) 19:17, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

This level of WP:IDHT gets frustrating after a while. As does repeated passive-aggressive whining about imaginary "ownership" issues. The page will stay at it's current name until there is a consensus to move it. This consensus should be gained thru WP:RM. Everything else is sound and fury, signifying nothing. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:22, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

There obviously is "ownership" issues" so there is no " passive-aggressive whining" thanks for not being an impartial administrator and not helping.Degen Earthfast (talk) 20:19, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

I do not see ownership issues. I see a bold move by Degen Earthfast, a revert by Antano, and...the next step in the WP:BRD process would be discussion, but I do not see where Degen Earthfast has started any discussion about the move at Talk:Nirbheek. —C.Fred (talk) 20:27, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Reverting an undiscussed move and calling for discussion is not "ownership." Please read the policies you keep telling others to consult. Grandpallama (talk) 13:58, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

It's perhaps worth remembering that a cut and paste move doesn't just violate policy, it potentially violates copyright as well. Just because our contributors have chosen a free content licence doesn't mean their copyright shouldn't be respect, and so we need to make sure we comply with the terms they licenced their content under. Nil Einne (talk) 19:42, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

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

Requesting different discretionary sanctions on 2019 Turkish offensive into north-eastern Syria

Hello, the page 2019 Turkish offensive into north-eastern Syria is under community sanctions of Limit of one revert per 24 hours restriction when reverting logged-in users on all pages related to the Syrian Civil War and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, broadly construed. I would say that such sanctions are detrimental when editors are adding live updates to the article about the ongoing battles. The additions just overwhelm 1RR. For proof of that, Slatersteven discussed that We are not a live news feed on the talk page, to which EkoGraf replied that We have always, for the past seven years, provided live updates as you put it regarding the capture of territory or casualties sustained during an offensive or a battle in the Syrian war. We also did the same thing during the previous two Turkish offensives into Syria. So there is no reason not to do so now as well. I’m thinking we need a different sanction, maybe 3RR plus consensus required for restoration of disputed material. starship.paint (talk) 00:22, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

@El C, ST47, and Reyne2: who commented in the above. starship.paint (talk) 05:25, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Not the red text again — my poor eyes! Anyway, under what DS did you envision the new sanction to be applied as, instead? It seems that the most suitable restriction would be under the current SCW General Sanction. I have no objection to removing 1RR and applying consensus required, instead. El_C 05:46, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the text colour change (déjà vu!) El_C 05:55, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, this seems to fall under the Syrian Civil War since Turkey/SDF are participants... starship.paint (talk) 06:00, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Technically, I'm not sure how to even modify {{Editnotice SCW 1RR}}. I suppose it could substituted...(?) El_C 06:33, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

At any case, I would rather hold off until ST47, who applied the GS, weighs in. El_C 06:42, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Consensus required is fine, although I believe it's generally harder to police and allows more "gaming" than 1RR. However, this isn't like AE discretionary sanctions where an admin may place the sanction on a given article. The SCW/ISIL 1RR is automatic, just like the ARBPIA 1RR, consensus would be required in order to change it. And yes, we'd have to update the editnotice and talk notice templates to support this, as I don't believe it's been done before. ST47 (talk) 06:46, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Much as I agree that "consensus is required" can be gamed by obstruction I feel it may be the only way to deal with the tendency for the page to have every announcement by the Turkish media immediately put in no matter how trivial or transitory.Slatersteven (talk) 08:50, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

And the latest series of "but we must update with the latest news, its all out of date" renders 1RR meaningless.Slatersteven (talk) 14:33, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Well, since there hasn't been any objection, and I do see Slatersteven's point, shall we say For articles related to the 2019 Turkish offensive into north-eastern Syria, where the standard 1RR restriction is overly detrimental due to live updates to a current event, an administrator may temporarily replace the 1RR restriction with the standard Consensus Required provision. The 1RR provision should be reinstated once the article is no longer receiving frequent updates. @El C:, @Slatersteven:, @Starship.paint:, sound reasonable to everyone? I shall see about updating a template. ST47 (talk) 20:47, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Sounds good. El_C 21:00, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

No objection. starship.paint (talk) 00:12, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

• I object. This is exactly the sort of article that needs 1RR under the WP:GS/SCW&ISIL regime. The potential for conflict between editors is high, and live updates, produced amidst an information war between the relevant sides in the conflict, are likely to be unreliable. Wikipedia is not a news website. The priority should be on WP:V, and WP:NPOV, and these things are assisted by a slower editing pace, especially for such a controversial topic. Editors will still be able to update the article under the 1RR regime, provided they attain consensus for their edits. If none of the SCW&ISIL articles have required an exception to 1RR up until now, why should this article? RGloucester — ☎ 21:11, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

  @RGloucester:, it seems that the issue is that some editors are providing live updates using sources that other editors object to as non-neutral or unreliable. 1RR isn't slowing down the editors inserting that information, since each individual edit does use a different source to update a different fact. However, since this happens multiple times a day and to multiple different sections of the article, there isn't any practical way for editors to keep the POV/unreliable information out of the article, as they quickly exhaust their one revert per day. In a nutshell, with 1RR, the default state is inclusion of each new edit (either it is inserted and no one wants to use their 1 revert per day on it, or it is inserted, reverted, and reverted back), with Consensus Required, the default state of a controversial edit is no inclusion without consensus. ST47 (talk) 21:22, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

There are obvious solutions to that problem, available under WP:GS/SCW&ISIL. Semi-protect the article, if the problem is a bunch of new accounts or IPs. If it's established editors, issue topic bans to those repeatedly inserting non-neutral or unreliable content. Don't loosen restrictions when there is a problem with NPOV/reliability, ENFORCE the existing sanctions! RGloucester — ☎ 21:45, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

@RGloucester: - you would topic ban editors for using Turkish sources in an article about Turkey? Just asking. starship.paint (talk) 00:12, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

I would oppose such an act, what really needs to be done is to enforce wp:notnews. One way is to just say one edit per user per day.Slatersteven (talk) 09:13, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

ST47 said that editors are repeatedly inserting unreliable or non-neutral sources. If this is so, yes, they should be topic banned. If they are not doing this, their edits are no problem, and there is no reason for this discussion at all, and certainly no reason for lifting 1RR. It's up for the administrators enforcing sanctions to make a determination as to whether these edits are problematic or not, and if they are, stop them from being made. They can't just remain aloof and pretend to be neutral while articles are being filled with content not suitable for Wikipedia. RGloucester — ☎ 09:18, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Easier said than done. This article is extremely difficult to follow. El_C 12:12, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Its why either "no edit without consensus" or "1 edit a day" may be the only way. Its hard to see what are reverts, what are new figures, and what are POV claims. The infobox being a case to pint, for a few days it has made (at least one) a claim that is now been contracted by the same side that made the claim. We really do need to enforce wp:notnews.Slatersteven (talk) 12:29, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose the removal of 1RR. The article is doing fine at the moment, and 1RR is one of the reasons for it. In fact even with 1RR there are a lot of reverts back and forth, I can't imagine how much reverting would take place without it. When it comes to updating casualties, admins have so far didn't warn or block anybody about it so I imagine, 1RR is applied only for content removals. It should definitely stay I believe. KasimMejia (talk) 13:27, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

• @KasimMejia: yet you went on to ping me earlier today because you ran out of reverts! El_C 18:28, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

• That is true, yet I can list 10 instances where 1RR actually saved the page from going into an edit war. Many users tend to make undiscussed moves or reverts at this page and 1RR must've saved it from happening many times. KasimMejia (talk) 18:57, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

• I see. Thanks for clarifying. El_C 18:59, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

• Support removal of 1RR. It's detrimental to editing and we can always reach for consensus regarding controversial additions. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 14:35, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support removal of 1RR. It does more harm than good and strongly discourage participation in the page. Who wants to receive notices like those [66], [67],[68],[69],[70],[71]? My very best wishes (talk) 19:16, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose It seems like there are overlapping issues here.

1. WP:NOTNEWS issue where editors are attempting to provide real-time journalistic coverage of the war in Syria even though there is a very high risk of errors/biased/unreliable/uncencyclopedic sources or content being added that might be missed by editors.

2. Because of the above, rapidfire and inappropriate edits are harder to revert.

This state of affairs is unfortunate, but I don't think that removing the 1RR restriction is wise. This is a topic that is highly volatile and likely to slide into an edit war, so having a hard 1RR rule keeps things from going off the rails. The goal here shouldn't be to remove 1RR but to discourage editors from trying to provide up to the minute embedded war reporter-style coverage of a war that is currently taking place. 107.77.203.224 (talk) 19:32, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Then we need a hard Notnews DS, such as "No edit within 24 hours of an announcement", or (as I suggest above) 1 edit a day per user.Slatersteven (talk) 10:12, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Birbal Kumawat

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

There was recently a report about this editor which was closed since they hadn't edited in a couple months. However, they seem to be back, still trying to push their idiosyncratic views about English grammar (despite having a very poor command themselves) – some diffs: [72] (as an IP), [73], [74], [75], [76]. It might be time to take further action here. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 01:41, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Oh, and I forgot to include a link to the original thread for convenience. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 02:13, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Blocked 31 hours. Some of this person's edits are incompetent bordering on disruptive. The latest edits, however, are starting to look like trolling. I suspect this editor is probably going to end up indefinitely blocked if this keeps up. The older edits could at least be construed as good-faith attempts to improve content, but it's hard to say that about blanking sprees and legal threats. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:08, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

As soon as the block expired he went straight back to crazy town. EEng 18:53, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Backlog at WP:AIV

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

---

Could someone please deal with the backlog, and particularly with the disruption at Field hockey, where an IP-hopper is "having fun", blocking the latest IP (Special:Contributions/197.159.134.201) and protecting the article? - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 12:02, 22 October 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.

Promotional 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.

---

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

This user has added highly promotional (and probably copyrighted) content to Amity College three times today. I reverted twice and when I went to their talk page to warn I saw that had received multiple warnings about this 8 months ago. Although they stopped then, the behavior has resumed. MB 03:30, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Indeffed for edits containing copyrights violations added on multiple occasions. El_C 05:53, 22 October 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.

Dean Orbong failure to WP: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.

---

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

This user account was created about 7 months ago and has been nothing but trouble since. As you can see from their talk page, its just filled with warnings, all of which have gone unanswered and they have continued to edit in the same style, despite these messages. Based on the edit history I am 99.99% sure this is a sock of Kev519 but I do not have sufficient evidence to open a case. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 20:13, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Some of their edits do appear to be constructive, but the failure to engage is worrying. They've never responded to any warnings (either on a talk page or on their own page) or changed behavior. It doesn't matter if they are a sock to be honest. 38.142.216.106 (talk) 20:39, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

• Blocked 31h in the first instance. Guy (help!) 22:53, 23 October 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.

77.162.226.226 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.

---

77.162.226.226's temporary block has expired. But they've resumed their previous behaviour. Vandalising information in articles and replacing them with blatantly incorrect information. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 06:42, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Blocked for a week. If it starts up again, you can report the IP to WP:AIV. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:05, 23 October 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 consideration for 2A02:C7F:7E20:C400::/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/2A02:C7F:7E20:C400::/64

User has been rather disruptive on various media pages and does not seem to understand wikipedia. E.g., [77]. The user has had a previous block as well ([78]). Given that they don't seem to take warnings seriously ([79]), I think a WP:DE or WP:CIR block may be warranted. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:31, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

• Done. Drmies (talk) 00:53, 23 October 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.

TurokSwe is continuing on with the same behaviour on Alien, Predator and AvP 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 TurokSwe (talk · contribs) has been continuing his contested behaviour on Alien vs Predator related pages. This is the third time he has been taken to ANI, the first time in the beginning of this year it was decided he would be indefinetly blocked if they edit warred again, which they did, the second time it was decided he would be topic banned for a couple of months. Now that that topic ban is over, he has started again to do as he used to. For one he has already edit warred on Template:Alien (franchise) until I just gave up, then he created the page Timeline of the Alien, Predator, and Alien vs. Predator universe, which was put up for AFD for being fancruft, non-notable, reliant on primary sources and filled with copyright violations, it was speedy deleted for the copyright problem, after which he created it again, just much shorter this time. During this AFD he display the exact same problems which got him topic banned before, like stonewalling and refusing to understand what others are talking about. During one especially egregious moment he stated that he doesn't even know why exactly he was topic banned, this leads me to belive that he will not be able to better himself and should be indefinetly topic banned.★Trekker (talk) 03:03, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Please explain what exactly I have done that you have an issue with. The edits you're referring to on the Alien template page were being discussed and you never responded, that's not my fault. The Timeline of the Alien, Predator, and Alien vs. Predator universe article was recreated without the apparent copyrighted material and I don't see what the problem is supposed to be. You've been consistently using ad hominem arguments against me where you've been reminding me of my previous issues from earlier this year and trash talked me while refusing to take part in a civilized and reasonable discussion on either of the two pages in question. Noting that maybe the reason I'm not fully aware of why exactly I was topic banned in the first place is because (1) the original reasoning was unclear and confusing and perceived as unreasonable and (2) I can't accurately recall the events from that time. - TurokSwe (talk) 03:18, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Excusing your conduct on the basis of you not understanding is getting very old, very quickly. Just as soon as your topic ban expired, you snapped back into it and started reverting everything back to how it was before your ban, to include: "The film series was crossed-over with the Predator films with the releases of Alien vs. Predator (2004) and its sequel Aliens vs. Predator: Requiem (2007). The Alien vs. Predator franchise serves as a sequel to the Predator series and as a prequel to the Alien series", regardless of what said page may entail. No reliable sources have supported your fan theory. The timeline page was and continues to be a mess of incongruity, fancruft and original research that incorrectly merges three continuities that ignore and contradict one another-- you recreated that before the AfD could even be closed. It's not ad hominen of ★Trekker to bring up that you're doing exactly what got you topic banned earlier this year, as you're absolutely continuing it - even if you phrase it like those days are long behind you. Just like immediately editing the pages back to present your perspective that Alien, Predator and AvP are synonymous, immediately recreating a page subject to an AfD showed a lack of faith in your fellow editors. DÅRTHBØTTØ _(T•C) 04:06, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

I can't help if I fail to understand what I've supposedly done wrong (if indeed I've actually done anything wrong at all). I don't know what you mean when you say that I started to revert "everything" back to how it was before I was blocked and that comes across as brutally incorrect and I can't remember having reverted anything. I've only been concerned about fixing and improving these articles. I also don't know where your quote is taken from or what is supposed to be the problem with it. What "fan theory" are you even referring to? I haven't proposed any fan theories. You keep making the claim that the timeline page supposedly consists of three different timelines and is filled with considerable contradictions and yet you refuse to support these claims with any evidence or explanation, whereas the evidence for a single shared timeline are abundant and evident to anyone and reliable sources have been provided in the article but are continually overlooked or downplayed. I don't understand why AfD had to be closed before recreating the page and I have not been made aware of any such rule, nor do I understand how this supposedly demonstrated "a lack of faith" in my fellow editors or what that is even supposed to mean. Trekker indeed makes herself guilty of ad hominem arguments when she resorts to insisting that I'm the problem and there's always something wrong with me (without explanation) instead of discussing the topic at hand in a civilized and reasonable manner. The perspective that Alien, Predator, and Alien vs. Predator are interconnected franchises which for all intents and purposes takes place in the same fictional universe is but a simple objective observation and an unavoidable logical deduction judging from all the available media and perspectives of Fox representatives, but again, I'm realizing there seems to be an evident anti-AVP-bias in operation here (which tends to be a big issue for some fans who hold a strange preference towards separated universes). - TurokSwe (talk) 05:35, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

During all of these continued issues with you, dozens of other editors have already explained over and over and over what it is that you're doing wrong. You're pretty much demanding that we explain it in a way that you agree with, which is beyond impossible because you will never accept or even consider the possibility that you have done anything wrong, so by default you will never be happy with a single reply we make, so all your comments are pretty much a waste of time and space for everyone involved. No one could possible reply to you in a way that you would accept, you'd just keep on insising that all the editors and admins who have agreed that you are at fault are wrong, which is a very Wikipedia:NOTHERE move.★Trekker (talk) 05:45, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

I've only noticed about one or two individuals voicing complaints about me yet none have been able to adequately and clearly communicate what the problem is actually supposed to be. You can keep insisting and implying that I'm "just wrong" but as long as you refuse to properly explain why I'm wrong and what the problem actually is you will leave me none the wiser, and this I would consider a great disrespect, and I sure wouldn't think of treating you that way. I don't see why you would opt for such a denigrating and antagonistic approach when you could just have a civilized and reasonable discussion and contribute to a more positive atmosphere and help build people up along with their work. I am more than willing to admit fault, given that I understand what I've supposedly done wrong, and I'm absolutely dumbfounded by the behavior displayed towards me here. It seems to me that Wikipedia:NOTHERE (and I'm not sure what I've supposedly made myself guilty of in regards to this) is much more applicable to what you're doing in this instance, certainly fitting the label of being disruptive in the sense that you're pursuing me and constantly acting towards me based on an antagonistic image you must have of me in your mind, and that attitude can't be very healthy for anybody (both you and me included). - TurokSwe (talk) 06:48, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

"I've only noticed about one or two individuals voicing complaints about me yet none have been able to adequately and clearly communicate what the problem is actually supposed to be." Are you for real? Do you think you ended up being topic banned for fun?★Trekker (talk) 07:00, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't remember how many people were involved in the ANI earlier this year nor what their stance was or how it all transpired, and I was here referring to the current ANI and the current state of things. I would appreciate it if you would drop the attitude, as I'm sure anybody else would appreciate as well, as it doesn't help anyone here at all. - TurokSwe (talk) 07:04, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

There are clear links to the ANI's above, feel free to refresh your memory. Again, I ask you, why were banned if you think you have done nothign wrong? Are the admins biased against you in your mind?★Trekker (talk) 07:27, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Glossing over it now, it seems I was banned due to some relatively severe edit warring, but regardless, I don't see how I've made myself guilty of that now in regards to the current ANI. - TurokSwe (talk) 07:37, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

• I was the admin that topic-banned TurokSwe for those six months. I note that, when TurokSwe returned on 4 October and started editing Alien/Predator articles again, pretty much the first thing they did was start edit-warring on the same thing, Template:Alien (franchise), which was part of the reason why they were topic-banned in the first place. I suspect if I'd seen those edits at the time, TurokSwe would now be indefinitely blocked. I further note that they are still posting endless replies of "I don't know what I've done wrong" and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of the Alien, Predator, and Alien vs. Predator universe is frankly ridiculous. We can't have these persistent time sinks on editors' time, so something clearly needs to happen here, an indefinite topic ban being the starting point, I think. Black Kite (talk) 09:51, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
• I would go along with an indefinite topic ban, this is very much I didn't hear that territory. Fish+Karate 09:58, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support indefinite topic ban as described, or preferably an indefinite block as per WP:IDHT and WP:NOTHERE. --Yamla (talk) 11:26, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support indefinite block, since they clearly still don't understand how Wikipedia works, in spite of having had it explained to them umpteen times over the past seven years, both here and on the Swedish WP (where they started their "WP-career", and were blocked multiple times for edit warring and refusing to accept that they had to provide reliable sources for their edits, on articles ranging from movies in the Alien series to cryptozoology...). - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 12:39, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

It's more and more obvious from the discussion here that this is a case of WP:CIR, and that an indefinite block is the only way to put an end to their endless waste of other editors' time. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 17:19, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

• Support indefinite topic ban. It's pretty clear from reading the two archives linked above that this user does not understand why his behavior was problematic and does not really intend to stop. In both of those threads, and in the linked WP:AFD discussion, his approach insist that he does not understand why he/his edits are being criticized and to insist that people have failed to explain things that they have explained repeatedly for at least the past several months. To me, that indicates either a competence issue (he genuinely cannot understand what other editors are saying, which is unworkable for a collaboration-based project) or a tendentious editing issue (he is pretending not to understand so that he doesn't have to change his behavior). Either way, I think it's time to wrap this up in a definitive way since it is draining editor time and editor resources. A time-limited topic ban just means that we will back here again, so an indefinite ban makes sense since, to lift it, he will have to show that he understands and will abide by the rules going forward. 107.77.203.215 (talk) 13:05, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support indefinite block, failing that an indefinite topic ban. There are two reasons: first, the persistent edit warring and inability to understand the "D" part of "BRD", and second, their inability/refusal to understand what the problems are. The final straw for me was just above, when they had been asking and asking about what they did wrong, and when they were explicitly pointed to previous discussion they use expressions like "glossing over it now" – they seem to have very little interest in even trying to understand. (That, and the fact that they don't think they have been edit warring this time around, when that was explained in the very first post in this thread.) These issues are not topic related, they are general behavioural patterns – and seeing that TurokSwe was indefinitely blocked for edit warring in 2013, and then unblocked with a ROPE rationale in 2014, it really doesn't seem excessive to block indefinitely at this point. --bonadea contributions talk 14:07, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support indefinite block: As Jehochman wrote on 4 January 2019,[80] "I do not think a topic ban will help because the trouble will just move to another media/pop culture topic. If after 5-6 years a user can't understand not to edit war, I don't think we need to offer accommodations. Unless convinced otherwise, I intend to place an indef block. We can't let a small number of difficult editors make editing miserable for the majority of peaceful editors." TurokSwe's claim above that "I've only noticed about one or two individuals voicing complaints about me"[81] is the last straw, making it crystal clear that nothing short of an indef will stop his behavior. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:37, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

I followed the rules and did not exceed the three revert rule on the Alien template page and my final action was initiating a discussion on the talk page which Trekker responded to at first but eventually left it hanging. What did I do wrong here? - TurokSwe (talk) 15:02, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

You tried to force the exact same things which got you banned in the first place. I did not reply again because speaking to you is like speaking to a wall, it's honestly a waste of time and I was sure that you would end up getting yourself indefinitely banned very soon in the future anyway so it was honestly better to just wait it out.★Trekker (talk) 15:07, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

I didn't "try to force" anything, I was merely insisting upon the edit in question, and I believe I approached it in a relatively reasonable manner by (1) not exceeding the three revert limit and (2) initiating a civilized discussion. I thought my argument on the talk page was relatively reasonable and I can't see how that supposedly came across as "talking to a wall" and I suspect you left the discussion because you had no convincing counterargument. I'm still not sure what I've done that would justify being banned and nobody thus far has properly explained it to me. - TurokSwe (talk) 15:19, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Again, of course you think that.★Trekker (talk) 15:21, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

TurokSwe, "I didn't "try to force" anything, I was merely insisting upon the edit in question" sounds like a self contradiction to me. Secondly, Edit warring is *not* the same as 3RR, and the fact that you still don't appear to understand that after all these years is not a good sign. It is *not* sufficient to merely avoid 3RR. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:25, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

How is "forcing something" and merely "insisting upon something" supposedly equal acts? Merely insisting upon something is harmless whereas forcing something is damaging. If avoiding 3RR is not sufficient then it ought to be made clear, lest you risk confusing editors. - TurokSwe (talk) 15:34, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

It is clear, very very clear, if you bother to read WP:EW and WP:3RR. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:37, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

And in case it makes any difference, insisting on your version of an edit and edit warring continually to try to impose it without gaining a consensus in favour is precisely what is meant by trying to force it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:05, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

TurokSwe, what part of...

"The three-revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly, but it is not a definition of "edit warring", and it is perfectly possible to engage in an edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so."[82]

...are you having trouble understanding? --Guy Macon (talk) 16:32, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

• I'll Support the topic ban to start with, as we've seen TurokSwe continuing to exhibit not the slightest clue about their problematic behaviour in this very discussion, still insisting that nothing has been properly explained to them. If someone can't understand the simple English explanations that have been provided repeatedly, there's only so much repetition other editors should be expected to do. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:29, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support indefinite topic ban and a block if the editing persists. I was about to mention the WP:CIR contradiction but Boing got there first. MarnetteD|Talk 15:31, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support indefinite block. According to TurokSwe they did not understand how their editing was problematical prior to the previous ban and they're stating the same now. I see no instructional value in a topic ban. Tiderolls 16:12, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
• Blocked indefinitely. TurokSwe was warned in January 2019 per this ANI thread, where several admins, Jehochman and Black Kite among them, considered an indef but in the end merely warned that TS would be indeffed next time they edit-warred. One might have expected that to happen the next time they were taken to ANI for persistent edit-warring, in March,[83], but that time they got away with a six-month topic ban. It seems to me that we have already paid out masses of rope to this user, and clearly the people above who support a strong sanction (mostly an indef) agree with me. I have indeffed on the principle that (oh, here she goes again) the time and patience of constructive editors is Wikipedia's most precious resource, and is not to be squandered in this way. I'm doing this on my own responsibility, rather than waiting for the thread to be open for 24 hours and then closing it, as I believe that would be a further waste of everybody's time. Bishonen | talk 17:28, 21 October 2019 (UTC).

  Good call. I hadn't read that January 2019 thread when I supported just a topic ban. In that, Jehochman summed it up well with "If after 5-6 years a user can't understand not to edit war, I don't think we need to offer accommodations". Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:58, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

  Dammit, Bishonen, you had to close this already! I take one day off from en-wiki and miss what's probably my only chance to appropriately !vote to take off and nuke the site from orbit, it's the only way to be sure... rdfox 76 (talk) 13:50, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Question about the scope of any topic ban

The last time he was topic banned from Alien / Predator pages, but he has shown a strong interest Ice Age (film), A Nightmare on Elm Street, Godzilla, King Kong, Anaconda (film), Graboids (From the Tremor movies), etc. Given that he has shown zero understanding of what he is doing wrong or what is expected of him, and apparently cannot even count how many people have objected to his behavior, I question whether another Alien / Predator topic ban will be effective. If the decision is not to indef, perhaps a topic ban on all films and videos? --Guy Macon (talk) 16:26, 21 October 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 and Legal Threats at the Daily Caller

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.

---

Page: The Daily Caller (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Levivich (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

An IP editor who identifies himself as Charles Glasser, who is a media lawyer and journalist, posted that he was asked by The Daily Caller "to help sort out some factual inaccuracies and biased material" in their article. This provoked discussion about conflict of interest and I and other editors advised Charles Glasser to follow the procedures outlined at Conflict of interest, to which he agreed. Subsequently Levivich has made a number of comments on the talk which that could be considered personal attacks and legal threats.

• CharlesGlasserEsq, you wrote "I'm here as a media adviser and ethicist. Nothing more, OK?" No, that's probably not OK. (01:54, 20 October 2019)[84]
• If he IS acting as an attorney and is failing to disclose it, he could be disbarred under 4.3" is exactly what I'm getting at....What kind of an ethicist plays around with Rule 4.3? (18:08, 20 October 2019)[85]

I told Levivich that they were "entering the territory of personal attacks as well as legal threats" and that their concerns should be taken to COI or ANI,[86] to which they replied, "I don't understand where you see a personal attack or legal threat in anything written here by anybody."[87]

Could someone please explain to Levivich why their postings are inappropriate and some action could be taken against them if they continue?

TFD (talk) 19:15, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

• Oh for crying out loud. Probably Levivich should skip the disbarment talk (though an attorney needs no shielding from being chilled by that — assuming he’s doing nothing wrong) but otherwise this is a lot of fuss about nothing. EEng 19:30, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

  I think Levivich's behavior on that page is hostile and not helpful, and the kind of thing which gives Wikipedia a bad name. Paul August ☎ 19:35, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

  Paul August, I'll second that! Buffs (talk) 16:34, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

• I still don’t understand how the quoted sections constitute personal attacks or legal threats. I quoted another editor’s mention of disbarment, and agreed with it, not as a legal threat, but as a reason why an attorney wouldn’t be coy about their relationship with a client. I have no intention of continuing with that thread, beyond my pings to two attorney admins to get second and third opinions. – Levivich 19:58, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

  This is not appropriate at all. You interrogated a fellow editor about their motives for contributing to Wikipedia, while threatening them with their own professional code of conduct. And when Glasser complained that this was hostile, you didn't stop – you continued the line of questioning and brought up disbarrment. What part of this could possibly be considered okay? – bradv🍁 20:22, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

  I didn’t bring it up, that was another editor. I still don’t read that editor’s comment or my own as threatening anyone with anything, but I’ve stricken it per Barkeep’s comment below. – Levivich 20:32, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

  That's a load of garbage. You DID bring it up: "Remember Rule 4.3; you are communicating with unrepresented parties here." Blaming me for telling people what 4.3 covers is disingenuous at best. Buffs (talk) 16:30, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

  Nope, Brad said that I "brought up disbarment", and I replied that I didn't bring up disbarment (that was you, Buffs). I did bring up Rule 4.3, but not disbarment or any other sanction. – Levivich 18:03, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) I think it's important Levivich to think about why WP:NLT exists. It exists because it inhibits free editing, in this case Glasser's right to request edits, it creates bad feelings and lack of trust, which given our current location I would suggest has occurred, and because it might damage the person making the threat's reputation. As I'm sure you don't want that last one I would encourage you to consider striking the parts that refer to Section 4.3 of the New York State code of Professional Conduct and to refer to the answer that Glasser has given on Talk:Daily Caller, WP:AN, and User talk:CharlesGlasserEsq about his role. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:24, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

  Ok, stricken. – Levivich 20:32, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

• Just a note that CharlesGlasserEsq says they were the IP, and we have confirmation that CharlesGlasserEsq is indeed Charles Glasser and so no need to talk around the fact that the IP is Glasser. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:17, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
• Timeline:
  • 20:17, October 16, 2019 BullRangifer asks for clarification on Glasser's relationship with the subject of the article
  • 20:32, October 16, 2019 Glasser confirms he is not working in a legal capacity
  • 01:54, October 20, 2019 Levivich asks again, referencing the professional code of conduct
  • 14:30, October 20, 2019 Glasser replies again, while complaining "that sounds awfully hostile"
  • 15:35, October 20, 2019 Levivich asks again, again referencing the code of conduct
  • 17:20, October 20, 2019 Buffs states that he believe Glasser is not doing anything wrong
  • 18:08, October 20, 2019 Levivich disagrees, saying he doesn't believe Glasser's explanation, and mentions disbarrment
  • 18:33, October 20, 2019 After being warned, Levivich pings two lawyers to the conversation for a second opinion on his concerns

I can't see how CharlesGlasser's experience at Wikipedia so far has been at all positive, and Levivich has broken several policies in their interactions with them. Simply striking the offending comments is not sufficient here — this is borderline harassment and it needs to be addressed. – bradv🍁 20:42, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Ya hit the nail on the head there! Perfect summary! Buffs (talk) 16:37, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

• Disagree that anything Levivich has said constitutes a legal threat - my read is that it's just been discussion on appropriateness of CharlesGlasserEsq's actions so far. I would only consider it to cross the NLT line if he directly called it a violation and/or threatened to take it to the Bar Association. I concur that Levivich's behavior has been on the hostile side, maybe not to the point of a PA, but it does need to be toned down. With that all said, I've kept a bit of a watch on this discussion, and I think Levivich's concerns are reasonable. The situation is just a little too ambiguous for me, CGEsq's statements have read to me more as saying "just because I'm a lawyer doesn't mean I'm acting as counsel" rather than "I am not acting as counsel," if that makes sense. (Edited: clarify some parts, striking comment about bar rules, I wasn't aware that the two pinged editors were attorneys, that's getting too close to the line for me) creffett (talk) 20:50, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I see no valid reason for raising the bar rules other than to imply a legal threat. bd2412 T 20:46, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
    • BD2412, struck for different reasons, but I don't think raising the bar rules (heh, "raising the bar") is a legal threat so much as a rather assuming-bad-faith comment. creffett (talk) 20:55, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
      • See Hijiri88's comments below, but, yes, demanding an answer and reminding someone about the rule that could result in disbarment as part of your demand is indeed a legal threat, threatening someone's job, and implying malfeasance when there is no evidence of such. This level of hostility needs a response. IMHO, a 1 minute block would suffice. Buffs (talk) 16:41, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
        • We don't do 1 minute blocks. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:43, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
• How is it not a legal threat? I'm sorry, but pointing out that if User X is an attorney doing Y they could be disbarred is a pretty clear statement that "I think User X is an attorney doing Y, and should be disbarred" (and by implication "I think User X is an attorney doing Y, and if I find proof I will have them disbarred"). Implying that a professional attorney needs no shielding from a chilling effect and therefore NLT should be relaxed in such cases, or that someone who is doing nothing wrong has no reason to be intimidated by such threats and therefore the only people who are intimidated are doing something wrong and "deserve it", is a pretty blatant violation of both the spirit and the letter of our NLT policy. Levivich's evasiveness regarding the issue (claiming that hequoted another editor’s mention of disbarment, and agreed with it) is completely out of line: Buffs didn't say the same think Levivich did. Given this, I think it would be appropriate if Levivich were given one chance to acknowledge that what he did was a policy violation, and if he fails to do so he should be blocked. (Small disclosure: I stopped editing for most of 2014 because of an explicit legal threat in an email from a now thankfully sitebanned editor, who had been using cutesy quasi-LT language on-wiki for several weeks and not blocked for it. I have had a very low tolerance for NLT violations, including "borderline" ones that in my experience are usually just the polite public "preludes" to serious threats and stalking, ever since.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:44, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

  Hijiri88 I'm definitely sympathetic to that perspective. I think user:Levivich was operating in good faith on a perceived WP:COI but I do think that sometimes people here, especially longtime editors, get so comfortable with the sharp elbows and aggressive styles of communicating that are common on some of the more fractious areas that they overlook how this looks to a new user or an inexperienced user. The edits in question tiptoe right up to the line of a legal threat, even if there's disagreement about whether or not they cross that line, and they should be walked back since this is the kind of thing that pushes people away from editing constructively. 38.142.216.106 (talk) 13:49, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

  Levivich is not a "longtime editor", though. He started editing about a year ago, and has spent most of the subsequent time hanging out on ANI. I know because a few months back he was part of a cadre of editors who decided to make life difficult for me, all of them new editors who clearly didn't know what they were talking about. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:26, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

  Yup. Grandpallama (talk) 15:30, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

• Levivich has stricken the offending comments and hopefully understands why they were problematic. Time to move along. Lepricavark (talk) 15:33, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
• @QEDK: I've reverted your non-admin closure as premature. Levivich has been denying any wrongdoing, showing a continued failure to understand the policy, and even made a bogus accusation against another editor in an apparent attempt to draw attention away from himself. Striking these particular violations while effectively promising that the same will happen again is not good enough. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:35, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

  Hijiri88, I'm not closing this but FWIW I think it should be and if you hadn't posted that you reverted such a close I would have done that myself. Levivich has struck the comments which to me addresses the concerns presented. Should further such actions arise well that would be a different discussion but given the facts at play here I don't see what benefit drawing this thread out serves. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:44, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

  Gonna side with Hijiri88 here. The isn't done and, no, he hasn't admitted wrongdoing. Buffs (talk) 16:27, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

  The question always in these kinds of situations is what kind of wrongdoing needs to be admitted, and in what way, for us to move-on. I would agree that a cleaner admission from Levivich would be helpful, but I also don't think it necessary in order for the issues brought up here to be considered resolved. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:58, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

  @Hijiri88: I do not mind a reversal of my closure, but to call it BADNAC is your own questionable judgement, not a matter of fact. I am absolutely confident that this thread will lead to no different conclusion than what I had closed it as (because like now, as it was then, the legal threat was withdrawn). All I did was to cut down on the drama that would result from keeping it open, which ofcourse is what is happening now. --qedk (t 桜 c) 15:35, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

• I'll repeat my remarks from the talk page: It sounds very much to me like he is a licensed attorney, but in this capacity, he is just someone who has been hired by the subject for a position unrelated to his position on the bar. I don't think his motives are in question here. He is following WP:COI to the letter and spirit. Not sure what else you want from him. If he IS acting as an attorney and is failing to disclose it, he could be disbarred under 4.3 [referencing Levivich's other remarks]...I see no reason to doubt him at his word that he says he isn't working in a legal capacity for this client; despite Levivich's demands, he doesn't need to elaborate further.

WP:COI is a misunderstood document. It doesn't mean you cannot contribute. It means that you openly state that you indeed have a conflict of interest and your edits will get more scrutiny. That doesn't mean you can't contribute. Buffs (talk) 16:27, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

• If I tell an editor they've crossed WP:3RR and ask them to revert, I don't see that as a threat to take them to WP:ANEW. If I post a vandalism warning on an editor's talk page, that's not a threat to take them to WP:AIV. If I ask an editor to strike a comment that I think was uncivil, that's not a threat to take them to ANI. Similarly, I did not intend any threat when I reminded an attorney about what I saw as their obligations under Rule 4.3. In my mind, reminding someone about a rule is not the same thing as threatening to take any kind of enforcement action. And–seriously–the notion that I would file a bar complaint against someone because of something they posted on-wiki is insane. Insane. Regardless of what my intentions were, mentioning Rule 4.3 was superfluous–I could have and should have made my point without it–and it's now obvious that some editors interpret a mention of a real-world ethics rule or law as an implicit threat to take enforcement action (as Barkeep pointed out to me above), and for that reason, I struck my comments and I will avoid mentioning people's obligations under real-world rules and laws in the future. – Levivich 18:03, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

CharlesGlasserEsq

• Comment am I the only one to think that we've actually missed a key point here? Is CharlesGlasserEsq a paid editor? If they are, they need to comply with WP:PAID per both our policy and the terms of use. It doesn't matter whether they're paid as a lawyer, a media publicist, an ethicist, a crisis manager or anything else. If they're receiving or expect to receive compensation for their editing it needs to be properly declared. Maybe this has already been done, but with the history from the IP and other stuff I'm not able to find any clear declaration. The closest I see is "This user has declared a connection" on the talk page, but I'm fairly sure this isn't sufficient since it doesn't say that they're being paid or who is paying them. Per the policy, a declaration on the article talk page would be enough especially since it seems likely their editing would be restricted to the talk page. However this would need to meet the requirements for such a declaration. The alternative would be a declaration on their user page which may a better alternative given the existing confusion. I thought about approaching the editor directly about this, but I'm wondering if there's something I'm missing since this is something I've never dealt with before and there seems to be plenty of experienced editors here yet we're talking about whether or not someone is complying with some arcane requirement for New York attorneys rather than whether they're complying with out ToU and policy. Nil Einne (talk) 11:39, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: Actually I don't think anyone was talking about either of those things, and in fact they are fairly peripheral to the issue at hand. If you want to investigate CharlesGlasserEsq's on-wiki behaviour, discuss it with him, and only then (per WP:DR) file a separate ANI thread, be my guest. This thread is (was?) primarily about whether Levivich violated NLT. Per WP:BOOMERANG it would technically be okay to turn it on User:The Four Deuces, but turning it on a separate party mentioned in this thread seems like an inappropriate way to get around normal dispute resolution procedures and punish someone who didn't do anything that would normally result in ANI sanctions (see also this -- had I not left the encyclopedia in frustration I probably would have said the same thing to you then). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:30, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: Except I never suggested a boomerang or sanction against CharlesGlasserEsq in any shape or form. I have zero interest in opening an ANI complaint on them. I have zero interest in DR since I have absolutely no dispute with them and have absolutely no desire to be in a dispute with them. I think my original statement was clear on this since at no stage whatsoever did I in any way suggest or imply the possibility of sanction against CharlesGlasserEsq. Yes I did comment on my understanding of the ToU and policy, but commenting on the requirements is quite different from indicating you will take action if they are not met.

I do stick by my point. We're missing the forest from the trees if we're getting so worked up about whether or not CharlesGlasserEsq was acting as a lawyer when we're not considering whether he is complying with PAID and our ToU. So far, no one more experienced with me has said anything even though this thread has plenty of attention, so either I've completely misunderstood our paid requirements and ToU. Or they've complied in some way that I've missed. Or we've completely missed the forest from the trees.

In that case, CharlesGlasserEsq has a decent defence if people complain that they aren't complying with PAID. (Although technically per the ToU, you are required to comply without needing anyone to tell you about it.) Further for all the seriousness that WP:PAID editing and the ToU requirements have, and for all that people seem to get worked up over paid editing, if my hunch is correct it seems in reality no one cares except in special cases.

Instead we're more interested in attacking each other for no reason. And on that note, I won't be engaging in this thread or the question over CharlesGlasserEsq's compliance further since when I tried to help by asking a simple question, I instead get attacked by you over something which I never said.

P.S. I don't recall much about whatever the fuck you're complaining about with the link and I don't care to read it. If you were sanctioned because of some shit you did which someone noticed in a slightly unrelated thread and you're still worked up about it because you feel the thread was unrelated even though I'm sure you were notified and aware of the discussion over possible sanction of you, I don't really give a fuck.

It's the way that ANI works, very often. The key issue is that editors need to be aware there is discussion about their actions and consideration over possible sanction. No one really cares whether the discussion started over something else provided that requirement is met since we're not a bureaucracy so don't require perfect structure in our discussions, simply fairness to all parties which is met by ensuring awareness not by requiring someone to open a separate discussion when an issue came up that needs to be dealt with. To be clear, I don't care to remember the details of every single minor dispute I've ever been in with another editor, unlike the way you seem to, so don't expect me to.

Nil Einne (talk) 13:46, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Dude...pull the throttle back. You don't need language like that. I request you strike it and abide by WP:CIVIL ASAP. There's no need for that. Buffs (talk) 15:53, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Okay, so can I start talking about the incredibly off-topic and uncivil, borderline-NPA remarks you have now made about me? As long as I don't propose specific sanctions? You at least chose to come to ANI and write the above (I even suspect you reopened a closed thread to make the CharlesGlasserEsq remarks, but I don't have the inclination to check). If you are going to continue to use ANI in this manner I am afraid we will have to agree to disagree.

Can someone reclose this, anyway? I consciously decided not to question the second close by (I think?) Barkeep, and was honestly surprised anyone would.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:01, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

You're free to do what ever you want, as everyone is. If you violate our policies and guidelines, you will be blocked, as with everyone. You should know all this by now. And you're the one who chose to attack me for a simple comment I made, bringing up completely random crap from months ago that I don't recall that have zero to do with what I was saying.

And of course you're completely wrong with your accusation. I saw this thread closed, wondered about paid compliance, considered suggesting directly to CharlesGlasserEsq the requirements but changed my mind since I decided there was probably some compliance somewhere that I had missed since it seemed to have the involvement of several experienced editors. Or maybe they'd made clear someone they were just volunteering and not paid. About 12 hours later I saw it had been reopened.

I didn't check or care who re-opened it. My guess was Levivich who replied before me and hadn't replied last time I saw it closed. But actually although they made this IMO questionable formatting change [88] it wasn't. Turns out the second close wasn't even a proper close as it was an IP spoofing Black Kite [89] [90] who understandably reverted when people pointed it out. (The first closure at least was proper [91].)

Seeing it reopened, it seemed a good opportunity to bring the focus back on stuff that I felt mattered. I have concerns for (not about) CharlesGlasserEsq. My gut feeling is I'm not missing something. We've completely missed the forest from the trees. And I have a hunch CharlesGlasserEsq is going to be the one who suffers from this. As I said, plenty of people do take paid and ToU compliance seriously, and it's quite likely one of them is going to notice. And technically you are required to obey it without being told and if CharlesGlasserEsq doesn't do so, both them and their client could suffer in numerous ways. (Meanwhile, we've shown how bad we are at working with people trying to comply with our requirements.)

I get the feeling CharlesGlasserEsq is doing their best to do the right thing, but unfortunately they haven't always received the best advice. If no one had replied to my comment, I may have just gone back to my first plan and talked to them directly. But since you attacked me needlessly, I frankly can't be bothered any more. I do my best to help out around here, but when it results in needless attacks from people who are supposed to be colleagues working with me to make Wikipedia a better place, why bother? If CharlesGlasserEsq suffers, it is ultimately on them since especially as a lawyer, I guess they should know to always read the ToU. They are being paid for it after all.

Nil Einne (talk) 14:35, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

(EC) I would point out, that the NLT requirements have been for a long time that if someone makes a legal threat they need to withdraw that threat, making it clear they are not threatening to engage in legal action. If they do so, they will not be blocked and will be unblocked if they are currently blocked. We do not block people if they no longer have an extant legal threat. And as always, we don't punish people with blocks, such as just to say they made a legal threat which has been withdrawn. I agree with others that Levivich's comments seem to have the same chilling effect as legal threats, and so our response should be the same. But this applies in all direction. Since Levivich has clearly withdrawn their comments and has made it clear they will not be making ethics complaints, the threat is over. I am somewhat concerned that Levivich doesn't seem to understand why bringing up claims of ethics violations which someone says may lead to disbarment is a serious problem given the chilling effect it has. But ultimately if they undertake not to do that any more they don't have to understand. When I saw this thread had been reopened, I was hoping we could instead focus on more important things like compliance with our policies and terms of use, but since apparently we can't, can we at least put this silliness to bed? Nil Einne (talk) 14:06, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

CharlesGlasserEsq's contributions have already been discussed and resolved at AN.[92] Since he has agreed to follow COI (which has a section on paid editing), I don't see any issues. TFD (talk) 14:28, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Well I'm sure I saw CharlesGlasserEsq's possible COI mentioned before which is why I was even more confused. Looking at that now, it seems PAID was brought up, just not properly followed up so I'm less confused. For clarification WP:PAID and our ToU require that you declare your interests in specific ways. I don't see how any of these have been followed since their user page is still a red link, most of their edit summaries are blank and the statement I see on the talk page seem woefully inadequate. (As a case in my point, I'm still not sure if they are actually being paid by Daily Caller or just doing it as a friend/volunteer.) The COI guidelines actually does mention this requirement as well. But more to the point, the declaration is not optional and you can't do it in any ways other than those listed. Actually per policy, it would be better for someone to make the declaration and edit articles directly than to fail to make a proper declaration but to propose changes at the talk page. Since there is no requirement in our guidelines that you must not edit directly, it's simply a strong recommendation; but the disclosure requirement is written into both policy and the site's terms of use. From my experience this isn't simply abstract either. When someone fails to disclose properly, this can result in major problems including reputational damage. Mostly this is when there was absolutely no disclosure and where it's someone editing multiple articles. But at least for blocks and major anger on wikipedia, I'm fairly sure there have been cases when someone sort of disclosed but didn't do it properly. (I.E. some people do take the requirements very seriously.) Anyway thanks for actually discussing the issue in good faith and in a respectful manner and so restoring my confidence in Wikipedia and its editors. I'm now confident that it isn't something I've missed, simply that the issue fell by the wayside with all the other confusion and will take it directly to the editor concerned. Nil Einne (talk) 14:56, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

• Goodness, this continues. I obviously think Nil has a point. Here's what CharlesGlasserEsq has disclosed about his relationship with The Daily Caller:
  1. "I represent The Daily Caller ... My sole interest in finding that "right" place where the public interest served by WP is maintained and at the same time, improving readership trust in WP, as well as fairness to The Daily Caller ... Thanking you kindly in advance, Charles Glasser, Esq."
  2. "... while I am a lawyer (I defend reporters and publsihers, not sue them) this is not any kind of threat. It's a sincere call for help."
  3. "I'm Charles Glasser, and I was retained recently by The Daily Caller to try and see if there was a way to bring some errors to your attention ... I'm a media lawyer ... This is by no means a legal threat, that's not how I roll." (Same message posted again here.)
  4. "I was only recently asked by The Daily Caller to help sort out some factual inaccuracies and biased material ... The Daily Caller has no interest in suing anybody. They just want a clean, fair shake, and a chance to collaboratively resolve this."
  5. "... there is NO repeat NO intention of filing any kind of legal action. That's not what I do. I'm a lawyer who *defends* all kinds of speakers, from the ACLU to Greenpeace to The Heritage Foundation and I was retained specifically to try and undo the (IMHO obnoxious) approach made by previous people on behalf of the Daily Caller."
  6. "I work for myself and am an independent legal consultant to a wide variety of charities and publications, and as you see from the page about me, I am also a professor at two major universities where I teach Media Ethics and Law."
  7. "Just for the record (and clarity) the fact that I am an attorney does NOT mean I am acting in that capacity. I'm also a professor of Media Ethics at two major universities. Having me try to straighten this out is NOT "engaging the legal system." That would be a lawsuit: something that isn't even under consideration. LOL, if I buy a hot dog from a vendor on the street, is he or she "engaging" legal counsel? I'm here as a media adviser and ethicist. Nothing more, OK?"
  8. "Gosh, ich, that sounds awfully hostile, and this issue has been clarified elsewhere ... As for my being an attorney, I've made it clear here and elsewhere that there is no legal threat ... There's no secret agenda here: as a media ethicist I'm simply trying to see if I can help straighten this out in a cooperative and respectful way."
  • I thought #1–5 ("I represent The Daily Caller", "I am a lawyer (I defend reporters and publishers, not sue them)", "I was retained recently by The Daily Caller", "I'm a media lawyer", "I was only recently asked by The Daily Caller to help", "I was retained ... on behalf of the Daily Caller") did not square with #6–8 ("I work for myself and am an independent legal consultant", "the fact that I am an attorney does NOT mean I am acting in that capacity", "I'm here as a media adviser and ethicist. Nothing more, OK?", "As for my being an attorney, I've made it clear here and elsewhere that there is no legal threat ... There's no secret agenda here: as a media ethicist").
  • He wrote "this issue has been clarified elsewhere", but I didn't feel the issue was clear. Is he representing The Daily Caller, is he speaking on their behalf, is he WP:PAID? Or is he an "independent" "consultant", "analyst" or "ethicist"? If he's being paid by The Daily Caller to change the article The Daily Caller, then he is covered by our rules about WP:PAID editors. Which, I don't think he is complying with. For example, he hasn't posted the required templates. There is a difference between WP:PAID and WP:COI, with different requirements (for example, different templates).
  • BD2412 wrote above, "I see no valid reason for raising the bar rules other than to imply a legal threat." Well, actually, it was specifically because Wikipedia's policies (WP:COI and WP:PAID) aren't entirely clear (in my mind, and I think in CharlesGlasserEsq's, too) about the specific disclosure to be made, and whether the disclosures above are sufficient. Rule 4.3 (which isn't just a New York rule, but one of the American Bar Association Model Rules of Professional Conduct adopted in 49 out of 50 US states) is exactly on point. That's why I raised it, meaning, "Even if Wikipedia's rules aren't clear, the real-world rules are clear." Again, I didn't mean that as any kind of threat, and I'm not going to file any kind of complaint or take any legal action whatsoever. I shouldn't have mentioned it, but that's the reason I did.
  • I raised these issues because I thought the editor wasn't being clear about being a WP:PAID editor. Being an attorney representing an article subject, and speaking on behalf of an article subject to Wikipedia editors about their article, is different–to me–than being an "independent legal consultant" or a "media adviser" or "media ethicist". Whether the rest of the editing community thinks this is clear or not clear, and whether policies have or have not been complied with, that's up to you all. (I will post a notice on CharlesGlasserEsq's talk page informing them of this discussion.) – Levivich 15:09, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
• It seems clear to me that whether he's paid or not is irrelevant. He clearly has a WP:COI and he's openly stating it. If he's being paid, obviously WP:PAID needs to be followed too, but it seems he's done all that WP:PAID requires already. Making him jump through arbitrary and unnecessary hoops by demanding he answer your questions isn't necessary. Buffs (talk) 15:50, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Buffs, I'm honestly shocked to read "whether he's paid or not is irrelevant". Aside from WP:PAID, there's also the "Paid contributions without disclosure" section of Wikimedia:TOU. I don't think the requirements of PAID and TOU are "arbitrary and unnecessary hoops". If the editor is covered by WP:PAID, it doesn't seem to me that the requirements of WP:PAID have yet been met. For example, there isn't a {{Connected contributor (paid)}} template at the top of Talk:The Daily Caller (instead, it's the {{Connected contributor}} template, to be used by non-paid editors with a COI). There isn't a {{Paid}} template at User:CharlesGlasserEsq. For more, see the suggestions Nil has posted at User talk:CharlesGlasserEsq#WP:PAID compliance (to which CharlesGlasserEsq has responded indicating he is "being paid in a media consultant capacity" and will review Nil's suggestions, which is clear enough for me). Everyone agrees the rules are confusing, and it's not a big deal to add the requisite templates (if necessary), but surely you can agree as to the objective fact that WP:COI and WP:PAID are two different pages with two different requirements (including different templates), and it's important that all editors covered by either of those policies, comply with those policies. – Levivich 16:11, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

I think it was kind of Nil Einne to reach out to CharlesGlasserEsq to help him get into compliance with WP:PAID. It seems to me that CharlesGlasserEsq is in good faith attempting to comply with Wikipedia rules and keep his activity on here on behalf of the Daily Caller aboveboard and appropriate. However, he may have inadvertently overlooked one disclosures which Nil Einne and Levivich noted above, but I think that now that this has been brought to his attention he will go ahead and post the required disclosure mandated by the Wikimedia Terms of Use and that will be resolve the outstanding issues related to policy compliance. I don't think that this will be a big problem or something that necessarily will result in ongoing drama; it is just an oversight that Levivich/Nil Einne noticed and it will very likely be corrected as soon as CharlesGlasserEsq logs in again and sees the notification. 38.142.216.106 (talk) 16:20, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

I thought I posted this elsewhere, but wanted to express to Nil Einne thanks so much and yes, I want to do everything on the "up and up" and if I miss something (like the disclosure rules you mentioned) be assured it's not monkey business but merely my being a newbie. I will look over Nil Einne's comments and figure out how to make clear to any and all that I am being paid in a media consultant capacity to try and break through the log jam, get past some of the acrimony that appeared regarding the article and make this a pleasant and productive thing. That serves not just the Daily Caller's interest, but goes a long way in dispelling the public perception that it's a sort of "Wikipedia Club" and that only certain people with certain agendas have control or input over what is a very powerful and important element of our modern discourse and information source. I'm having some medical issues at the moment, so it'll take me while to get some things done. Thanks again, Charles CharlesGlasserEsq (talk) 16:09, 23 October 2019 (UTC)CharlesGlasserEsq (talk) 16:29, 23 October 2019 (UTC)CharlesGlasserEsq

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.

Saqiwa and original research on Fijian chieftain lineages

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.

---

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

Saqiwa is an editor that flew under the radar for a few years, all of his contributions are about the geneology of Fijian chieftains, but it's only recently that someone started to notice that these edits consisted of unsourced original research, original research sourced to drawings of geneology trees (which fail verification), and "sourced" edits that fail verification.

Reliable sourcing has been explained to him several times, here by Marchjuly, here at the Teahouse, and here by me.

Verifying his contributions is very time consuming as the information is disjointed and because he does cite some sources, it just fails verification.

Some examples:

• [93][94] DrKay reverting his addition to Nakorotubu District as it all failed verification.
• The outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monarchy of Fiji was "Keep, but delete everything Saqiwa has added".
• [95] Failed verification
• [96] Failed verification
• [97] Use of an unreliable thesis, explained multiple times, reinserted multiple times. The same thesis failed verification for the statement it was used for in this next edit:
• [98] Adding large disjointed sections about geneology and intermarriage to the article Roko Malani, but it does not actually start with the article's subject Roko Malani (1754–1833) but instead a namesake who was alive in 1879. Among sources are scanned geneology trees that don't even mention the subjects.

Source check for the above

Source does not mention any of the claims it's attached to in "The two brother's great grandfather, Ratu Meli Salabogi (1) declared Nakorotubu as an independent state in 1860 to protest of Ratu Seru Cakobau declaring himself as a self-styled Tui Viti during the Deed of Cession negotiation with Great Britain" The 1959 installation of Ratu Sir George Cakobau by Ratu Meli Salabogi (3)'s son Ratu Kuliniyasi Roko Malani (2) proceeded without any problems or disputes is sourced to an an image of some people sitting in a circle Page 243 does not verify any of "The care and benefits from the coconut plantation of the Lau Provincial Council and the Vuanirewa clan in Lakeba resulted in the diplomatic shift of Fiji's traditional and political order, as Nakorotubu ensured a smooth and favorable leadership seat for Niumataiwalu's lineage in Bau and Lau post-World War 2 and post-1970 independence during Ratu Sir George Cakobau and Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara leadership time." Multiple family relations "sourced" to this document, but it does not seem to actually verify the statements it's attached to. Unsourced BLP statements about the police & military intervening with someone in 2018. Note, this is in an article about someone who died in 1833.

• [99]. Not in the cited source, the other source is from 1862 and is therefore unlikely to include comments on the marriage of someone born in 1879.
• 10 October 2019, giving two sources, one of which doesn't mention the subject and another that a) mentions a namesake in passing but not the subject and b) is an unreliable opinion piece.
• 13 October 2019, part failed verification, part improper use of primary sources whose existence can't be verified

Source check for the above

1. Roko Malani (2) - (1820-1890) of Lau. Younger brother of Ratu Tevita Uluilakeba (1), the Tui Nayau and grand nephew of Roko Malani (1). He named a newly birthed Ra chief as Ratu Kuliniyasi Roko Malani (1879-1933) during his stop over visit to puakaloa vasu maternal relatives at Nabukadra village in 1879 before attending a Methodist church conference in Vuda. 2. Roko Malani (1879-1933) of Ra. Ratu Kuliniyasi Roko Malani, former Sergeant of the Fiji Armed Constabulary Force in Levuka and late Buli Kavula, son of Ratu Amenatave Dewalarua and Seleima Veinoyaki and grandson of Ra chief, Ratu Meli Salabogi mentioned in the W.J. Smythe Cession Preliminary Report of 1862. Married Adi Asinate Senirewa from the Vuanirewa clan, the daughter of Roko Vilisoni Tuiketei (younger brother of Ratu Tevita Uluilakeba (1) and Roko Malani (2) who named Roko Malani from Ra during birth in 1879). They had two issues, Ratu Meli Salabogi MBE, JP (1911-1989) and Ratu Wilisoni Tuiketei Malani OBE, JP, OSTJ (1920-2005). 3. Roko Malani (1937-2013) of Ra. Ratu Kuliniyasi Roko Malani (2), the elder brother of Adi Laufitu Malani and son of Ratu Meli Salabogi MBE, JP (1911-1989). He traditionally endorsed and spent a night at Vatanitawake in Bau during the Vunivalu of Bau installation in 1959. References

Saqiwa's comments:

• [100] "What I am concerned about is how other wikipedia editors are selective and inconsistent in applying the wikipedia rules to my articles. For the last 4 years, all my articles were not considered important, however recently there seems to have been a sudden increase to the scrutiny of my contributions, specifically when certain information/documents that were considered confidential and question certain status quo have been shared. I have now reached a stage of keeping a personal copy of my contributions in order to compare that with the reasons that a editor will use to delete or amend my articles to prove that there are ulterior motives of amending my articles through the wikipedia rules. Before, wikipedia editors would be very friendly and encouraging by guiding and amending my articles whereas, now, the only thing that I am receiving are threats of being blocked from wikipedia, which makes my conspiracy thoery more relevant."
• [101] "can this be part of an organised watch group to suppress Fijian historical facts? [...] There is definitely something more than this, perhaps the sensitivity of the Fijian historical facts exposed?"
• [102] "This sudden increase in scrutiny [of my edits] happened lately in the last few months when confidential information about Fiji's history were shared"
• [103] "the recent micromanaging and scrutiny to my contributions seems to have started from the recent exposure of suppressed Fiji's history that are well documented but suppressed for reasons well known."

– Thjarkur (talk) 15:01, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Thjarkur This is really an abuse of power in editing privilege. There is really evidence of selective editing in keeping similar sourced materials in Roko Malani compared to my articles including the Roko Malani article 1879-1933. Wikipedia should be aware that this is happening and the reputation of wikipedia is at stake.Saqiwa (talk) 03:19, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Support indefinite block or topic ban. The diffs and quotes provided above by Þjarkur clearly show that Saqiwa is determined to keep adding fringe original research to wikipedia. He has just once again misrepresented a source in this edit. The source he provided did not support the material he added, and he removed the material that opposed his view and that was reliably sourced. There have been numerous warnings and explanations at User talk:Saqiwa and they've just not worked. A block is now the only way to prevent further disruption. DrKay (talk) 16:12, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

• I'm not sure whether WP:INDEF would be warranted at this time, but Saqiwa's tendency to perceive those who disagree with their edits are part of some WP:CONSPIRACY (both on Wikipedia and out in the real world) designed to prevent the "truth" about Fiji from being added to Wikipedia is becoming a bit of a time drain. I do think Saqiwa is sincere and means well, but at the same time all editors are expected to work within the constraints of relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines and try our best to ensure that articles are kept in accordance with these policies and guidelines as much as possible. There may indeed be problems with how the subjects Saqiwa is interested in are being covered in reliable sources, but I've tried to explain to them that it's not Wikipedia role to set the record straight and fix things.
  Assuming from the beginning that other editors just have to be WP:NOTHERE because they are challenging edits and by making comments to that extent at places like the Teahouse (e.g. Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1015#Follow-up to Editors are editing and removing my articles and demanding quotations of sources when they are already quoted.) and in edit summaries (e.g. this and this), immediately starts to move things into WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:USTHEM territory which only makes discussing them that much harder. Then, there's also a tendency to not follow WP:BRD when edits are challenged (e.g. here) which is quickly leading to WP:EW and WP:3RR problems. I've tried to encourage Saqiwa to follow WP:DR and resolve these content disputes through article talk page discussion and thought I was having some success; however, they seem to reverting back to a more brute force approach to try and force their edits through once again. I've got no idea why articles Saqiwa has been editing for some time are suddenly attracting attention (I only saw the Teahouse question and then tried to figure out what was going on), but questionable content is not just simply kept because it's been there for awhile; if someone comes along and challenges it, even after years of going unnoticed, then the best way forward is generally to try to sort things out is through article talk page discussion. I think Saqiwa needs to realize this because continuing on as before is not going to be to anyone's benefit. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:08, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

• He continues to point to unreliable opinion pieces that don't verify any of his claims. All of this has been pointed out to him here, but he refuses to listen. He has again rewritten and added sources to this draft, but the sources don't verify his claims (he points to a source from 1918 for someone born in 1937). I have actually not found a single statement in his contributions that has turned out to be mentioned in the sources he cites. – Thjarkur (talk) 11:45, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support topic ban - I think that there's a real risk with editors who do stuff like this. While it is easy for anti vandalism patrollers and other editors to catch when completely unsourced and false information is added to an article, it is much harder to catch when faked sources are used, especially if the information presented is not outlandish to the naked eye. A patroller would have to step through each source and carefully read it, which could allow a user like this to slip in inaccurate/false information and have it go unchallenged for a long time. 107.77.203.73 (talk) 13:32, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

As Saqiwa is now edit-warring to insist that someone who died in 1833 is the father of someone born in 1920 because the lineage is apparently supernatural[104], I feel that this section has been archived prematurely, and have consequently restored it. DrKay (talk) 10:02, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Maybe the Fijians had cryogenic sperm banks? EEng 06:48, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

EEng (talk · contribs) You think Fiji had cryogenic sperm banks in the early 1920s?? I'm not sure that's 100% plausible but in any case if that was the case then surely he would be able to come up with a source for that haha ;) 38.142.216.106 (talk) 18:10, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

1830s, actually. EEng 00:15, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

EEng (talk · contribs) - maybe you are right lmao. At the very least, we can't rule it out. I'd love to see the reliable sources Saqiwa will use to support this claim though. I think they will be quite fascinating. 38.142.216.106 (talk) 12:52, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

• A topic ban is basically going to be, for all intents and purposes, the equivalent of an indefinite block in this case. Saqiwa has been pretty much an WP:SPA editing only Fiji related articles since they created their account, and it seems very unlikely that they will simply switch to another subject matter and stay away from Fiji articles; so, there's no point in a topic ban since my guess is that it would not be effective. The edit warring with multiple editors at Nakorotubu District over a disagreement on what a source says (or doesn't say) and some of the comments being made on the article's talk page seem to indicate a problem that goes beyond one particular article. The constant WP:ASPERSIONs that others have some kind of ulterior motive in challenging their edits is starting to cause things to heat up unnecessarily and is making it harder to try and have any productive discussion. Perhaps an administrator warning or maybe even a short cool-down block might be warranted to give them a chance to try and reflect. If things don't improve after that, then a much stronger response might be warranted. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:03, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

• Support any sanctions. His block log is clean so I guess we could try a time-limited block. But I doubt there is anything we can do to turn him into an effective contributor. Haukur (talk) 13:05, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support a topic ban or a block at this point. Someone who is willing to edit war to include obviously false and frankly preposterous information in the articles is probably never going to be a good editor. The fact that he has already graduated to advanced disruption (using faked sources to make it hard for editors to catch his bad edits) is already worrying. I think if the community agreed to something less than an indef topic ban then we will be here again as soon as it expires (and probably before it expires TBH). 38.142.216.106 (talk) 18:10, 21 October 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, extreme POV language by 78.144.186.199

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.

---

• 78.144.186.199 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Sexism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This edit alone warrants a block. On top of the other edits to the article talk page ([105]), this user is not here to build an encyclopedia. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:01, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Blocked for 72 hours. El_C 06:04, 24 October 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.

Definitely needs an admin's touch

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 was gnoming around saw User:Itamar_Shamam this user's page. The user page is being used as an article which isn't appropriate, the article appears to be about the named user, but I'm not sure as it goes from one topic to another (physics?) topic without an interruption. At the bottom the user has a "copyright" style message as well.

I didn't want to move his user page to a sandbox as I wasn't sure if this would mess up his user page, and I already know copying and pasting this into a sandbox is wrong, so I thought I'd alert the admin corps instead. This user will be notified as soon as I'm done here. Necromonger...We keep what we kill 15:12, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

It does look like he is using his user page as an article, but it is not clear if he is trying and failing to write a BLP in sandbox about himself or if he is misunderstanding the role of a userspace. Taking a look at his contribution history, it looks like nearly all of his edits are to that page so there may be a WP:NOTHERE issue as well as a potential referral to WP:Miscellany for deletion. 38.142.216.106 (talk) 15:37, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm deleting per U5 and issuing an only warning. The complete lack of editing anything else makes it abundantly clear he's only interested in pushing... whatever the hell that is on his userpage, which isn't the purpose of Wikipedia. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:41, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

And his response made it abundantly clear that his goals are rather clearly not aligned with improving Wikipedia. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:09, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

The Blade of the Northern Lights - is there a way for him to get a copy of the information he wrote? It looks like someone deleted all of it before he had a chance to respond to the ANI notification, so from his perspective the deletion would seem abrupt and he might not have had a chance to save a copy. 38.142.216.106 (talk) 17:54, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

I offered to give him a copy in the note mentioned below. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:03, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

• No one ever told him anything about how this place works. The user page obviously doesn't belong, but we could be gentler about it than this. I've left a note on his talk page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:19, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
• Geez...less than 4 hours from "hey might this be a user who doesn't understand" and without ANY notification to "delete without a chance to recover"? WP:BITE much? Good night! What would the harm have been to just blank the page and leave a note on his talk page explaining? Or, perhaps allowed him to explain/converse? If we smack everyone who makes a mistake with a 40 lb hammer, we're going to drive away editors that could easily have been saved. Totally unnecessary. Buffs (talk) 22:03, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

  This user had an account for almost 2 years, and save a single mainspace edit did nothing but edit his userpage. Obviously I'm fine with giving him a copy of what's been deleted, but I'm also a bit less than sympathetic to someone who in 2 years made no serious effort to discern the purpose of Wikipedia. If he wants to contribute here further, in accordance with what Wikipedia is for, I'd happily welcome anything he has to add. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:58, 22 October 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:Dorarocks2003

A user by the name of Dorarocks2003 has been pestering me on my talk page about The Powerpuff Girls (2016 TV series) supposedly ending, even though there has been no official confirmation that it has ended - [106] [107]. They had previously taken to talk pages about articles related to the show ([108], [109]).

I had repeatedly told them that we can't say the show has ended yet since there is no official confirmation and it hasn't been a year since the most recent episode aired, yet they continued to bother me. I feel like this is a clear-cut case of an editor repeatedly showing an inability to get the point, and since most of their edits are trying to push for saying the show is done for, I feel as if they are clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. What say the rest of you? The Grand Delusion^{(Send a message)} 15:54, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

@Dorarocks2003: Wikipedia is written according to what reliable sources say. If there are no sources to confirm this, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Please just let it go until you can provide proof. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:57, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Does this give off Bambifan101 vibes to anyone else? -- Rockstonetalk to me! 19:16, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

@Rockstone: That was my first thought reading this. Thryduulf (talk) 20:09, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

@Rockstone: @Thryduulf: Me, or the editor I'm reporting? It's not immediately clear to me. The Grand Delusion^{(Send a message)} 20:48, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

@The Grand Delusion: Sorry for not being clear, it's the user you are reporting (Dorarocks2003) that reminds me of Bambifan101. Thryduulf (talk) 21:22, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

It's not Bambifan101.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:38, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

@Bbb23: Not sure if you used your checkuser powers, but although they reminded me of Bambifan101, I wasn't sure given that the user edited a random IPv6 talk page after making their account, whose IP geolocates to Massachusets. They just reminded me of them. Speaking of which, has Bambifan101 been active, or did they finally give up? -- Rockstonetalk to me! 01:54, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

@The Grand Delusion: Yes, I meant the user. My apologies. No boomerang here! -- Rockstonetalk to me! 01:54, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Consistent Original research additions by Deathlibrarian

First addition of the OR was observed here[110], the edit stated "30 mile safezone on the Turkish border. This is the majority of the areas where the Kurdish population lives," without a citation. I've added a ((cn)) tag [111]. User took it out adding a citation with a new statement [112] "30 mile safe-zone on the Turkish border. 2.2 million Kurds live in the proposed safe zone" I checked the citation and it said 2.2 million people live, Kurdish and not, not in the 30mile area but the entire Rojava area. I feel this was done deliberately. Also, the article Second Battle of Ras al-Ayn (2019) which was created and mostly written by the user has over a dozen missing citations in it, yet even after me adding ((cn)) templates user continued to add incorrect information. I feel the addition of OR will continue without an intervention and I cannot keep checking all of users edits to detect the original research and felt the urge to make a notification here. KasimMejia (talk) 12:42, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

This is content dispute. Please follow WP:Dispute resolution. According to BBC [113], When the Turkish offensive began, the UN said the potentially affected area included SDF-controlled territory that was home to 2.2 million people.... My very best wishes (talk) 14:19, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

I know it said, yet the user wrote it as 2.2 million Kurds lived in the 30mile safe zone. Where as the article states 2.2 million people (Kurdish and Arab) lived in the entire SDF held zone (about 6 times the safe zone). The article is full of other failed verifications too and user cannot keep writing unsourced information like this. KasimMejia (talk) 14:35, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

• Comment The reason I opened this incident is because user even after being told of adding original research continued to add original research. I believe if I don't notify the administrators about this the user will keep adding original research and I can't stop him with discussion. KasimMejia (talk) 14:57, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Possibly you could have discussed your concerns with them a bit more? I cant see anything on the talkpage of the article except a debate about terminology...You templated them with an OR template on their talkpage 10 minutes before opening this ANI, after tagging it citation needed what..an hour or so before that? You tagged one section of the article with citation needed tags, proposed the article for deletion, then sent it to AFD, all in one day, yesterday. You appear only to have been editing yourself for about a month or so..perhaps slow down a bit before dragging other editors to ANI? Curdle (talk) 17:05, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

  HI everyone - as far as I can interpret that article, the 2.2 million refers to the kurds living in the safe zone(ie the "potentially affected area"), not the whole of Rojava. The BBC article says "the UN said the potentially affected area included SDF-controlled territory that was home to 2.2 million people". The population of the whole of Rojava is not 2.2 million, its in fact 3.5 - 4 million. Cheers Deathlibrarian (talk) 20:41, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

"population of the whole of Rojava is not 2.2 million, its in fact 3.5 - 4 million." According to who? This is yet again an original research even at the noticeboard, the article Rojava says the whole of Rojava population is 2 million. Including Arabs and Kurds. I also don't understand how you interpret the source saying affected area included SDF-controlled territory that was home to "2.2 million people" as "2.2 million Kurds live" in the area. When there is no mention to the word Kurdish at all. The article you have written still has alot of original research in it too. KasimMejia (talk) 08:02, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

And there is still nothing on the talkpage of the article, which is where this discussion should be taking place. Curdle (talk) 11:18, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes you already said that, and I told you user continued despite discussion. KasimMejia (talk) 11:33, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Population is 4 million, according to the official Rojava cite and NY Times say 4.6 million Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:40, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Good! I hope you add it to the articles from now on too. Without giving a citation there is no basis on where the information is coming from. And also, you changed a statement saying 2.2 million people live in the safe zone to 2.2 million Kurds live in the safe zone. How do you know they are all Kurds when the source doesn't say so? KasimMejia (talk) 06:27, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

And that's a discussion to have on the article talk page. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:36, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

QuackGuru and disruption over e-cigs and pod mods

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.

---

Pod mod (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

QuackGuru (talk · contribs)

WP:AN is pushing a backlog drive on AfC. Accordingly RoySmith took pod mod into mainspace [114] (so thanks for that). QuackGuru has now removed it [115] as "Redirect non-notable hoax article. (Please do not restore the mass failed verification content. See WP:CIR."

I was thus prompted to raise the following with them:

Pod mod

I'm concerned about your removal of this article [116].

Firstly, we have an AfD process. I'm sure you're familiar with it. It's fundamental here that we operate by consensus. We do not support single-handed deletion of articles like this.

Secondly, your reason for removing this article was "Redirect non-notable hoax article. (Please do not restore the mass failed verification content. See WP:CIR.)" [117] That's four separate claims as to why it should be removed. Yet these are unrelated claims, and you have shown no reason to support any of them. In particular, alleging a "hoax" article is a strong allegation against the editor who created that article and should not be made without some evidence to back it up. Importantly though, you then went on to add content from this article [118] to a new section Construction of electronic cigarettes#Pod mods. So which is it? If this is a "hoax", why are you propagating it further? If these sources failed verification in one article, why are they now acceptable in another?

I'm also less than happy about you using inlined ELs rather than correctly formatted citations and references. [119] Is there any particular reason for this?

Once again, your editing raises concerns. You are quick to add a warning banner about Discretionary Sanctions to this article, but you don't point out that you were the editor warned when such sanctions were applied Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Editor_conduct_in_e-cigs_articles#QuackGuru_Warned.

This blanking of an article was inappropriate and disruptive. It goes against our accepted practice re AfD, should such an article really be inappropriate. Your allegations against it are unsupported, and also targeted against a specific editor, Sydneystudent123456. Your re-use of some content from the article also rather defeats the claims you made against it originally. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:21, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

QuackGuru blanked that without reply (they habitually blank all items on their talk:, rather than archiving). They similarly blanked a second request to discuss this.

I don't see this as acceptable editing, especially not when it's WP:OWN over a whole topic space, one which QuackGuru has got into trouble over before. We work by consensus here (do we still?) Single-handed deletions are not how we do things! I don't myself know if pod mods are notable (to the level of a distinct article) and had already asked as much on the talk: page. (I'm in the UK, I don't vape, I'm unfamiliar with the subtle variants). It does appear now that pod mods are a topic of some debate and we have coverage of them under the broader e-cig articles and also at Juul, the major commercial brand. But this is primarily a behavioural problem – single editors don't get to blank articles, the reasons given are hand-waving at best, certainly not supported by any evidence or specific claim, and when challenged like this it's incumbent upon WP:BOLD editors to be ready to at least discuss it. I would have un-redirected the article and AfDed it myself, except for the second refusal to discuss. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:14, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Huh. QuackGuru said failed verification, so I was expecting something really ridiculous like the sources didn't actually exist, but that's not the case. Haven't looked into it thoroughly yet but I'd say whatever QG saw that led him to just instantly blank the page is not obvious, at least to me. I think it's possible this is a reasonable action (the redirect only, not the subsequent interactions), but it really needs to be explained. Someguy1221 (talk) 13:39, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

• Agreed. If it had been a "hoax article" then we have WP:CSD#G3 for that and at least an admin and a second pair of eyes would have seen it.

They still haven't communicated, but they have been busy editing and they've added a comment as an edit summary [120] about "Please don't restore content that failed verification or use poor source such as a blog. See https://www.caferacervape.com/blogs/news/a-brief-history-of-pod-mods-and-open-system-low-wattage-devices" However that source wasn't being used in this article, so I fail to see the relevance of mentioning it. Nor is a misleading note in an edit summary an acceptable substitute for discussion via a talk: page.

I half expected QuackGuru to take their usual line that "all sources must meet WP:MEDRS". Except that here [121] at Construction of electronic cigarettes they're happy to reference The Verge [122] and here [123] at Juul they're adding links to the SF Chronicle [124]. Maybe they think that it's OK if these ELs are inlined, rather than presented as citations? Andy Dingley (talk) 14:15, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

I have undone the redirect. If anybody feels this article should not exist, please to take it to WP:AfD for a proper discussion. @QuackGuru: I explicitly draw your attention to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Editor conduct in e-cigs articles#QuackGuru Warned. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:02, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

• And now of course, a personalised warning, and some WP:CANVASSing in another WP:FORUM, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Pod_mod, but still no discussion. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:32, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
• QuackGuru is now proceeding [125] to strip sections out of the article, by their usual process of denigrating sources. This is inappropriate: they show no issue with those sources, the claim "commercial source" is not enough to start section blanking, they have shown no error in those sources, they have shown no error in the content and it is against WP:PRESERVE to act in this way to dismantle an article with no effort made to find other sources. We are still awaiting any response from them here at ANI. These edits are disruptive, and they are disruptive in the way for which an explicit DS has been in place on QuackGuru themself for some years. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:02, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
• And now pejorative comments like this, "please stop restoring original research". But there was no such restoration. This is just throwing phrases into the edit log and hoping that some mud sticks. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:26, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
• I got a failed verification tag from QG for something that I thought to be uncontroversial. Not sure what is going on but it seems QG is holding this article to a higher standard than others. I added a section to the talk page to discuss and hopefully he responds. spryde | talk 18:30, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  • It's my impression that QuackGuru is very frequently concerned that anything short of plagiarism might not be true enough to the cited source. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:06, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

• QuackGuru seems either unable or unwilling to communicate with other editors. They will adopt some particular idea, then defend it to the death and happily edit-war to do so, but simply will not express to others what it is beforehand, thus avoiding a whole lot of argument. I cannot understand why this is, but it does make editing around them particularly difficult. They seem to go out of their way to post half-truths to talk: pages: something which can't be said to be definitively wrong afterwards, but is especially unclear and misleading at the time. So when complaining of a source, they refer to it by a URL that isn't even used in the article, rather than pointing to its use in that article. They complain "don't restore OR" when nothing has been either deleted or restored. They will insist that all sources meet MEDRS, even for simple matters of commercial business (but are happy to use non-MEDRS sources themselves). They remove content as "not relevant" even though it is highly relevant to the broader context of understanding the article, just because it doesn't contain a specific easily-matched word (I've written AI reasoners which suffered much the same problem). And throughout all of this, other editors are simply wrong: there is no room for debate or opinion, it's QuackGuru's version or nothing. That is not how we operate. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:33, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

• Quick example: Tagging the text, "Pod mods come in varying shapes and sizes and some resemble USB devices." as "fails verification " See "The palm-sized device resembles a USB flash drive,,," Obvious FV content." from a source which contains the literal text, "The palm-sized device resembles a USB flash drive".

So, sorry QuackGuru, but that is not an obvious verification failure and you have failed to state what particular arcana is offending you. This is a collaborative project involving other editors and if you are going to oppose other editors over minutiae such as that, it is incumbent upon you to at least explain the issue.

Similarly, "they do not prodcue smoke" when tagging "Pod mods are portable devices that people use to smoke" as OR. Well, sorry QuackGuru but this is smoke; smoke by its technical broad definition includes pretty much any particulate aerosol produced by heat and that includes pyrolysis rather than combustion, and e-cigarettes et al certainly perform pyrolysis. Also modern language has yet to catch up fully with its terminology and possibly "smoking" may not be the best verb to apply here, but in no way is this WP:OR. It is simply another pejorative use of terminology by you to tag it as such, as an inevitable waypoint towards its removal. This is sheer sophistry on your part, to a level where it's deliberate and it's disruptive. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:46, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Andy Dingley: technically the content did fail verification since AFAICT, no where does the source say "pod mods come in varying shapes and sizes", it only suggested one possible shape (and possibly size). But I'm not sure that tagging it FV was the best way to handle it. Nil Einne (talk) 07:00, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

• This is not a problem of content, it's a problem of behaviour: that's why it's at ANI.

Far better editing by QuackGuru would be to list any problems on the article talk page, to make specific statements about what is wrong with them, then to put forward intended solutions: a change of wording, a need for a better source, even the need to remove a section. There might not even be much need for discussion: maybe some of these problems and remedies would become so self-evident that all would be in immediate agreement (there seems to be zero evidence of a POV disagreement). But they are doing none of that. Instead we see unexplained changes made directly to the article. We see threats [126] to delete the article again as "unsourced", when this is a clearly untrue and hyperbolic statement to make. QuackGuru's editing style makes collaboration impossible: in a context where reversions are restricted (and they've made that sanction threat clear enough, even though it's not even clear it applies) their technique is to "capture the high ground first". Anyone disagreeing with QuackGuru will be described as edit-warring and instantly reverted. The changes they're making are unexplained and unjustified (even if correct, or at least their underlying reason needing to be addressed) and they're making the change first, then being forced to provide some sort of justification afterwards. This makes it very difficult for another editor to provide a different remedy to the same (agreed) problem.

Consider the case of the physical resemblance to USB sticks: this is a most trivial issue. Yes, there may be some minor inaccuracy in there and it might need to be fixed by some very minor copyediting on non-contentious wording. But instead QuackGuru is attacking the sources, slapping on a "failed verification" tag, advocating deleting the entire article because "100% fails verification". An editor trying to fix the descriptive wording problem then has to fight uphill, justifying their changes in terms of dire actions like "removing an {{OR}} tag from an article subject to MEDRS", "Re-introducing content that failed verification", "Using sources that do not meet MEDRS". This is to skew the entire editing process unfairly in one editor's favour! They might as well start asking, "Are you now or have you ever been a member of Quora?"

This is a behavioural problem (and they still refuse to engage here), it's disruptive, it's a severe form of WP:OWN and it needs to stop or be stopped. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:55, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Andy Dingley, except that you explicitly said

Quick example: Tagging the text, "Pod mods come in varying shapes and sizes and some resemble USB devices." as "fails verification " See "The palm-sized device resembles a USB flash drive,,," Obvious FV content." from a source which contains the literal text, "The palm-sized device resembles a USB flash drive".

You cannot have it both ways. You made a big deal over the fact that the content does not fail verification because the source explicitly mentions it resembles a USB flash drive. But you completely neglected to mention that in fact the source only says that. It does not support the claim "pod mods come in varying shapes and sizes". Therefore as I said, the failed verification tag was technically correct, regardless whether or not it was the best way to handle it. (And I've already said it wasn't.)

I would note that the reason I realised this is because I nearly faulted QuackGuru on my talk page for them adding a failed verification tag when it wasn't justified since I WP:AGF that you were correct. Thankfully this didn't happen since I double checked myself before leaving my comment.

If you want us to focus on the problems with QuackGuru's editing you need to avoid making misleading claims. From my experience a good way to ensure any complaints you have at AN//I get ignored is by ensuring that we are pointlessly arguing over what the person complaining about said because they are careless or misleading in what they say. As I've said, it seems to me QuackGuru's editing does have problems, so I have no idea why you insist on bringing up stuff that detracts from that point.

Nil Einne (talk) 13:30, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

• This has never been about the accuracy of the article complaints here, so much as the appropriate remedies for how to fix them. The text in the article was over-specific for what the source literally stated. If an editor sees that as a problem, then there are quick, easy fixes to that such as either rewording to only match what can literally be supported (one observed device resembles such a device) or else (as appears likely to be the case) noting that resembling USB devices seems to be an ongoing theme across the market and finding additional broader sources to support that broader claim. But shouting "FAILS VERIFICATION!!" from the rooftops and demanding the article is deleted as a consequence is an over-reaction. A disruptive over-reaction. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:48, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Here's a straightforward example of disruptive tag-bombing: [127]

"...however the health risks are currently undetermined as they are new productions." {{CN}}

"...the health risks of these are also unknown and not well-studied." {{CN}}

Two tags of those added, where a high school philosophy freshman should be able to spot the fallacy.

If the text read, "the risks have been quantified", then that would be a WP:biomedical claim rightly needing WP:MEDRS. But it isn't, it's the opposite of that. It falls under WP:BLUESKY. They are new (this is unchallenged, and anyway met by RS elsewhere) and there are no known studies. If an especially pedantic editor wanted to qualify the wording of the statement (at the cost of losing clarity as an encyclopedia) then they could reword as "No studies are known at present (2019) to the authors of this WP article", which would be pointless yet justifiable. But to demand citations is ridiculous: "New things are unknown" is not merely uncited, it is unciteable, and that is a matter of classical logic, not medical quackery. To then take that as an excuse for deletion (read the edit summary added) is disruptive above all else. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:04, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

• Without wanting to express any strong views about Quack's overall editing, I request that, if any decisions need to be made, you all please kindly limit the number of RFCs involved. A couple of months ago, QuackGuru had ten (10!) separate RFCs about e-cigs underway at one time. As some of you know, I've followed the RFC advice pages for years and years, and I cannot recall a single instance in which another editor had even half that many content RFCs underway at one time. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:11, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
• Agreed that this is WP:OWN behauvior, and QuackGuru has staggering 2,449 edits in e-cigarette according to Xtools edit count. Not everything related to e-cigs should be vetted by one person. --Pudeo (talk) 19:21, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
• My impression which seems to be supported by WP:AfD, WP:ATD-R and Wikipedia:Merging is that it's not always necessary to AfD something where merging or redirection while keeping the old article is the desired outcome even if these are possible outcomes of an AfD. If it's expected to be uncontentious, no discussion may be needed. It may also be acceptable to rely on other forms of discussion like RfCs. This is in part because merging or redirecting (while keeping the article) are explicitly not a form of deletion as no admin action is needed and the edit history is still there. These actions can be reverted by anyone like with normal editing processes. However it's recognised that many editors will not be aware of this, so care needs to be taken and sometimes AfD may be better. Note that this is explicitly not an endorsement of QuackGuru's actions. If you've found a hoax, it needs to be deleted so you should use some deletion process. It's harmful to simply redirect or merge a hoax as you're running the risk someone will revert to the hoax either intentionally or accidentally. But I agree with others it doesn't seem this is a hoax, based on the sources and the fact the info was merged anyway. QuackGuru's other actions here also seem concerning. Nil Einne (talk) 05:58, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

It's been pointed out to be my QuackGuru they didn't merge content so I've struck that portion of my comment above. Instead I will say "But I agree with others it doesn't seem this is a hoax, based on the sources and the fact that the info or very similar info already existed in another article they redirect to. It possible that some of the content in the original article failed verification and this needed to be dealt with, but it's clear that the article itself and the concept it dealt with was not a hoax. To reiterate what I said, if it was a hoax it needed to be deleted outright not simply redirected." Nil Einne (talk) 06:51, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

• " These actions can be reverted by anyone like with normal editing processes. "

No, they can't be "reverted by anyone". It needs a particularly thick-skinned editor to disagree with QuackGuru. Their immediate reaction is to place a dire warning box on the editor's talk: page, threatening sanctions (despite the fact that ArbCom's ruling behind such sanctions was directed at QuackGuru). Then they fire up threads in the walled garden of the medical project, demanding the use of sources to MEDRS, just to say what year a commercial product was launched or whether it's the shape of a USB stick. And they will still not join the debate here at ANI, a thread specifically about their behaviour. This is QuackGuru going out of their way to place barriers in front of other editors, and that's usually an effective strategy to imposing their single viewpoint onto articles. This has nothing about article quality or verifiable standards, it's about refusing to cooperate. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:16, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

So, you're saying that "dire warning box" is too frightening? --Calton | Talk 08:38, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

• I've always said that. It's completely unfit for purpose. It threatens other editors, it's unclear as to what it means, it's unclear as to how other editors ought to respond to it or should change their editing. It's used by a handful of established editors in order to intimidate others, and it's often highly effective against blameless new editors (read some of the Teahouse reactions to being hit with it).

Worst of all is its lack of clarity. It doesn't link to any good explanation of what "Discretionary Sanctions" are and what they mean for ongoing editing. The justification for them (i.e. the source ArbCom case) is hidden and mostly irrelevant to the current situation. These DS boxes are mostly used by two editors: one who favours a DS box linking to an ArbCom case that was rescinded or else (in this case) a case where the editor pasting the warning box was one of those being admonished by ArbCom.

So yes, this is just a scary stick to try and frighten other editors with. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:02, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Regardless, that has nothing to do with my point which is that there has never been any policy or guideline requiring that redirects and merges must go through AfD. Nor my point that redirects and merges are explicitly not a form of deletion and can technically be reverted by anyone (given the limits of page protection, edit filters, and editor blocks). Note I also said that QuackGuru's actions were wrong here but that doesn't change the general point I made which you challenged. QuackGuru should be called out for their problematic editing. What you've alleged of their behaviour may be a problem, but failing to use AfDs for merges or redirects it not itself a problem unless the conditions when they did so is a problem. Likewise, if QuackGuru prevents people reverting when they should and can that's a problem, but that doesn't change the way merges and redirects operate. That said, I'm not sure that QuackGuru is even putting barriers in place for reversion. Giving a discretionary sanctions notice to someone who had not been notified seems fair enough. I'd note an editor does not need to be "thick-skinned", they just need to properly understand the notice or the discretionary sanctions process in general to know that such notices are irrelevant to whether or not they can revert if justified and of course that QuackGuru's actions would also be covered under the discretionary sanctions regime if their actions are. Not to mention skin thickness does not matter if the editor has received a notice within the past year meaning they cannot receive another one. Nil Einne (talk) 13:18, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

• I've no objection to the use of either AfD or talk: page discussion, or anything similar, but there needs to be opportunity for discussion by some means, and QuackGuru is doing their best to avoid it at all. Their actions are instant, so that WP:FAIT applies, and they're hedging even the smallest issue around with the biggest obstacles of MEDRS etc that they can.

Juul is pretty obviously investing in high quality design to make an attractive product, more than a merely functional one. It does have resemblances to a USB stick, in both size and shaping. The amount of arguing against this and the sources involved, and the implication that the article needs to be deleted as a result, are out of all proportion to the underlying issue. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:38, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Nil Einne, the discretionary sanctions notices are scary for most people – perhaps for almost everyone except the few editors who like to spam them around at every opportunity. We've tried to clarify the wording – I was involved in the effort to specify that this situation exists because of other editors, and doesn't say anything about your own contributions – but they are still perceived by the recipients as direct and immediate threats. I have been wondering whether it would make sense to ban their delivery by people who are in disputes. In the current free-for-all situation, an editor who is edit warring can drop that notice on your talk page. In that situation, it is no wonder that people think the underlying message is "Let me own this article, or I'll get you blocked". WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:26, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Have to disagree. For new editors, yes I agree they are often scary and confusing. For anyone familiar with the regime, they are generally not scary. For editors who aren't new but are also less familiar with the discretionary sanctions regime IMO it varies. I have said before that IMO it's best if an editor involved in a dispute with another editor, or who simply often disagrees with the other editor doesn't hand them out. Instead an uninvolved editor or even better someone friendly with the editor should hand them out. But I also feel that any ban on people who may hand them out would carry a reasonable risk of making the regime less effective. I myself have handed them out on a few occasions, mostly when I see someone at one of the ANs who is editing the area and where I feel there is a chance the regime may be useful. I admit this may not be ideal, but I generally avoid simultaneously criticising the editor a lot or getting involved in any dispute. Thinking more of something I said above, I wonder if it may be helpful to add something to the template emphasising they apply to all editors including the one handing out the notice if they are involved in the topic area. But this is perhaps getting too far off topic. I stand by my claim that you do not have to be a thick skinned editor to be largely unaffected by the possibility of notices. For example anyone familiar with the regime or anyone who has already received a notice and some other editors. This is particularly significant here since RoySmith and Andy Dingley themselves seem to be 2 of the major editors involved in the article and I do not believe either of them should be affected by receiving a discretionary sanctions notice. The creator User talk:Sydneystudent123456 doesn't seem to have received a notice either [128] Nil Einne (talk) 16:49, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

It's possible true that "anyone familiar with the regime" will be unaffected. However, that restriction basically excludes 99% of registered editors. In my experience, it's really hard for long-time editors like us to even imagine what our system looks like to people who aren't us. For example: Less than 10% of registered editors (all accounts, ever, specifically at this wiki) are autoconfirmed. The median number of undeleted edits for registered accounts is zero. Think about what that means for our assumptions about what "most" editors do or think or feel. We are not like most editors. I might receive these notices with the realization that another editor is trying to escalate a dispute. The median editor receives them with as little nonchalance as they would receive notice of a dispute from their nation's tax agency. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:14, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Well I never disputed that discussion should be allowed. My point was and remains that we should not conflated merging and redirection with deletion, and also that other processes can be used instead of AfD for that discussion. I felt this was important since the initial comment seem to come close to suggesting the opposite. I don't really see a point to argue content issues like what Juul makes and USB sticks on this page and was never suggesting we do so. My point with that was that the content did fail verification. As I said, I don't think adding a failed verification tag was the right way to handle that but I stand by my view it's very confusing to imply the content did not fail verification when it did fail verification (even if some part of the content was verified by the source). Nil Einne (talk) 16:53, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

• So, still no response from @QuackGuru: and the WP:OWN continues on the article(s). Per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Editor_conduct_in_e-cigs_articles#QuackGuru_Warned, is it time to escalate to WP:AE? The edits themselves might be debatable as a content issue, but the refusal to discuss is disruptive. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:28, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
  • My original post a couple of days ago got lost in an edit conflict. It may be time to escalate this to WP:AE if you think that helps resolve this issue.
  • After I read this comment I decided to make a quick post here.
  • I am discussing the issues on the talk page, but this is a new article and there are very few editors watching the article. The edits themselves can be considered a content issue. I made a bold edit to redirect it because the Construction of electronic cigarettes article discusses the different types of devices and there was a lot of misinformation about the pod mods in the new article. There is new content about pod mods in the Construction of electronic cigarettes that is 100% sourced. See Construction of electronic cigarettes#Pod mods. I wrote the content myself and I did not copy content from any other article. Having a splinter article seems more like a WP:REDUNDANTFORK. QuackGuru (talk) 18:21, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

I've had similar problems with Quackguru, and I haven't managed to discuss most of them them productively: see this discussion, and much of my talk page. Aside from my own ignorance and mistakes (advice welcome), there are a few recurrent sources of conflict, which it would be good to have resolved.

On merging, redirection, and deletion, I'd like to raise what I see as obfuscation of article and talk histories (example, original article) and, more trivially, QG's own draft space (for instance, pages titled with totally unrelated word, or an IPA schwa character). QG's manual archiving of talk page discussions, which matches the clear-desk ethos of QG's talk page, can be inconvenient to part-time and intermittent editors.

Draft-replacing content is fast, but it feels a bit like driving a flail tank through a community vinyard to till it.

I really don't like it when QuackGuru privately writes a parallel article in the draftspace, then overwrites the multieditor article. It is especially frustrating when QG has, while writing the draft, been asking other editors to fix problems identified by QG in the article (or delete or redirect the article), without telling them of the any plan to replace their work with the draft. If editor efforts are in competition, anyone who spends less time editing than QG, or edits more slowly, is at a disadvantage.

QG sometimes uses language I find needlessly threatening (prod example). I have, in the past, overreacted to QG's warnings (though not that one). I've learned that the best response to threats of formal complaints is to urge QG to follow through with them. QG often repeatedly raises issues with my editing. When the issues are irrelevant to the discussion at hand, or when I have acknowledged faults, apologized, and fixed, or when the forum is one I only come across by chance, this feels like mudslinging (example).

I strongly support inline tagging, but I often find QG's tags trivial (some phrasing and page number requests) or incomprehensible (many fv tags). Quackguru seems to mostly think that every sentence must have exactly one source at the end of it. It is also difficult to steer between Scylla and Charybdis with closeness to sources; QG opposes both excessively close paraphrases as copyvio and excessively loose ones as failed-verification. This leads to passages in the first style below:

Anon was born in the 19th century[1]. She was born in Nowheretown[2]. Her parents worked as cobblers[3]. Her mother was named named Anan[3]. Her father was named Anen[4]. Anon attended Nowheretown School[4]. She studied basketmaking in her first two years at Nowheretown School[4]. She also studied applied agrostology in her last year at Nowheretown School[5]. In 1882, the Nowheretown Post described her as a "elderly lady".[6] In 1882, the Journal of Applied Agrostology said that she was well-known to for her "application of agrostology to basketmaking"[7]. She died in 1882[8]. Her son gave the Nowheretown Botanic Gardens and Handicrafts Museum her collections[7]. Her collections included herbarium specimens and furniture[7].

Anon was born in Nowheretown[1] in the 1880s[1] to two cobblers[3] named Anan[3] and Anen[4]. At Nowheretown School, she studied first basketmaking[4], then applied agrostology[5]. In later life,[6] she became well-known for her application of agrostology to basketmaking[7][8]. When she died at an advanced age in 1882, the Journal of Applied Agrostology published an obituary praising her work. Her herbarium specimens and furniture were donated to the Nowheretown Botanic Gardens and Handicrafts Museum[7].

Example obviously made up, to avoid using a controversial topic. I'll also give a real style example; readers may also wish to see if they can spot the two paragraphs of QG's style in Nicotine marketing. A few examples of citation disagreements, all from one page:

• Talk:Heat-not-burn product/Archive 2
• Talk:Heat-not-burn_product/Archive 1#Confusion
• Talk:Heat-not-burn_product/Archive 3#Copyright violation
• Talk:Heat-not-burn_product/Archive 9#Bogus_citation

QuackGuru has argued that that all sources must include wording matching the article title. This severely constrains editor judgment in determining the article scope and providing context (example). Likewise constraining is Quackguru's view that an image cannot be included in an article unless a source says that it illustrates the article topic (one "humorous" example).

Because we have a history of conflict, I probably don't see QG's best side; we all tend to give more consideration to those we respect, an exacerbating feedback. The next two paragraphs may therefore be unduly harsh.

I rarely get the sense that QG is intellectually engaged in a content discussion, and discussions with QG tend go nowhere via long strings of characters. I often find QG's posts unclear, and it takes several exchanges to extract a meaning I'd expect to get in two sentences. QG often does not answer direct questions, and reiterates the same points or ones I find logically unconnected, until I've wondered if my own posts are even being read. This communications burden often puts off other editors who would otherwise engage on topics of interest to QuackGuru (example). I think a majority of my talk page posts have been made in response to QG; I never came in contact with QG for the first decade or so of my editing.

Obviously I disagree with some of QuackGuru's interpretations of rules, and formal guidance on these issues might help reduce conflict. However, more generally, I feel that QuackGuru tends to focus overmuch on using rules to control article content, rather than on understanding and improving content. I'm therefore not sure that providing more rules would help much (especially since combativeness tends, even with the best will in the world, to be infectious). I'm not sure what would help, though QuackGuru has some views. HLHJ (talk) 22:02, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Edited in response to User talk:HLHJ#Allegations without supporting evidence. HLHJ (talk) 22:48, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

This very much matches my experience of dealing with QuackGuru. They seem to be more interested in content as a sequence of matching text strings and they have no interest in or understanding of any meaning behind that. They are also persistently either unwilling or incapable of communicating with other editors to any normal level: they see interaction as a series of barriers and obstacles, not as an opprtunity to share information. The "I would have commented to this ANI thread about me days ago, but there was an edit conflict" claim is simply not credible. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:07, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Actually, I do think that QuackGuru is interested in the meaning of content, as QG edits on specific topics of interest, with an identifiable point of view on those topics (which I do not consider unacceptable, or avoidable). I find I can often predict which statements QG will tag and remove, and if and how QG is likely to alter statements, but I find it harder to predict what objections QG will make to the statements. I haven't gotten the impression that QG is very interested in teaching me or learning from me, which I would be OK with if we were not in conflict. I'm not very good at social interactions myself, and I have sympathy with editors who want to minimize the social side of editing; there are unobjectionable ways of doing this. HLHJ (talk) 00:13, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Well I am out. I normally don't edit controversial things and I try to avoid WP:MEDRS sections of articles as I don't feel comfortable judging if sources are reliable enough. I still think this is a valid article separate from e-cigs as there are a few articles on Google Scholar from JAMA and NEJM which focus on Pod Mods in general.There are also a handful of articles in mainstream sources that also focus on the category rather than a specific brand. That makes it pass WP:GNG in my eyes but apparently not in others. spryde | talk 11:46, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

I've stayed away from this discussion for a few days since I felt I'd said enough and it was better to let others comment. Since it still doesn't seem to have achieved a clear resolution and there are suggestions for AE I'll just make a few final comments.

One, I think QuackGuru's refusal to engage in this ANI is concerning. While sometimes when it's without merit it's fair enough to just let others deal with an ANI on your behaviour, and it's easy to harm yourself with poorly considered posts at ANI; IMO there were enough serious concerns here to warrant at least some comment. It's clear QuackGuru was paying attention since they quickly approached editors who had commented when they had concerns (me and from the sounds of it HLJH).

Two, I'm also concerned there has been no real engagement with QuackGuru on Talk:Pod mods over article content issues. Whatever concerns there over QuackGuru's conduct, I do not believe they warrant ignoring their attempts at engagement, especially since one of the concerns was their refusal to discuss their concerns over article content. To be fair (paraphrasing here) 'should I delete half the article content as unsourced' is not something that's easy to engage with. But when QuackGuru raises specific concerns over specific text failing verification (or whatever), I think at least some action should be expected even if it's just a quick comment 'no you're wrong, the source says XYZ' or minor rewording to fix the problem or finding a new source or whatever.

Three, and bear in mind I have basically no experience with AE and I'm not an admin, I feel if an AE case is raised it would be best to concentrate on clear cut examples. For example whatever problems there may be with posting discretionary sanctions notices unless these are clearly inappropriate (user is already away, user never edited the area) I have doubts they'd get much heed. Likewise saying something did not fail verification because it mentions USB-likeness when it didn't mention the other stuff may not be a great example. Either say that even if it technically failed verification blindly tagging it along with a whole load of other content was not the best way to handle it. Or find refs which do support this content add them and if QuackGuru continues to complain because they don't like 2 sources then maybe you have an example. (I think the former already happened but it's still IMO an example of what happened early in this case that would best be avoided at AE.)

Nil Einne (talk) 07:46, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

• Gah the article on pod mod needs work. These are simply a form of electronic cigarette. Does it need its own article? Not convinced... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:37, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

• No-one is disputing that it needs work – except perhaps QuackGuru, who thinks that such work is impossible and the whole lot needs to be deleted.

Are they notable? Well, my first comment on the talk: page was to ask just that. QuackGuru thinks they're distinct, and has created a CFORK on that basis. I'm still unconvinced (I am too busy to do any editing for the next few weeks), but if they are (and I think they are) it's because the Juul is not merely another e-cigarette. Whether there are any pod mods other than Juul is a separate question. But it seems (from what little I've had time to read) that the difference with them is nothing to do with replaceable coils and it's actually about the chemistry of the fluid used. Juul is using nicotine salts, which appear to have significantly different biological effects. If pod mods are really different from other e-cigs, it's this different chemistry which makes it. However QuackGuru has already stripped the redlinks and decided that it's "just not notable".

They are impossible to work with. They do not engage with others, they do not engage with serious efforts to try and answer specific issues, they just keep re-posting "Can I delete all this yet?". They don't need permission to do so in the first place: they need to justify it. But asking over and over again is a way to get this "permission" by attrition and omission. If they simply persist long enough, more and more editors will say "Well I am out." and when it goes quiet, they can delete the article "because no one complained beforehand". That is not acceptable editing: we have to collaborate here, and none of us get to simply ignore the others. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:40, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

As someone who is a domain expert in certain topic areas who, like QuackGuru, has a massive edit count in those articles and been involved in numerous content disputes, I have also had WP:OWN thrown at me in content disputes by other involved editors. It is both really disingenuous and a very clear case of fundamental attribution error (i.e., a cognitive bias) to ascribe another editor's reversion of your edits and those of others who are a party in the dispute as WP:OWN without a clear statement of ownership. An editor is violating WP:OWN if the they make a statement of ownership and/or take action to prevent all others from modifying an article so as to effectively retain an exclusive right to edit an article, decide what content it shows, or otherwise dictate what an article states (that's also what ownership of literally anything entails). If you don't have clear evidence of an editor making such a statement or rolling back everyone's edits to an article, do not cite that policy. It is pointlessly inflammatory and I've personally found it annoying to be on the receiving end of that. Frankly, I don't know what experienced Wikipedian would actually believe that they have, or could possibly retain for any length of time, an exclusive right to anything on Wikipedia (the only exception would be the copyright to any CC-BY-SA-3.0-licensed article text that an editor contributes, as that is an exclusive right). Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 05:52, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

• Read the other page discussions. There's little edit-warring in mainspace, because they've already slapped warning dialogs around to threaten some unspecific editing restriction. But on the talk: discussions, we keep looping through the same sequence. "There is a minor wording issue over a very minor topic, where the source does not use those literal words" – 'OK, what change is needed? Just do it' – "This source FAILS VERIFICATION so I've removed it altogether." – 'Don't do that. It means the content doesn't match, not that the source is bad' – "I'm going to delete the whole article again" – 'Why are you ignoring the ANI thread?'.

This is OWN, even if not in mainspace. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:31, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

I have been thinking over my last post, and I have an example of QG responding to new editors. QG reverted the mostly-easily-salvagable edits, but spontaneously posted on the talk page with some explanation of why. This suggests to me that QG is willing to teach newcomers, but is not always using effective methods (in this case, the new editors did not engage). Sometimes QG has spent far longer getting me to fix problems than it would have taken for QG to fix them and post saying "You should have done this" (example); I think this is partly communications difficulties.

QuackGuru often adds very high densities of inline tags to content I've written, and insists that I fix the content. Some of the reasons behind the inline tags are trivial fixes, things you'd think would be easier to fix than to tag, but most of the problems QG points out are not obvious, and I find many debatable. Any fix I attempt is usually swiftly re-tagged, accompanied by talkpage posts that my changes have made the content even worse, and it would be best to delete the lot and start again. When I add templates criticizing content in articles in which QG takes an interest, QG has reverted the addition (invariably, as far as I can recall). QuackGuru occasionally reverts edits of mine that QG requested via inline tags (for instance, the addition of a large number of verifying quotes, accompanied by translations from the French and German, which took me some hours of editing time: 1, 2, 3).

I don't think this behaviour motivated by bad faith. QuackGuru believes that I lack the WP:CIR to edit, so I think the motive is to improve the content by protecting it from me, keeping me busy with makework until I move to another content area. This is logical and effective, in the short term. Taking the long-term consequences into account, though, it also turns editors wanting to work in this area into opponents instead of collaborators.

For me, this discussion is therefore not primarily about the podmod article (I've been uninvolved with it, apart from a point-of-information talkpage post in answer to a question), or any one article.

I'm a bit uncomfortable addressing all this in the third person. QuackGuru, I know you are reading, and I'm not intending to ignore you, slight you, or speak behind your back. I'd be happy to discuss the roots of our editing conflicts with you in another forum, including a more private one. HLHJ (talk) 15:10, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

• Without recommending a remedy, I would like to say that QG has severe OWNership issues with regard to e-cigarettes. I mean, he truly believes he owns the subject and no one else should be allowed to edit there. I tried to get involved with the coverage about recent illnesses and deaths from vaping, but was totally stonewalled and eventually gave up. His style includes spinning off multiple sub-articles, so that he can put disputed content into all of them and no one can keep up. His articles are so technical and detailed, and so focused on single individual studies (quite the opposite of how MEDRS is supposed to work), that there is literally no way for a reader to gain an overall understanding of the subject. I tried for several weeks to make a few of the articles more readable; no luck. I tried to get him to tone down his promotion of the theory that the recent illnesses and deaths are caused by Vitamin E acetate; no luck. The investigating agencies are saying over and over that they don’t know the cause and there are many different histories of what the affected people used in vaping, but he is convinced acetate is the issue and his articles convey that. I know he is a very prolific editor, but IMO what he produces is non-neutral and unreadable, and his attitude is the very opposite of the collaboration that Wikipedia is supposed to be about. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:37, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

• • Please provide evidence of spinning off multiple sub-articles, so that I can put disputed content into all of them and no one can keep up. The only recent spin off was "2019 United States outbreak of lung illness linked to vaping products". It is way too long to merge. There is a summary in the safety article. I also started "Vaping-associated pulmonary injury" after discussing it with WikiProject Medicine.
  • You stated "I tried for several weeks to make a few of the articles more readable; no luck." Can you provide diffs where you tried to make them more readable?
  • See "The CDC stated that the cases have not been linked to one product or substance, saying "Most patients have reported a history of using e-cigarette products containing THC. Many patients have reported using THC and nicotine. Some have reported the use of e-cigarette products containing only nicotine."[5] Many of the samples tested by the states or by the US Food and Drug Administration (US FDA) as part of the 2019 investigation have been identified as vaping products containing tetrahydrocannabinol (or THC, a psychoactive component of the cannabis plant).[8] Most of those samples with THC tested also contained significant amounts of Vitamin E acetate.[8]"
  • The CDC and the US FDA have both reported similar things. I included content from both of them. QuackGuru (talk) 16:03, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
    • I’m not inclined to spend much additional time over this, but if you insist: Here, on September 7, was where I updated the article and put the CDC warning into the lead. This was the “Safety of electronic cigarettes” article (before you spun off the separate article about recent illnesses), so a CDC warning about safety seemed like the single most important thing to have in the lead. But you immediately removed it,[129] falsely citing “failed verification” when in fact it was well cited. Correction: your reason for removing it from the "safety" article was that it was mentioned in two other articles. So that means it can't be in the "safety" article where it is clearly relevant? That's an example of how you use (and misuse) subarticles.

For some reason you strongly objected to putting any warning into the "safety article" lead, leaving the lead full of years-old studies indicating that vaping could be relatively harmless or even beneficial. As recently as September 11 the lead of the safety article still didn’t mention the outbreak of disease and death. In fact it said (based on a 2016 report) that the risk of serious adverse effects was low, while it rambled on about possible battery explosions. I remember arguing with you about the necessity of putting the warning in the lead of that and several related articles; that argument is here. Finally on September 11 I was able to get a sentence about the outbreak (without mentioning the CDC warning) in the Safety article lead.[130]

Now that I have researched this, at your request, I see that this issue wasn’t just with me and it wasn't just one article. Doc James inserted the CDC warning into the lead of the main Electronic cigarette article three times on September 7, and you removed it three times, [131] prompting him to issue a warning on your talk page.[132] In other words, you kept insisting the warning couldn’t be in the lead of any article, even though that was only your own opinion, vs. well supported arguments to include it from two other people. Like I said, you don’t believe in collaboration or consensus; you believe you OWN these articles. That is not how Wikipedia works. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:22, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

You added on September 7, a CDC warning. This was added to the Safety of electronic cigarettes article before I created a spin-off. I removed it, along with rewriting other content, correctly citing "failed verification" for "WDHS2019". Both citations did not verify the same claim for "In 2019 hundreds of cases of severe lung disease were reported among users of e-cigarettes." The US-centric view for "recommending against the use of e-cigarettes because of their association with severe respiratory disease." was not a neutral summary for the lede. It was replaced with neutral content. See Safety of electronic cigarettes: "In 2019, an outbreak of severe lung illness across multiple states in the US has been linked to the use of vaping products.[23]" Also see Electronic cigarettes: In 2019, an outbreak of severe lung illness across multiple states in the US was linked to vaping.[105] Adding a US-centric warning to the lede of "Safety of electronic cigarettes" or "Electronic cigarette" is not neutral. The outbreak is in the US only. More than one editor objected to including a US-centric warning. See Talk:Electronic_cigarette/Archive 31#US-centric. Simply stating the facts in the lede that there is an outbreak is far more neutral than including a US-centric warning. I did add the CDC warning to the Electronic cigarette.[133] It is still in the Electronic cigarette. See Electronic_cigarette#Positions_of_medical_organizations. I did add it to the lede of the Positions of medical organizations on electronic cigarettes article. QuackGuru (talk) 18:11, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Simply stating the facts in the lede that there is an outbreak is far more neutral than including a US-centric warning. And that's what I did, here, although apparently even that wasn't worded to your satisfaction and you reworded it. I'm done here, but my comments stand: you insist that everything at these articles, great or small, has to be done your way. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:09, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

You added "In September 2019 the Center for Disease Control and Prevention reported an outbreak of severe lung disease in the US associated with the use of e-cigarette products.[16]" The CDC reported an outbreak in September 2019, but the outbreak started before September 2019. I fixed the inaccurate content. When did the outbreak start? "Cases involved in the outbreak of severe lung illness associated with vaping products were first identified in Illinois and Wisconsin in April 2019.[13]" I wrote accurate content without misleading or biased content. QuackGuru (talk) 19:24, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

See here. QuackGuru (talk) 19:42, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Propose ban

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 largely stayed out of this, but I've slowly come to the conclusion that QuackGuru is a lost cause. We should just WP:CBAN him and stop this endless time sink.

I made an attempt to work with him. See the Talk:Pod mod#Failed verification content thread. He questioned whether Research reveals potential health risks in aerosolizing nicotine salts and metal toxins that are produced was verified by the cited reference. I decided to investigate.

My first task was to find a copy of the reference, and discovered that it existed on-line, so I updated the reference to include the URL, and some other minor reformatting while I was at it. This earned me a complaint 10 minutes later that, The citation was formatted but that does not solve the FV problem. I continued to read the cited source and concluded that QuackGuru was correct; it did indeed not verify the claim made in the article, which I stated on the talk page. Amazingly enough, his response to my agreeing with him was yet another salvo.

Somewhere in there, he dropped a Template:Ds/alert on my talk page. What purpose this served other than an attempt at intimidation, I can't imagine. I've got a pretty thick skin, but I imagine most new editors would be scared by this and disengage. Which I assume is exactly the intended result.

Irksome habits like continually blanking their talk page, while not forbidden, certainly does make it more difficult to interact with them.

Every interaction between him and other editors that I've observed over the past few days is aggressive and just attempts to bludgeon the enemy into submission rather than engage in a productive discussion with them. It is good that they insist on correctness and verification through reliable sources, but they take it to such an extreme that nobody can work with them. This makes them a net negative to the project.

I count 19 blocks, spanning 12 years, for QuackGuru already. It's hard to imagine that any additional attempts at behavior modification will be any more successful than the past ones. It's time to cut our losses. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:12, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

QuackGuru has been very productive in Wikiproject Medicine articles...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:38, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

QuackGuru has done good work over the years. I agree with a fair number of the concerns they raised at the pod mod article. Their redirect with the claim that it is a "hoax article" however is not accurate and I would advise them to be more careful with their words. Not sure I see the issue with this notice.[134] I had a personalized notice placed upon my talk page about the existence of DS with respect to gun related issues a few days ago.[135] I took it as a useful FYI. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:16, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Agree with Doc James. Clearly some concerns raised here are valid, but just as clearly some are overstated. The volume and quality of QuackGuru's work is impressive. I agree they need to improve their collaboration. But a ban is over the top. Cloudjpk (talk) 20:26, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose ban QuackGuru operates in Wikipedia's most controversial medical spaces. I perceive QuackGuru to be an advocate for the consumer, medical journals, and WP:MEDRS standards. Most commonly QuackGuru is in conflict with editors who advocate for or sympathize with the position in alignment with corporate industries well known for aggressive propaganda in favor of harmful health practices. In this case we are talking about nicotine use where a billion-dollar industry is selling a drug with health effects and which is lobbying globally to control the conversation. Everyone who edits the Wikipedia nicotine articles will be read by a billion people including all journalists, lobbyists, doctors, policy makers, and the lawyers in the related lawsuits. The money tied up here is obscene considering that advocacy for science in this space has no budget, and in large part is defended by QuackGuru with support of others. When Wikipedia is the target of hundreds of paid lobbyists I expect missteps and misunderstandings from any volunteer editor. I do not perceive the problem here to be QuackGuru, but rather, the center of the problem is the topic itself and the infinite funding available to pay people to endlessly argue the minutiae of the topic to the limits of the Wikipedia process. Most people who edit here are not lobbyists but propaganda is in the heads of everyone who thinks about this topic and extreme caution is a useful norm for this space. QuackGuru knows the wiki bureaucracy and runs discussions and editing discussions by wiki process. I expect content in this space to move slowly and be more cautious than in other articles where a billion dollars and national economies are not the stakes of what Wikipedia publishes and which politicians read when they are making laws. If anyone enters such controversial topics then they should expect bureaucracy, be forgiving, move slowly, and feel free to call on mediation processes such as seeking comment from WikiProjects such as WP:MED or any lightweight process such as WP:3O. I understand why anyone would be frustrated in such unusual articles but this is how extreme controversy works on wiki. The environment is crazy and everyone who enters it will have to abandon some humanity and become a bit of a robot and bureaucrat. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:44, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose ban per Bluerasberry. It is regrettable that QG causes frustration but the topics are frustrating with conflicting interests colliding. I have not checked all relevant edits, but I have seen that QG is on the side of reliable sources. Johnuniq (talk) 23:53, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

• And by implication, anyone who disagrees with him isn't? Andy Dingley (talk) 23:59, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
• He is on the side of the reliable sources that support his position, but resorts to all sorts of tricks to ignore or downplay those that don't! Johnbod (talk) 03:29, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose ban after reading the thread, the underlying issue is literally just a content dispute in a contentious topic area which has gotten out of hand. Content disputes in such subjects are not unexpected/infrequent and sometimes editors who are party to one − myself included − make errors in judgment. That is absolutely not a suitable justification for a site ban unless said error is particularly eggregious. Personally, I think everyone involved should just take a step back, take some time to cool off for a day or two, then come back to the table to discuss the issue and sort out the underlying problem. I don't think anyone who is a party to this dispute is currently acting in an appropriate manner for the purpose of dispute resolution; dispute resolution involves identifying underlying issues, correctly interpreting and applying relevant content policy, and trying to find common ground. In other words, take some time to cool off and make the effort to talk it out; do not neglect engaging in a discussion with all involved parties on a talk page or escalate further argument by making baseless inflammatory accusations pertaining to behavioral policies, applying unfaithful interpretations of content policy as justifications, or otherwise undermining the dispute resolution process. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 05:52, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - The basis for this complaint is invalid. There is quite literally nothing wrong with performing a unilateral blank-and-redirect in good faith, per both deletion and redirection policies. If such an act is contested, it can be reverted and discussed and proceed to dispute resolution, just like any other content dispute. As a matter of policy, and contrary to the OP's claims, it is not considered to be either disruptive or an inappropriate circumvention of deletion process. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 23:15, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - No good reason given. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:11, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. As other's have mentioned, the basis of the complaints were invalid, and the doubling down trying to get a site ban after the initial section didn't gain traction looks like battleground behavior that has no place in a DS topic. If RoySmith was actually a regular in the topic I'd suggest a WP:BOOMERANG in the form of either a topic ban or interaction ban for RoySmith to try to settle the topic down, so I'd at least suggest a decent sized WP:TROUT instead.

My understanding based on when I see QuackGuru's editing pop up here is that QuackGuru often acts through WP:STEWARDSHIP in e-cig topics, and those in content disputes with Quack are trying to portray that as WP:OWN here instead. If advocacy is still a problem in this subject that gets stewards acting terse while still engaging in discussion (which seems to be the case when you look at diffs or lack thereof vs. claims made at this ANI about Quack), the DS need to be enforced more stringently to the cut to the source of the disruption. I haven't seen anything presented here that indicates Quack is a true source of disruption in the topic (and I'd change my mind if I did), much less the entire project. This ANI reads as an attempt at a gotcha of a frustrated editor in order to win a content dispute though. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:52, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose: I fail to see a legitimate policy-based reason for this suggested sanction. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 14:45, 7 October 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.

Propose small measures applying to all parties

(originally part of ban discussion) QuackGuru is a bit of a Wikidragon, and does write large amounts of content. As BlueRaspberry points out, this is an area in which content is expected to move slowly, so QG's wish to make drastic changes causes more conflict. I do not see QuackGuru as always being on the side of the evidence: short example. However, I do not see this as sufficient reason to ban. I'd suggest the following remedies, all of which should apply to everyone in this topic area, not just QuackGuru:

• the same standards should apply to one's own edits as one applies to the edits of others. Editors should avoid COI by not removing templates criticizing their own content, unless they have a good-faith belief that the problem has been fixed (not the belief that it never existed).
• we should not template things that are easier to fix than to template.
• fv tags may be hard to understand. Inline tags in this topic area should have a informative |reason= parameter, and may be deleted if none is supplied by an editor aware of the need.
• all edits in this controversial area should initially be made incrementally. Only after incremental addition of content fails should an RfC be used to add the content. An RFC should not be started before the matter and the RfC question have been discussed on the talk page.
• any non-minor edits suggested by declared COI editors should seek talk page consensus before inclusion in the article.
• long reverts, especially reverts of several weeks of complex good-faith edits by multiple editors, should be clearly labeled as "reversion to version of [timestamp]". Discussion should not be avoided.
• it is not OK to follow the letter of rules, but circumvent their spirit. Misuses of process, such as getting a consensus for deleting an article in order to replace it with a version one has already written, should not be undertaken.
• in this controversial area, we should avoid doing things that curtail or hide talk discussions, such as needless discussion forking, manual archiving, and using WP:G7 to delete and immediately recreate pages.
• DS notifications, formal or informal, should not be repeated more than once a year, or made in a way that implies personal criticism or threat. Generally, the matter should only be raised with the formal template.
• per Wikipedia:Citation overkill, two or three citations may be used to support a single sentence. Per convention, different citations may be used to support different parts of the same sentence. Where it is simple, these citations should be separated so that it is obvious what section of the sentence they support (for instance, a citation at the end of each clause: Smith said X[1], and Jones said Y[2]). Where this would contort the sentence structure or otherwise impede readability, Template:Refn may be used to insert a note clarifying which fact comes from which source.

Is there anyone who feels that their editing would be seriously hindered by following these guidelines? HLHJ (talk) 15:10, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Proposed editing restrictions short of a ban

I don't think a ban as justified at the moment, but having read this thread its clear that QG's approach to editing in this is not without problems. Accordingly I think restrictions should of a topic ban should be tried first - I'm thinking perhaps in the eCigs topic area:

1. 1 revert restriction.
2. A revert of anything that is not self-evidently vandalism or a personal attack must be explained on the relevant talk page.
3. Prohibition on converting an article to a redirect. They may propose merging and/or redirecting on the talk page, and they may nominate for deletion.
4. Prohibition on moving any page to or from draftspace. They may propose doing so on the talk page.
5. No significant addition or removal of content without first getting consensus on the talk page.
6. No placing tags (including failed verification and citation needed) on an article without first either (a) rewording the content to match the source, and/or (b) attempting to find (alternative) sources that do verify the content. In all cases the actions must come with explanation that allows other editors to understand both what the problem is and the reason for it - including use of the reason= parameter. Thryduulf (talk) 16:00, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

• support Andy Dingley (talk) 16:41, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
• oppose per reasons given in previous section by half a dozen editors, to restrict such a capable editor is not beneficial to anyone--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:48, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Being "capable" is not enough - you need to be able to work with others in a collaborative environment. Without restrictions QG is not, presently, able to do that per all the evidence in this and previous discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 23:01, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

• Ive worked w/ QG on Vaping-associated pulmonary injury which is all over the news, there have been some 17 deaths(and cases here in the U.S. and Canada) we both worked together to form/create the best article with the current information available on this condition... that is being capable--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:48, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

• Unable to support "No significant addition or removal of content without first getting consensus on the talk page." Not clear what "significant" means. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:49, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
  • @Doc James: instead of throwing out the whole thing over a minor detail, propose either a way to determine what "significant" means or propose an alternative. This isn't dissimilar to the attitude that's causing many of the problems in this topic area. Thryduulf (talk) 23:01, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
    • User:Thryduulf I have received death threats via twitter and requests that my university fire me for my editing of e-cig content. To say it mildly this is a controversial topic area with editors with financial conflicts attempting to suppress concerns (to be clear I am not making this claim about anyone involved in this discussion currently). Well QuackGuru and I do not always agree we are generally able to find something we can both live with. Of your suggestions which I have numbered I would support the 6th (but I would support it for all involved). Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:50, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
      • That is horrible. I'm sorry you are both dealing with death threats and intimidation. It says something that anyone edits in this area voluntarily.

Thryduulf, are you thinking of some limit on the proportion of the article, or number of facts, changed in a given period? I said "incremental" above, which is not much more concrete than "non-significant"; I meant changes submitted to the article as they are written, and not en-masse. Belatedly, I think there might a problem with WP:FIXED here. Reverting excessively large undiscussed edits is an option, but then the article still turns into a series of RfCs about warring versions, rather than a collaboration. I'd prefer RfCs about individual concepts of content, not entire articles; the discussion is apt to be more substantive, and the end article better. It might get us a bit farther from arguing over sourcing rules, and towards assessing balance of evidence. Maybe we could try presenting an argument for both sides in discussion, reciprocally? Sadly, I've found myself spending more time on the less content-concerned discussions, like this one, simply because they are more antagonistic and thus clamour for attention. HLHJ (talk) 03:51, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Why do you "prefer RfCs about individual concepts of content, not entire articles"? Is it because I proposed a draft and I gained consensus to replace the older versions with the expanded version? Read this comment: "there are so many problems with the main article that it is a bit shameful WP allows work like this to remain."[136] Editors were disappointed with the older version. User:Sunrise closed the RfC. See Talk:Heat-not-burn product/Archive_8#Older_versions_or_expanded_version. QuackGuru (talk) 04:46, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

@Doc James: I am not attempting to defend or downplay any of that behaviour from SPAs et al, it is indefensible, but none of that excuses the bad behaviour exhibited by QG. Proposal 6 (thanks for numbering them by the way, that is helpful) could indeed be applied to editors generally - and discretionary sanctions are authorised for the topic area. However I don't think that alone gets to the heart of the issues with QG's editing.
@HLHJ: I don't regard proportion of an article as a useful measure as it categorises rewriting two sentences of a one-paragraph stub is vastly more significant than rewriting two sentences of an article that is multiple pages long, yet the effect of the changes may be more significant on the latter (depending on the detail, obviously). Number of facts changed is a better measure, but again it depends on the detail - if you're updating figures to match the latest released version of statistics everyone agrees are relevant then that is really only one change despite many different facts being changed and in many circumstances wont be controversial. However changing just one fact by switching from one source to a different one could be very significant, especially if one or both are (allegedly) partisan. It really needs to be something like "does this materially change what is being said?" or "is the source used to verify what I'm adding/removing/changing controversial?" and if the answer is yes, then it's a significant change, and if the answer is no then it wont be in most circumstances.
@QuackGuru: RfCs only really work when the question being asked is focused and specific. This is almost always vastly easier to achieve when dealing with individual items of content than dealing with whole articles. The comment you quote is a good example of one that is unfocussed and woolly essentially to the point of being useless. Be specific - explain what the problem is, why its a problem, what would be better and why that would be better. Then do the same for the next problem. Thryduulf (talk) 09:55, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

The HNB article was like a stub by my standard. There was little content in the lede and the writing was incoherent. My proposal was to expand every section of the article. HLHJ was still complaining about the article after I expanded it. The solution was to start specific RfCs to resolve the remaining disputes. There was a previous RfC that was malformed. See Talk:Heat-not-burn_product/Archive_7#RfC on solid tobacco heated using external heat sources. Those issues were unresolved. I eventually started RfCs to address the concerns. I left it up to the community to decide. See Talk:Heat-not-burn_product/Archive_10#IQOS_content and see other RfCs such as Talk:Heat-not-burn_product/Archive_10#Pyrolyse. QuackGuru (talk) 15:09, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

• oppose Agree with Ozzie10aaaa and Doc James. I also agree that QG has problem behavior. But this is not the solution. Cloudjpk (talk) 17:02, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
  • So what is? Thryduulf (talk) 23:01, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
    • I've added proposed editing restrictions for e-cigsCloudjpk (talk) 21:01, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support per nom. I personally don't want to see QG banned, and I think this is a reasonable stopgap measure. — Ched (talk) 10:27, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per Doc James. I've had a fair bit of contact with QG. I won't deny QG can be a little stubborn and pedantic, but I've never had cause for a second to think he is biased. He genuinely has neutrality and the interests of the encyclopedia at heart and these proposed sanctions are an over-reaction. -- Begoon 10:37, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I too don't doubt QG's motives, but that doesn't mean his behaviour is not disruptive. Thryduulf (talk) 15:05, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
• Honestly, I think banning QG from ecigs would be a net positive for him and the project. Of all the editors with whom I agree (and I do agree with almost everything he writes), he is the closest I have come to asking for a siteban. Guy (help!) 11:21, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I am doing a fair amount of editing across multiple e-cig articles. There is bound to be some conflict with the amount of editing I have been doing. The RfCs helped resolve the issues. You closed two of the RfCs. See Talk:Heat-not-burn_product/Archive_10#WHO_claim and see Talk:Electronic_cigarette/Archive_31#Nicotine_and_Passive_vaping_sections. QuackGuru (talk) 15:09, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - As I said above, the complaint is invalid. There is quite literally nothing wrong with this user performing a unilateral blank-and-redirect, per both deletion and redirection policies. As a matter of policy, and contrary to the OP's claims, it is not considered to be either disruptive or an inappropriate circumvention of deletion process. It should be treated like any other content dispute, not dragged to AN/I. Looking at the above section, this was already pointed out, and the OP seems to be ignoring it. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 23:20, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

  I don't think I support this proposal but as I think the first person to point out redirection does not need an AFD and may not even need discussion (05:58, 27 September 2019), can't say I agree QuackGuru did nothing wrong. As me, DocJames and others have said, calling it a hoax was clearly wrong. Firstly while the article had problems, it was not a hoax. Regardless of the merits of the blank and redirect, you can't just go around using misleading summaries when doing so. It confuses the hell out of other editors and provides no understanding of why you did the blank and redirect. Frankly no edit summary would be better than the one they provided. QuackGuru was an experienced editor, so they should have recognised this was not a hoax and they should have not called it one. Second, if QuackGuru genuinely believed the article was a hoax, then simply blanking and deleting was not the solution. Perhaps blanking and deleting was okay as an interim measure, but they should have immediately moved to having the article deleted after that. We cannot allow hoax articles to hang around in main space lest people accidentally or intentionally revert to them, or copy their content. Nil Einne (talk) 22:01, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

  Please see my updated edit summary. QuackGuru (talk) 23:47, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

  Your second edit summary was better but still somewhat unclear. The fact that a blog is used or some of the content failed verification is not itself a reason to blank and redirect. AFAIK at least some of the content did match the citation. You seem to have a decent level of English, so I have no idea why you couldn't have just left an edit summary like "Blanking as most of the content appears to fail verification" if that was your opinion. Frankly though, if you had just left the second edit summary the first time around I think me and at least some others wouldn't care so much. Again, as an experienced editor you should not need someone bugging you on your talk page to tell you how utterly confusing your first edit summary was. Further (other than the updated summary) AFAIK you never provided an comment on your use of such an utterly confusing edit summary or at least you hadn't on the original ANI discussion despite having multiple days to do last I checked. And as I said elsewhere it's not like you were super busy doing something else, you were able to directly respond to people who posted to the ANI when you had issues with what they said. A simple "sorry I was wrong to call it a hoax, don't know what I was thinking" or whatever would have at least provided some clue you recognised the problem. Ultimately though, whatever you did do afterwards, my main point stands which is I disagree that you did nothing wrong since you did initially use that edit summary and it took someone asking on your talk page for any clarification. Nil Einne (talk) 10:50, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose per DocJames. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:21, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per Swarm, DocJames, and others. Discretionary sanctions are already in effect in the topic, and any restrictions through them should apply to all editors, not just one who actually seems to be following WP:FOC here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:52, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support: But definitely would also strongly support a compromise in specifics with the issues presented by Doc James and those who feel similarly as I feel their concerns have merit. Waggie (talk) 23:02, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose: per the good Doc James. Significance differs from person to person, and there's really nothing wrong with what QuackGuru did, as Swarm rightly notes. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 21:42, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support Thryduulf's proposal, largely with the same feeling as Guy. If "don't place tags without genuinely trying to WP:SOFIXIT first" is too complicated, then a full TBAN is an option. For context, I just had a long and frustrating chat at WT:MED (until I gave up, because life's too short to keep explaining simple facts to people who are very highly motivated to not listen). In this conversation, Quack was apparently able to look at images like this shield-shaped product and this long, skinny one and still desperately trying to convince everyone that "different sizes and shapes" was a hopelessly unverifiable claim that urgently needed to be removed from the article. I don't think that the inability to see what's plainly in front of your nose is either "nothing wrong" (to quote Javert2113's description) or what we need in an editor who gravitates to controversial subjects. I'm thinking about the intersection of WP:COMPETENCE, WP:THERAPY, and WP:BOGO: If you are unable or unwilling to admit that those products aren't all the same size and and shape, then I really don't think that the rest of the community should spend this many hours (for years and years and years – has anyone ever written a complete list of the many previous bans and restrictions?) to you overcome your limitations. I'm perfectly willing to take names for the list of volunteer mentors, though. If others really want to dedicate their wiki-lives to mediating these questions, then that's okay with me. "Y'all should just put up with his rigid thinking and obsessiveness and find ways to work around it. I'm gonna go do something easier and more fun" isn't what the project needs. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:15, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per DocJames and BMK. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 11:01, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per Swarm. Buffs (talk) 15:24, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
• No point. I assure you on the basis of extensive personal experience that you will never change QG's behaviour. No amount of handwringing or exhortation will have the slightest effect. Tbanning him will work; any other sanction is exactly the same as doing nothing. And Tban proposals relating to this editor never get any traction. QG does genuinely good work fending off advocates and SPAs. This makes him useful to MEDRS, and thus editors active in MEDRS appreciate him and show up to defend him against Tbans (although most of them will acknowledge that he does display some behavioural problems). I personally raised this with Arbcom in 2015 and they couldn't change him. Neither can AN/I. This is why we have QG --- one of Wikipedia's most often-sanctioned editors, and a person with massive control issues and extreme IDHT, running off the leash and hounding away editors who demonstrate considerably better judgement than he does. I still hope that maybe one day QG will do something so egregious that his MEDRS buddies can't save him, but it is not this day.—S Marshall T/C 02:46, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I use quality sources including MEDRS-compliant sources such as reviews.
  • You suggested others were IDHT about sources.[137] What about you? You repeatedly deleted a review and replaced it with popular press sources.[138][139] QuackGuru (talk) 04:13, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
    • The fact that you're answering with whataboutery is telling. If you believe there's a problem with my edits, please do open an AN/I on me. I've always welcomed community scrutiny.

      Listen, QG: you do use good sources, almost always. Specifically, you go through the good sources, you find a statistic, you cite the statistic extremely thoroughly, you attribute it carefully, and you insert it into the article next to other statistics about the same topic. This produces something that looks superficially like a paragraph of text, but isn't. A QG "paragraph" is in fact a bullet-point list of statistics that's been disguised by removing the bullets. And the paragraphs you remove -- the paragraphs other editors want to insert and you edit-war to prevent -- are the paragraphs that move beyond the premises that you love so much and onto thesis and conclusion. When editors want to do this you behave as if they want to violate NPOV, when in fact all they're trying to do is make an article that fucking well goes somewhere. And the IDHT in this is because I've told you all this before, and you ignore whatever I say because it's me saying it.—S Marshall T/C 18:02, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

      • You have not provided a single diff. But I provided diffs.[140][141] You supported this. The proposal made no sense. The entire e-cigarette aerosol article was deleted and replaced with some content from other articles. I started a real RfC. All those edits were undone. See the expanded new article. QuackGuru (talk) 18:38, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
        • It's absolutely true. I've provided no diffs. I said that you're one of Wikipedia's most sanctioned editors. Nobody who's got any business closing AN/I discussions will have got all the way down to here without checking that point, so diffs are needless. I've described your behaviour accurately, and that's easily checkable from the diffs provided by others. And I've given a recommendation to the closer, which is that there's no point giving you sanctions that fall short of a topic ban. Arbcom weren't able to rein you in, discretionary sanctions weren't able to rein you in, and in fact your disciplinary log is clear evidence that nothing short of a topic ban will make the slightest difference to your behaviour. And you're responding with diffs from four years ago that Arbcom have already seen and dealt with by way of a resounding yawn.—S Marshall T/C 13:55, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
          • Arbcom has not seen and dealt with you removing a 2014 review in May 2016. Why did you replace a review with popular press articles?[142][143] A review is a higher quality source than popular press articles.
          • See a random diff from 2017: "Some researchers and anti-tobacco advocates are concerned that irresponsible marketing could make e-cigarettes appeal to young people.[81][57]"[144] You claimed the sources verify "anti-tobacco advocates". Where does the sources verify "young people"? You think authors of e-cig research are "anti-tobacco advocates"? You don't like the word youth? Is it because marketing to youth has a negative connotation for the e-cig industry? Now there is an entire section on marketing to youth in a new article.
          • Citation 81 verifies "E-cigarette marketing may entice adults and children. Citation 52 verifies "E-cigarettes may appeal to youth because of their high-tech design, large assortment of flavors, and easy accessibility online."
          • You previously stated "QG does genuinely good work fending off advocates and SPAs." Do you acknowledge you added content that failed verification? QuackGuru (talk) 14:20, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
            • Lol, I acknowledge that I've often added content that fails your interpretation of verification. You think that anything that isn't directly taken from an academic source is inadmissible. Incidentally, the reason why WP:V explicitly tells you not to violate copyright is because nearly ten years ago, I personally put that in. Nowadays my original phrase has become a whole paragraph, because people citing sources too exactly has been a serious problem.

              As I said, if you think my edits are problematic then you're welcome to open an AN/I on me below: I'll happily respond to them there. But this thread is about your behaviour.—S Marshall T/C 20:23, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Proposed editing restrictions for e-cigs

A key part of the problem is unsourced and failed verification content. Accordingly I suggest these restrictions on policy violations:

1. Prohibition on unsourced content. If there is no citation at the end of the claim it is considered unsourced content
2. Prohibition on failed verification content. If the citation does not completely verify the claim it is considered failed verification content.

Anyone violating these restrictions more than once in a one week period is topic banned. They would have to be warned about the first violation before they would be topic banned for the second violation.

• Support. Cloudjpk (talk) 21:01, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Missing the whole point. No-one is trying to push unverifiable content here. Rather QuackGuru is using that as a dogwhistle complaint against our normal standards for what really constitutes "unreliable" or "failed" sourcing. To implement this would be to also give them a tban-on-request stick against other editors, contrary to all our normal TBAN process. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:50, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
  • For almost all content related to nicotine, it is against our normal standards to add or restore "unreliable" sources and "failed" content. See WP:MEDCITE. QuackGuru (talk) 23:20, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per Andy Dingley. There is no need to define unsourced content and/or failed verification any differently to the way it's done everywhere else on the encyclopaedia. Indeed, doing so would likely do more harm than good. Thryduulf (talk) 22:58, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
  • !00% of the content in Electronic cigarette is sourced and it is peppered with hundreds of MEDRS-compliant reviews. Following V policy is very simple, IMO. QuackGuru (talk) 23:20, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support This is already the case everywhere. WP:V: Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed. And it is a blockable offence to restore it without a valid source. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:09, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "Violating" WP:BURDEN is not generally considered a blockable offense, especially, and most relevantly, when we're talking about restoring blanked content that (a) doesn't actually need a source according to any editor except one who wants every single sentence followed by an inline citation to a plagiarized or near-plagiarized reliable source, or (b) the content is already cited elsewhere in the article. Wikipedia:Tendentious editing and Wikipedia:Disruptive editing will both get you blocked, though. Have a look at Quack's very lengthy block log if you want proof of what we actually block editors for. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:29, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support both 1 and 2. There are issues with unverifiable content being added and restored here. Recently sourced content has been replaced with failed verification.[145][146] There was a RfC about the safety content. See Talk:Electronic_cigarette/Archive_31#Safer_than_tobacco_claim. I started RfCs to deal with failed verification content. For example, see Talk:Heat-not-burn_product/Archive_10#Pyrolyse. If anyone feels that their editing would be seriously hindered by following verifiability policy then maybe they should not be editing this topic area. This will help with behavior modification and to cut our losses with repeat offenders. QuackGuru (talk) 23:20, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support - It is not quite correct to say that this is already the case throughout Wikipedia. WP:V doesn't prohibit unsourced content, it can be added to articles, but is subject to removal at any time, and can't then be restored without a source. That's not the same thing as is being proposed here, which is that unsourced content is prohibited from being added in the first place. There are no sanctions specified (which is a problem with the proposal) but I would assume that any editor making multiple infractions of this would be subject to blocks. I do wonder, though, if it would not be better simply to place E-cigs under community general sanctions as a tidier solution. (See WP:General sanctions#Community-authorised sanctions for a list of currently active community-imposed general sanctions.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:19, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
  • @Beyond My Ken: Per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Editor conduct in e-cigs articles#Discretionary sanctions the previous Community-authorised sanctions for this topic area were withdrawn and replaced by arbcom discretionary sanctions. Thryduulf (talk) 13:37, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
    • Ah, thank you, I wasn't aware of that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:56, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
  • @Beyond My Ken: maybe I've misunderstood what you're saying but this proposal explicitly says (and said [147]) "Anyone violating these restrictions more than once in a one week period is topic banned" if they've been warned. Once an editor is topic banned, the norm is they will be subject to escalating blocks if they edit in violation of their topic ban. Technically this doesn't cover people who violate these restrictions once every week but such gaming of restrictions tends to be dealt with the same as violating them. Nil Einne (talk) 22:24, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support: Clearly QuackGuru is a little too aggressive in this topic area, and hasn't backed down from that stance despite people raising concerns. Waggie (talk) 02:28, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

So you want to give them the power to TBAN opposing editors, just on their say-so? Did you intend your support comment to apply to the proposal it's tagged beneath? Andy Dingley (talk) 14:56, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

DS are already in effect in the topic, so "opposing" editors (or anyone) can be topic banned if their behavior is disruptive, contributing to a battleground mentality, or causing other editors to be terse. For instance, when an editor such as Andy Digley exhibits battleground behavior in their comments at this ANI towards QuackGuru, that can be a good indication to admins that they should be topic or interaction-banned in order to cut down disruption in the topic. I went looking at the talk pages to try to verify some of your claims about Quack, but I'm already seeing some hounding of Quack on the talk pages here and here where you're unable to WP:FOC at article talk pages and more interested in hounding QuackGuru who actually was engaging in content. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:52, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Andy Dingley, not based on someone's say-so. Concern has been raised, and after reviewing the situation QuackGuru is, in my opinion, clearly overly aggressive in this topic area, based on own behavior. I also do believe that you are correct in that I posted my support in the incorrect proposal here. I have struck my support here. I support Thrydulff's proposal, as I believe that will yield sufficient results in this situation. Waggie (talk) 23:00, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

• Support the ideas in theory, but the discertionary sanctions should already be tamping down or removing editors that are causing problems in these two areas, so any admin can enforce this already. Given the battelground behavior I'm seeing at this ANI that appears to be mostly one-sided after not looking at an e-cig page for some years, it's clear the discretionary sanctions need to be enforced in general to cut that behavior out. I'm mostly seeing QuackGuru sticking to content while others are more focused on QuackGuru here, so fixing the latter battlegrounding should alleviate some of the terseness coming from QuackGuru (which isn't sanctionable in the first place). I'd sure stick to focusing on content and not responding to WP:BAITING comments like in this section. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:52, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Battleground? I'd remind you that QuackGuru began this by falsely describing this as "Redirect non-notable hoax article.". It is not acceptable to attack multiple other editors like this and to accuse them of creating hoaxes. This isn't merely a difference of opinion, it's an accusation of fraudulent editing. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:40, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

What did the updated edit summary state? QuackGuru (talk) 22:47, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Funny looking sort of apology. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:02, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose - using a sledgehammer to crack the wrong nut. Will cause more trouble, not less. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:07, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. Near the start of this thread, WhatamIdoing stated, "It's my impression that QuackGuru is very frequently concerned that anything short of plagiarism might not be true enough to the cited source." I've seen QuackGuru do this various times, and his odd interpretation of verification has gotten him in plagiarism trouble before. As seen here, an editor brought plagiarism to his attention. Also, here in a different ANI thread, Doc James stated, "They closely follows sources which is generally a good thing. Agree with the concerns around them adding FV tags as sometimes it is appropriate to paraphrase more." Needless to state, his faulty "failed verification" tags are a big issue. Somehow QuackGuru got it in his head that we can't summarize a source's words, like we are supposed to do if not quoting the source and if WP:LIMITED doesn't apply. If an editor uses their own words to summarize a source's text, you can expect QuackGuru to add a "failed verification" tag. This has got to stop. It is one of the more problematic aspects of his editing. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:04, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose the requirement that every fact be followed by a citation. The table that User:HLHJ put above is, in my experience, a remarkably accurate illustration of what's Quack wants. We need well-writing articles that contain verifiable contents and present all perspectives in WP:DUE weight. The overall goal is almost unrelated to whether or not there's an inline citation after every piece of terminal punctuation. Nobody wants {{fv}} content. The problem here is what happens when one editor perseverates in declaring a fact to have failed verification after multiple other editors tell him that he's wrong. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:21, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:NOTPERFECT. These restrictions are too onerous. Buffs (talk) 18:19, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. No need when arbcom DS are in effect anyway - this would just add more surface area to wikilawyer about. Alexbrn (talk) 14:00, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Next step?

There is I think consensus above that something needs to be done regarding QuackGuru's editing behaviour, at least in the e-cigs topic area. There is though no obvious consensus for any specific action. This means we need to decide how we move forward in a way that benefits the project. What is that way?

• Option 1 is to ignore it and hope the behaviour goes away, after all these years of it being repeated and not going away at all?
• Option 2 is to, as S Marshall puts it: "Issue another warning, in the hope that the frowny face and waggy finger of administorial disapproval somehow works this time, after all these years of having no effect?"
• Option 3 is for an uninvolved admin to issue a discretionary sanction (Arbcom authorised discretionary sanctions in the e-cigs topic area in the case)
• Option 4 is to hand the matter to arbcom as we, the community, have clearly failed to solve the problem.

I support 3 or 4, with a very slight preference for the latter. I do not support options 1 or 2. Thryduulf (talk) 01:52, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

• Option 4. In the few paragraphs I was able to read in this discussion, it looks like there are a lot of legal implications involving the subject area which QuackGuru usually edits. For that reason, I think it would be wise for Arbcom to take on this case and see if there might be underlying reasons for an action that we have yet to discuss here. I have never edited in this area myself, but from reading this in from my experiences with knowing how the media is portraying the subject these days, I can tell this is a highly pretentious subject area and the concerns regarding QuackGuru's editing need to be handled very carefully and thoughtfully. Steel1943 (talk) 02:26, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
• Hilarious though it would be for AN/I to decide that QG deserves yet another last chance, out of the options above it's clearly in Wikipedia's best interests to refer the matter to Arbcom. Again. 3 is a non-starter. If any of the DS-enforcing admins knew what to do about QG, they would have done it. Arbcom has no magic powers either, of course, but it can't allow its own previous decisions to be ignored, so a referral to Arbcom will be just like issuing a Tban here and now. But with more delay, process and bureaucracy.—S Marshall T/C 09:20, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
• Option 4: QG is back at it again, flagrantly violating wp:soap within this article: 2019 United States outbreak of lung illness linked to vaping products - any attempt to adjust the article results in a revert and a passive-aggressive message! they have falsely accused me of shilling:

The hospital bed patient and image is a salient topic. Anyone can create a new article. It is a violation of NPOV to hide the content under a rug.

— QuackGuru

• Option 3 Admins are empowered to impose DS in this area, so one may step up and do it. Sooner would be better than later judging by how much time/attention this has consumed already. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:04, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
• The issue appears to be that the community disagrees regarding the degree of the present problem / what the problem is. As raised by a few people there is some concerns around QG use of "failed verification" tags. And what degree of paraphrasing is allowed / required by copyright. An option that addresses that would be something I would consider. Maybe something like "Option 5 QG must post on the talk page when they feel something fails verification, if another editor agrees with them than the tag can be placed. Otherwise they are free to go about rephrasing the text in question per normal editing practice" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:39, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

• I really don't feel that this proposal will do anything to stop QG from being abrasive, confrontational, obstructive, patronising, and immensely time-consuming to deal with.—S Marshall T/C 14:24, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree his abrasive nature (e.g implying I'm a shill) wastes time that could be put to more productive things Mfernflower (talk)

• I was not here for the citation issues, my main complaint is he has included and emotionally defended patient testimonials copypasted from news sites in the 2019 lung disease article in flagrant violation of wp:soap and wp:nothere Mfernflower (talk) 12:47, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
• None of the above options I'm not seeing any consensus that something needs to be done, let alone what. Swarm and others feel the complaint is invalid. To me this seems largely a content dispute. However I agree Quackguru has been abrasive, but not to a level worthy of restriction. I have dealt with prickly editors whose contributions remain valuable. A few editors here are concerned about QuackGuru's use of failed verification tags. The tags were created for a reason; it is not disruptive to use them for the purpose for which they were created. Complaining on AN/I about mere use of them seems to me a frivolous complaint. Cloudjpk (talk) 19:32, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose any sanction - I'm sure this proposal was made in good faith, but I must reject the very premise of these supposed "options". Someone brings a content dispute here, falsely (objectively falsely) reporting a legitimate action as an abusive circumvention of policy, which it wasn't. This gets pointed out, then the complaint gets rewritten by numerous other users coming out of the woodwork who want to air their grievances, which are not even clearly defined or cohesive. Numerous proposals come about, none of which are successful. There is no consensus for any action. But now you're coming here, claiming that we need to formalize something, and framing "no action" as an option to "ignore the problem and hope it goes away"? Seriously? I have never, ever, seen such a thing. How silly is it to propose "Arbcom, sanction, warning, or ignore the problem"? There's no possibility for disagreement, you've just unilaterally decided that you're trying to facilitate a consensus that you claim exists, as an involved complainant whose proposal for sanction was rejected. Imagine if everyone did this; made a complaint, proposed a remedy, got rejected, and then started a subsection saying "okay, we now have a community consensus that my complaint is valid and that something must be done. So choose between Arbcom, sanction, and warn. Anyone who wants no action can get put down as 'wanting to ignore the problem.'" It's just so deceptive it's wrong, and so was the original complaint. I'm not saying none of the complaints about QG are legitimate, but I refuse to support or even consider any proposals for sanctions that are facilitated by gamey tactics such as deceptive wording, false pretenses, moving goalposts, or outright lies. If QG is half as disruptive as people are claiming he is, then there should be no problem coming here with a concise complaint, diffs that speak for themselves, and a clear remedy to be proposed. This thread was dirty from the start and the optics of this proposal are just terrible. If you have a proposal to make that you want considered, make it. But opening with a presumption of guilt and telling us to decide between "do something" or "ignore the problem" is so incredibly wrong. That's not how it works. "No action" is the default. AGF is the default. The only real way forward that I can envision starts with this horrible thread being put out of its misery. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 01:11, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

We do not have a policy that says it's OK to accuse other editors of creating hoaxes, just because one either doesn't like the topic, or doesn't like other editors writing in 'your' space. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:49, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

we have policy against the latter wp:own Mfernflower (talk) 16:19, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

I provided an updated edit summary for the redirect. QuackGuru (talk) 15:42, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

@Swarm and Cloudjpk: I get that you disagree that the evidence of years of disruptive editing, tendentious editing, refusing to accept consensus, failing to understand the concept of paraphrasing, etc. presented above is evidence of any of that. However there is a clear consensus of other editors that it is a problem and that something needs to be done. That part of the discussion is over, the consensus of the community is that there is a problem that needs dealing with, whether you agree or disagree with that is not relevant. The only thing needed now is consensus on what action should be taken to deal with the problem. Thryduulf (talk) 14:19, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

What? Just what? These words you have written have nothing to do with what I said. Either you didn't even read my comment, and you're just dismissing me as "disagreeing with the evidence", or this is yet another deceptive and misleading tactic meant to facilitate your desired outcome. Again, you're WP:INVOLVED in this discussion, so claiming that you are facilitating a consensus is not only technically not allowed, but abusive. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 17:18, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes I'm involved with this - I'm involved and trying to facilitate a consensus because that benefits everybody - whether that consensus is for my favoured outcome or not. I'm not being deceptive, I'm not being misleading, I'm summarising the blatantly obvious: There is a consensus that something needs to be done, there is no consensus on what needs to be done. I have read everything in this thread multiple times and I honestly do not see how anyone can have done so and fail to see evidence of a problem. If you genuinely do think this is a harassment campaign against QG, you or anyone else then please feel free to take it to arbcom (given that we're already at ANI). Thryduulf (talk) 01:11, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

All of that misses my point, which is that the proposal is inappropriately worded. There's no consensus that "something needs to be done", just a bunch of complaints. The consensus against doing anything so far seems to suggest that your reading is disingenuous, which is irrelevant, because you have no authority to even claim to be officiating a consensus as you're involved, and yet not only are you doing so, but you're using that nonexistent consensus to justify making a proposal that assumes guilt, even if the response is "no action", and that's deceptive. You know damn well that this isn't how sanctions proposals usually operate. You don't pre-emptively reskin "oppose" as "acknowledge but ignore the problem", and yet that is exactly what you're trying to do. My objections are easily resolved. Just not easily dismissed by falsifying what they are. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 00:10, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

I think Swarm (talk · contribs) is onto something in that the accusation here is sort of broad and nebulous, encompassing content disputes as well as conduct disputes and personality quirks/abrasive behavior. That is probably why none of the proposed sanctions were successful, because each failed to address all of the concerns that people had and were not tailored enough to be reliably enforced without actually causing future problems. I wonder if it might be a good idea for QuackGuru's critics to just take a step back from editing the same articles as him for a while. Not an interaction ban, but just a (voluntary) step back to allow the tension to ease and to make it easier to work together. 38.142.216.106 (talk) 18:29, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Awful idea - as per WP:OWN - he also flagrantly violated copyright law in one of his articles. Mfernflower (talk) 22:18, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

I generally don't edit the same articles as QG anyway, my concerns about his behavior stem from the reports on boards like this. Someone having so many problems in so many disparate areas that simple proposals can't emcompass all of them indicates a greater need for action not a need for those affected to step back. Thryduulf (talk) 20:07, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

His aggressive ownership of articles is what bothers me most Mfernflower (talk) 00:05, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

These are all fair points. As a compromise, what if the affected editors all agreed to step back from these articles temporarily for a few weeks, and QG is admonished to review WP:OWN and discuss future failed-verification tags either in the edit summary or the talk page so that others can understand his perspective and debate the rationale behind the tag? This won't fix all of the issues but it would reduce the surface area for future arguments. 38.142.216.106 (talk) 15:43, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Well, because that's not in any sense a compromise. Driving away other editors is the result QG wants to achieve. He wants to be allowed to make all his articles identical to the userspace drafts he maintains for each one. Other editors prevent him from doing that. So if we agreed the affected editors all stepped back, then far from "compromising", what we're actually doing is rewarding QG for the problem behaviours.

I've noticed that @Swarm: thinks there isn't any evidence to document that QG has any problem behaviours. So let's enumerate some of them. Searching AN/I's archives about him yields these 277 results. I present his block log, and draw your attention to the number of times the words "disruptive" and "harassment" are mentioned in it. Searching Arbcom's enforcement logs yields these 19 results, of which to be fair "only" 16 are actually about him. I could go on and on.

In fact, I think I will. He was asked to desist from tendentious editing in 2008. He was topic banned from pseudoscience and chiropractic for a period of one year on 24 July 2011. He was restricted to 0RR in the acupuncture topic area and 1RR in alternative medicine topic area on 24 May 2015. This was escalated to a topic ban on 6 October 2015. On 17 November 2015, Arbcom noted that he exhibits "a double-standard for sources", criticised him for "edit-warring" and for making large changes without discussion, among other behaviours, and gave him the warning Thryduulf mentioned at the start of this colossal thread. By the by, I'm sure that the reason why Thryduulf is so clear that QG's behaviour is a problem, is because Thryduulf was an arbitrator the last time all this went down so he's already familiar with a lot of the evidence.—S Marshall T/C 19:10, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Okay, now this is just getting comical. I'm opposing specifically on the grounds that the complainants are employing inappropriate behavior in this thread, specifically stating "I'm not saying none of the complaints about QG are legitimate, but I refuse to support or even consider any proposals for sanctions that are facilitated by gamey tactics such as deceptive wording, false pretenses, moving goalposts, or outright lies." These are all things that are going on in this thread. And, yet, Thryduulf misrepresents me by claiming I disagree that 'the evidence is evidence', and now you're going even farther in claiming that I think "there isn't any evidence" whatsoever. This is exactly what I'm talking about, you guys are not only misrepresenting me, but you're outright lying to discredit me. And that's exactly the reason I reject the premise of this thread, because you guys are being deceptive, misleading, and manipulative, trying to game your way into your desired end result. The funny thing is, I'm not even defending QG directly, I'm just calling out these bizarre manipulative tactics as I see them. I have never seen people go to such lengths to unfairly manipulate a discussion. Like I said, if QG is half as disruptive as he is alleged to be, then I don't understand why we're seeing these desperate lies, misrepresentations, involved readings of consensus, deceptively-worded proposals, and personal attacks against uninvolved observers. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 20:49, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

If that's your view, why not support the referral to Arbcom? This will give you a platform to complain about mean old S Marshall and his gang's framing, spin and blatant unfairness to our innocent victim QG, and you'll have the satisfaction of seeing them hand down mighty boomerangs of admonishment.—S Marshall T/C 21:27, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

This proposal itself is part of the problem, as I have literally already explained. If you guys want it to go to Arbcom, then take it to Arbcom, literally nobody's stopping you, and you don't need my or the community's approval to do that. Nor is anyone stopping you from making a new proposal for community consideration. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 01:43, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Sigh. Yes, we do need the community's support with this. At the start of any Arbcom case, you're asked to provide diffs that convince Arbcom that this is a matter the community can't resolve, and this AN/I thread will not suffice to do that, because people are still pretending that this is basically a content dispute. And, if you've never tried to improve one of the articles QG manages, and if you don't know the history, and if you look at the diffs in exactly the right light and squint a bit, you can make it look like a content dispute. Which is why this so often-sanctioned editor has got away for so long without a site-ban: he does do good and useful work in some topic areas, and he never quite crosses the line far enough to produce that one smoking-gun diff that Wikipedians demand before they'll support drastic action.

You've got to look at the history, at his editing in the round, in good faith and with an open mind before you can see the amount of control he exercises and the sheer relentless barrage of trivia and makework he fires at you when you try to fix a problem, and I can't make you do that. If you're just going to continue to sit there and demand one smoking-gun diff, then you're helping this be the 278th time QG gets away from AN/I with a free pass to do it all again.

On the offchance that you or some bystander is minded to try, I'd suggest beginning by using an article-blamer utility on one of the pages he manages. Then compare it over time with the draft in his userspace (which may well have an obfuscated title, by the by, but it'll be there somewhere; it's frustrating to track them down though).—S Marshall T/C 14:50, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

It does seem as if that issue will exist regardless of what Swarm says or does here, though. It will inevitably be difficult to present this case to Arbcom, partly for the same reason why it was difficult to reach a consensus on any of the issues discussed above. Someone is inevitably going to have to compile all of the evidence and history into a digestible form and make the argument, even if Swarm agreed with the suggestion to go to Arbcom. It sounds like Swarm's main issue in this instance is that he resents being asked to choose from a menu of 4 options which he considers an unfair framing (e.g. being asked to choose between these options or nothing at all). I'm not sure if it is worth spending a lot of time nitpicking over that aspect though, since either way it won't really resolve the issue or even bring us closer to a resolution. In a weird way, this is actually worse than if someone was a vandal or a troll; everyone involved is operating in good faith and trying to help the project as best they can, and there's just gridlock based on principles rather than because one person is clearly here to mess with the encyclopedia. I don't think fighting with each other to get unanimity to go to ArbCom is going to help though. 38.142.216.106 (talk) 15:20, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

You may consider it "nitpicking", but this goes to the very most fundamental of our project's governance, which is consensus. Consensus is incredibly simple, and not difficult to abide by. The only way it gets complicated is by trying to game the system, which, if permitted, undermines the entire system by which the project is governed, which directly harms article quality. I'm sorry if you feel I'm being petty over wording, but quite the contrary—I feel the tactics being employed here are meant to fabricate a consensus, rather than to appeal to one legitimately. This concern is very easily fixed, and the fact that users would rather argue rather than simply resolve the concern is, to me, what's petty. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 00:15, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Swarm -- to clarify, I did not mean to accuse you of nitpicking or being petty over wording. I think your concern about the framing of the request is absolutely valid and I don't think that you were being unreasonable in raising them in this discussion. What I was trying to say, rather, is that I don't see why S Marshall feels that trying to persuade you to agree with his POV is a necessary first step before referring this to Arbcom. Even if you and he both agreed that this discussion should be taken to Arbcom, that would in no way obviate the need to, as he put it, provide diffs that convince Arbcom that this is a matter the community can't resolve. The issue with QG is inherently complicated and is inherently going to be difficult to resolve through any forum (either here or ArbCom). It features debates over complicated aspects of policy, fuzzy debates over user conduct, and long-running tensions that have cut across multiple years and at least a dozen articles. Presenting that in a digestible or coherent format is going to be difficult no matter what IMHO, so I think the focus on trying to get Swarm (or anyone else) to support or oppose the ArbCom suggestion is a bit academic (since it doesn't get us closer to a resolution or make anything simpler to understand). I hope that clarifies what I meant above and I sincerely apologize if my comment above about 'nitpicking' came across as a jab at you or your position on this issue. 208.185.237.210 (talk) 14:23, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

The proposed "solution" of letting QG run the article without interference from anyone who disagrees with him is so favorable to him that it raises eyebrows TBH. And from a user who doesn't seem to know about the history of the controversy...? 107.77.203.209 (talk) 19:29, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, letting him run amok would be disastrous and violate WP:OWN and WP:COI policy Mfernflower (talk) 15:44, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

• Option 4 I have run into this editor a few times. Their behaviour both in articles and towards me needs action. Per Steel194 and S Marshall. Thanks, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 09:41, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
• May I ask what the process is to get into arb? Mfernflower (talk)
  • See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. QuackGuru (talk) 18:41, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
• At this point I cannot wait for this to get into arb - I recon I sunk about 3 hours already into this debacle Mfernflower (talk) 03:35, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
• Option 4. We have been trying and failing to come up with a solution to QG's problematic behaviour for years. This needs a creative solution short of a ban, and we can't seem to come up with one here. Guy (help!) 10:15, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
• ??? oppose all sanctions What is this regarding? The 1 October Roy Smith call for a block at the top here? I already commented above that I do not see QuackGuru's behavior as unwarranted in the context of the massive paid industry lobbying and propaganda here. If anyone wants to make a complaint to seek review then lay out the case in the usual way and go through any usual process. The e-cigarette and nicotine marketplace is an environment of high financial stakes and corporate propaganda where global industry is investing millions of dollars. Going by the wiki process strictly is essential here. QuackGuru is not the problem here - the problem is the drug industry endless flood of paid propaganda and advocacy. Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:40, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

If I replace nicotine with the word vaccine - you would not sound out of place with the likes of McCarthy and Wakefield Mfernflower (talk) 13:50, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

@Mfernflower: I am failing to understand what you mean. Are you comparing the tobacco industry to the vaccine industry, and saying that the comparison is relevant here? Blue Rasberry (talk) 03:34, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Bluerasberry, "the wiki process" does not involve trying to WP:CHALLENGE information that you personally know to be accurate and verifiable. Quack is not a lone crusader against an evil industry. He's an editor with a long block log who has spent years and years struggling to figure out whether a given fact actually requires a source, and when supplied with a source, even more trouble figuring out whether that source supports the claim if the words in the source aren't almost identical to the words in the article. The community has had dozens of conversations over the year about statements that he says "fail verification" and everyone else says is okay. This problem is subject-matter independent, and it is not getting better. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:17, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: Let me review what I see, and you tell me if this seems like wiki process. At the top of all this discussion a user complains about QuackGuru redirecting an old version of an article called pod mod to Construction of electronic cigarettes. The user complains about lack of process, wanting an AfD for this or some other more formal process than a redirect. They say that this redirect is misconduct and generally claim that QuackGuru does misconduct routinely. On the basis of this redirect and unstated memories of other misconduct, the Wikimedia community is asked to judge this editor for a serious sanction.

Am I missing something? Does my summary here reflect the form of this discussion? Is this not contrary to usual wiki process for issuing sanctions, where we make judgements based on links to alleged offenses? I could be in error about something but this conversation does not have some basic components, like a list of accusations, that I would expect when we are asked to judge a person based on claims of bad behavior. I feel like making the list should take 10-15 minutes if the offenses really exist and are as easy for identify as some people say. Why not set up the judgement in the normal way instead of calling to pass judgement on claims of historical bad behavior? Blue Rasberry (talk) 03:28, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

I think you are missing something. Our process for discussing behavior is not limited to whichever links people choose to spoon-feed to the ANI regulars. This a wiki discussion, not a judicial system. We don't need a formal list of accusations, because we assume that you're able to look at the person's behavior yourself (if you haven't already been reading about it for months or years already), and the whole situation, and the role of any other people involved it. The goal isn't to judge whether a person is good or bad. It's to figure out whether certain situations and behaviors are working for the overall project, and to decide whether anything needs to change. It happens that my opinion is that Quack's behavior is not working for us. You're entitled to your opinion, but I hope that you will look into it and decide whether you have any concerns about Quack's behavior, rather than just about how you'd score this section if it were a mock trial contest. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:33, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

• Option 4 - This editor has been dividing the community for several years. The function of the ARBCOM is to resolve disputes that the community is unable to resolve, and it has been unable to stop this editor from dividing the community into: supporters, who think that he is needed to fight an evil industry; opponents, who would like him topic-banned or site-banned; in-between critics, who think that he adds value but needs to be restricted, but do not know how to restrict him. This is what ArbCom is for. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:43, 25 October 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.

64.8.128.0/18

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.

---

• 64.8.128.0/18 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

It seems that 15,872 IPs that comprise 31/32 of the range—namely, everything except Special:Contribs/64.8.190.0/23—are infested by unruly minors and hardly contribute in anything but vandalism and tests. To block IP-only:

• 64.8.128.0/19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log)
• 64.8.160.0/20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log)
• 64.8.176.0/21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log)
• 64.8.184.0/22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log)
• 64.8.188.0/23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log)

(this is, evidently, the dyadic decomposition of 64.8.128.0–64.8.189.255). Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:38, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

WHOIS says that the range is owned by the State of Minnesota [148]. They have an abuse contact, anyone willing to take a crack at emailing them before we block the entire state government? (also, points to Incnis Mrsi for using the phrase "dyadic decomposition" in the same sentence as an IP range) ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 18:56, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

• I can't see why there would be a need for a range block since only a couple of dozen or so of those IPs, i.e. only a couple of percent of them (all apparently school IPs), have edited en-WP during the past six months or so, and those can all be found here. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 19:54, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

This whole /18 range was last blocked in February 2019 for three months by User:GeneralizationsAreBad. Anyone can look at Special:Contributions/64.8.128.0/18 and try to find a single good edit. In my opinion, it's time for another block. EdJohnston (talk) 20:40, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Again, there are some legit edits originating from 64.8.190. Try to read the thread from the first phrase, EdJohnston. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 20:53, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

@Incnis Mrsi:, I overlooked your comment. Your proposal is to block the entire /18 except for the one good guy at Special:Contributions/64.8.190.0/23? And you are confident that the above five blocks do the job? EdJohnston (talk) 21:18, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

EdJohnston - I calculated the necessary ranges myself, and I can confirm that blocking the five IP ranges listed below (which are the same as the ones listed above) will block from 64.8.128.0 to 64.8.189.255, and leave 64.8.190.0 - 64.8.191.255 (or 64.8.190.0/23) open, which is exactly what Incnis Mrsi is looking for (which I agree with, as the IP range seems to be making good edits).

64.8.128.0/19

64.8.160.0/20

64.8.176.0/21

64.8.184.0/22

64.8.188.0/23

Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:22, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

• Support rangeblock - Literally not one good edit in their contributions. Jdcomix (talk) 20:45, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks to the commenters above I figured out how this works. The five ranges originally proposed above by User:Incnis Mrsi (and confirmed by User:Oshwah) are now blocked 6 months each for vandalism. That is a doubling of the prior block length given to the /18. EdJohnston (talk) 00:39, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing on Second_Battle_of_Ras_al-Ayn_(2019) by KasimMejia

KasimMejia appears to be engaging in disruptive non good faith editing on the page Second_Battle_of_Ras_al-Ayn_(2019). (1) He put the page up for deletion (2) He put a Wikipedia noticeboard incident up about the page and myself, without discussing the issues with myself (3) He then removed the link to the page from the main page about the operation 2019 Turkish offensive into north-eastern Syria (4) he then put citation tags all through the page, some justified, but many spurious (5)At one point, he had 4 Banner problems on the page. Considering he is pushing for the page to be deleted because he says it is unsubstantial..at the same time, he is removing material from the page that should be there, and without seeking any sort of consensus on the talk page. At one point, he had put 16 citation tags in the article, and 4 issue templates at the top. I am not sure his editing has the genuine interest of wikipedia users at heart. I have asked for him to return the material to the page until consensus is reached, and he has refused. I don't have time to deal with this, and I can see he has had issues with edit warring in the past, and want to avoid this. I would ask that an admin has him blocked from the page, thank you. Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:53, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

You two need to learn to work together instead of both of you continuing to bring your content disputes to ANI. El_C 10:04, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

I would have assumed the above activity, plus this is not standard/good faith wikipedia article creation, especially considering KasimMejia has only been editing for less than a month.Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:10, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

The article talk page is the place to raise these issues. Do so while assuming good faith, even and especially when disagreement is acute. Other editors' interpretation of the material may vary highly, but strive to reach consensus to sort out the article's direction. The AfD is part of that process. There are also dispute resolution requests that are available to you. Please take advantage of them rather than look for an admin to decide in your favour by fiat — that seems unlikely to happen at this time. El_C 10:19, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

The diff that he has linked was taken out by me after 1 minute. [149], [150]. KasimMejia (talk) 10:28, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Comment I nominated the page the user created for deletion due to lack of material. I also added verification and original research templates due to both problems at the page. I also opened a notification about the user here 2-3 days ago due to him adding uncited material. Later I improved the page he created by taking out unverified additions as well as the template and inline templates - he is now accusing me of disruptive editing for that. One final note, before opening this notice, user accused me of being in bad faith two times on my talk page, "having and agenda" and told me to cease working on the page he created or he will have an admin banned me from it. [151]. KasimMejia (talk) 10:25, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Ok, thanks El_C Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:55, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

This is just one more example of why WP:NOT#NEWS should be enforced, and we should wait until proper secondary sources, which don't include breaking news reports, appear. Both of the editors involved, from my cursory examination of their comments, appear to be reasonable people, but in this rush to lay down the first draft of history here they are bickering. Let's let historians decide what is history, and then have an article based on what they eventually write, rather than treat news reports as if they were secondary sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:05, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Slatersteven raised a similar point earlier this week about a related topic and I agree with him and Phil Bridger. There's no need to provide up-to-the-minute war reporting coverage on Wikipedia, in particular of a war that is literally happening right now. We are never going to be able to make an effective Wikipedia version of embedded war correspondents (w, and trying to do so usually leads to edit warring and policy violations by good faith editors. 38.142.216.106 (talk) 16:27, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

This is very much linked to the now closed thread about DS sanctions over at The Turkish invasion main article. Yes I do think wp:notnws is being ridden roughshod over. Its a policy and it is being ignored, here and at other related articles. I do not know (nor frankly do I care) who is at fault here. What I do care about is that this is not encyclopedic (and is borderline tabloid) reporting.Slatersteven (talk) 07:57, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Yet another editor using an IP sock

• Chad The Goatman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 98.27.17.104 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

Recent contributions show a striking similarity of interests. Editing as an IP is not proscribed per se, but the user alternates between IP and the account in an edit war. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 07:08, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

There is no doubt whatever that this is one person, who has also used the IP address 98.27.17.189 in the past, but apart from the one incident linked by Incnis Mrsi I have not seen any edits which could be regarded as abusive use of editing with and without logging in. (However, there are many hundreds of edits, and I can't guarantee there aren't more problem edits that I haven't seen). 98.27.17.104 is currently subject to a CheckUser block. I shall post a message to Chad The Goatman advising him not to alternate IP editing with logged in editing, especially when editing one article. For now, I think there is nothing else to be done, but of course I will be willing to reconsider that if future editing shows further problems. JBW (talk) Formerly known as JamesBWatson 11:20, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree with JBW's comment and observation here. The different IP addresses used look to be in-line with a typical IP change that Charter customers will see happen once in awhile (dynamic IP allocation). Unless more evidence presents itself, I wouldn't call this intentional. A message to the user is a good start here. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:49, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ramesh Nagaraj Rao (2nd nomination)

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

---

Please can we have an admin look at the history of this AFD:

• An editor who voted delete in the AFD, hats/closes sub-discussions, marking them as "extended content", though the discussion is relevant. One of them with the personal comment "verging on WP:BLUDGEON". This action is clearly not appropriate for someone who has already voted.
• User:Winged Blades of Godric, the nominator, removes a "keep" vote by a IP. This is clearly against policy, as IPs are allowed to vote in afd's. The validity of the vote is for the closing admin to determine.

I reverted all of the above (with explanation), only to be rollbacked with the dismissive comment "busybodies", and then again with the comment "Go away". I requested them to [self-revert on their talk page], but alas, no response.

SD0001 (talk) 20:11, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

@SD0001: I see that Nosebagbear got there while I was typing his, but please make sure that all users involved, including Serial Number 54129 (talk · contribs), are notified of ANI discussions, Iffy★Chat -- 22:15, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

• Comment - I've looked, the IP seems to have restored their !vote. I'll restore it if it gets removed again without good reasoning. I'll take a look as to whether the hatted discussions can/should be extended. I don't believe either WBG or SerialNumber (who I've notified for you, since you also mention his edits) should have made those specific edits, though it should be noted that SerialNumber's second hatnote is actually hatting the nom's (and thus someone sharing his viewpoint). Nosebagbear (talk) 22:17, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

I've unhatted the first section, some is a discussion on interpretation of the rules and wouldn't be an issue if hatted, but other aspects are directly relevant to the discussion and the quality of the sourcing. Nosebagbear (talk)

• Comment See User talk:Kautilya3#Edit war. Winged Blades of Godric has been repeatedly reverting attempts to add sourced and relevant content during the discussion. With removal of content, hatnotes on comments, deleted votes, the Afd process here seems sort of broken to me. Winged Blades of Godric seems passionate about getting this rather bland article deleted, not sure why. Maybe Kautilya3 would care to comment? He seems fairly involved, having contributed to earlier versions of the article, voted to delete it, then reverted to the pre-expansion version. Aymatth2 (talk) 23:10, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
• Article protected due to edit warring. Guy (help!) 22:57, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
• Since the AFD has been open longer than 7 days, it can be closed at any time now, right? Because the consensus on the AFD is clear that the article should be deleted. The arguments for deletion has sufficiently shown that the article subject does not possess significant primary coverage. Of those who disagree, one user listed a number of sources that were found, which was met by arguments showing that these sources don't provide significant primary coverage of the article subject, but only trivial mentions that last only a few lines, or trivial mentions within page footnotes. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:28, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

According to WP:RELIST, yes it can. I'm considering just closing this AFD... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:58, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, you could close it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:19, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate -  Done. Closed as "delete" and with an explanation of the rationale provided. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:33, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough, but would an admin mind warning the nominator that they shouldn't remove comments that they disagree with or hide discussion without a good policy justification? He may have been right on the merits to nominate the article for deletion but it bothers me that he tried to manipulate the discussion by censoring or redacting other users' comments? 208.185.237.210 (talk) 13:21, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Fair request. Is there someone who can do this? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:22, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

@Oshwah: perhaps a CU, who will establish wether the miraculous appearance of IPs on an obscure procedural page was anything more than coincidence; as I assume that was the nom's original cause for concern. ——SerialNumber54129 13:28, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Most likely. I'll leave it to someone else to follow up and have a note. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:30, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

From the above, it appears that this thread might be waiting for one more admin comment. User:Oshwah's decision to close this AfD appears well-timed, since having to rule on who was behaving well or badly in the AfD could have led to endless debate. Shall we say that some of the behavior was less than ideal. Do not get too concerned about IPs participating in AfDs. If they are not working in good faith, that is something the the closer can form an opinion on when doing the close and they can assign the appropriate weight to the views that may be expressed. EdJohnston (talk) 01:56, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

What may not be clear from the above is that Winged Blades of Godric removed a large amount of material from the article before nominating it for deletion. After it was expanded with new sources, he launched an edit war to remove the expanded version. The AfD discussion was on his gutted version, which indeed had little evidence of notability. Much of the debate was hidden behind hatnotes. And he deleted the IP's comments. I would say that he should at least get a slap on the wrist. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:04, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Aymatth2, stop pinging me. ∯WBG^converse 13:15, 25 October 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.

Asim143 moving draftified article back to mainspace

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

---

See here. This seems to demonstrate to me, as a user following the original case, that this user may not have the competence to edit Wikipedia. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 08:49, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

TheDragonFire300 - I've moved the page back to the draft space and modified the redirect I left so that Asim143 cannot undo the move, overwrite the redirect, and move it back. I'll leave the user an explanation and warning. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:01, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done (diff). Please let me know if the user causes any more disruption, and I'll be happy to take another look and determine the necessary next steps from there... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:08, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

@Oshwah: Thanks. Though I wonder whether the redirect in mainspace defeats the purpose of drafitification. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 09:18, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

TheDragonFire300 - I was debating that as well... If anything, the redirect can be deleted later. For now, we can keep it and see what the user does in response. I hope that they understand and don't attempt to move the article back to the mainspace again... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:29, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

This shouldn't have been re-draftified, but taken to WP:AFD. See WP:DRAFTIFY Other editors (including the author of the page) have a right to object to moving the page, and to have the matter discussed at WP:AfD. If an editor raises an objection, move the page back to mainspace and list at AfD. @Oshwah:, please revert. Iffy★Chat -- 10:43, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Iffy - I agree with your comment.  Done. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:46, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Syed Muhammad Asim is now open. Iffy★Chat -- 11:31, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Iffy - Perfect, thanks for doing that. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:33, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Considering that they basically dismissed Ninja's warning and their seeming inability to take on criticism, wouldn't an indef until they start communicating be justified? —v^_^v ^{Make your position clear!} 17:55, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

No, but this is an autobiography and the AfD closer will almost certainly salt it when they delete it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:52, 26 October 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.

Asim143 and titles

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

---

Asim143 (talk · contribs) seems to have an infatuation with referring to Fazal-ur-Rehman with (and, in prose, solely by) his title of maulana. They've twice moved the article to include the title (violating WP:Naming conventions (people)#Titles and styles) and have blindly search-and-replaced all instances of "Fazal" in the article to "Maulana" ([152] and [153]). Notably, this came on my radar because they came onto #wikipedia-en-help demanding we protect the article on their preferred version; I and another helper refused to do so, and they don't seem to be getting the message. —v^_^v ^{Make your position clear!} 13:11, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

It would also appear that an article they created about a cricketer, Syed Muhammad Asim, is an autobiography. [154][155] The only source cited for the cricketer is a dead link. 86.134.75.242 (talk) 15:52, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Draftified the article; that shouldn't have stuck around in mainspace in that form. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:03, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that's disruptive – but, as far as I can tell, nobody has explained the rules to Asim143 on his talk page or on the article's talk page. I've move-protected the article for now. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:43, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

If it were just the move I'd've taken it to RPP. But the blind replacement of his name with the title is also concerning. —v^_^v ^{Make your position clear!} 20:35, 23 October 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.

Within minutes of this discussion being closed, Asim143 deleted NinjaRobotPirate's post on Asim's talk page about the use of honerifics with the comment "The person is real celebrity", moved Draft:Syed Muhammad Asim back to Syed Muhammad Asim with a similar edit summary (the article is now at WP:AFD, after unsubstantiated claims about playimng first-class cricket have been removed), and edited the Fazal-ur-Rehman article again, with the edit description "Added Some More Facts About Articles Refrences" while giving no reference whatsoever. 86.134.75.242 (talk) 16:29, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Topic ban violation by KHMELNYTSKYIA

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.

---

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

The user is topic-banned from Ukraine [156] and has been previously blocked from topic ban violation [157] but continues to edit (and sometimes edit-war) on topics related to Ukraine [158] [159] [160] [161] [162]--Ymblanter (talk) 19:37, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Every single edit since their last block expired is a violation of their topic ban. I have blocked for a month. – bradv🍁 19:47, 24 October 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.

Ukrainian Academy of Sciences (Non-Governmental organization)

There is a problem with a neutral point of view on the page of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences (Non-Governmental organization) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Particular attention was drawn to an active user in the Russian Wikipedia Wanderer777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who at one time replicated his version of the article at once in several language sections of Wikipedia. Moreover, he submitted the information in such a way that it does not correspond to a neutral point of view. When I tried to improve the article, my edits were simply deleted, despite the presence of the "in use" template.

For some reason, the author’s sources were deleted: https://daily.rbc.ua/rus/show/spasti-planetu-ukraintsy-ochishchayut-vodu-1449570920.html https://un-sci.com/ru/2019/05/29/ukrainskoj-akademii-nauk-ispolnilos-28-let/

I found the additional sources, but I'm afraid that they will be deleted the same way, and my work will be in vain. I left a message to Wanderer777 on his talk page but did not receive a response. Wanderer777 contributes a copyright infringing link. To do this, he turned to a user Ymblanter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who added the link to the White List. Now Ymblanter has deleted not only the sources, but also the categories and infobox.

This behavior of the participants leads to the fact that they violate the fundamental users of Wikipedia: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Since one of the users is an administrator, I write messages here-DrPoglum (talk) 11:16, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

• Judging by the page history and the edits made by the OP the OP is doing at least as much POV-pushing as they claim the editor they're complaining about is doing. The "Ukrainian Academy of Sciences" appears to be a private organisation with dubious scientific achievements, and the material added by the OP (with lots of material not supported by the provided source; the main source is an article in a Ukrainian newspaper that just reports on claims about the effectiveness of a certain industrial process made by the organisation, but has no info on the organisation as such, in spite of being used as a source for that by the OP) was removed by an en-WP administrator for being whitewashing and removing good sources. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 11:53, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

  Indeed, this is a fringe organization, and whereas I am not a fan of Ukrainian media (most of them are unprofessional and look more like blog aggregators), replacing links to them by links to organization itself is not really according to our policies. I know Wanderer777 for many years, still from my times on the Russian Wikipedia, he is in good standing there and has been elected to ArbCom on one or two occasions. If anybody needs a translation of his message and my response, I can provide the translation. Nobody ever pointer out to me an issue with copyright infringement, if there is a link in the article to the copyright infringement site, I will be happy to remove it. The rest I believe belongs to the talk page of the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:03, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

  Btw I can not recollect myself adding any links to the whitelist. I mean, I can not exclude this either, I believe I did this on a couple of occasions in my life, but I certainly do not have any recollection of this fact, or see any connection with this article.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:09, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

• MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2019/03#expres.online. --Wanderer777 (talk) 12:25, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

And the link that was whitelisted there (translated into English here) proves that the "Ukrainian Academy of Sciences" is nothing but a scam, selling diplomas to whoever is willing to pay for them... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 12:50, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, it is clear. Still, I do not see anything related to copyright infringement.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:53, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

I can't find any copyright violation either, but I did find an interesting edit by "DrPoglum" where they removed the incriminating link I commented on above, the one showing the organisation to be just a scam, with an obviously false claim about removing a spamlink. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 13:03, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

• Before accusing me of fraud, please wait for my reply. If the link did not infringe on copyrights, it would not have to be added to the White List. I reported this on the Wanderer777 talk page. This link is not displayed in Google search: https://www.lumendatabase.org/notices/19099146.--DrPoglum (talk) 19:56, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

• If you had checked what the discussion that was linked to says you would have seen that blocking it was a false positive (getting caught because of having "online" in the URL), and that it was whitelisted to get around that problem. So it had absolutely nothing to do with being a copyright violation, it also definitely wasn't a spamlink as you claimed in your edit summary when you removed it. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 20:34, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

• You'll have to forgive me but, I do not understand your arguments. Narodna Vlada (ukr. "Народна влада") - the official media in Ukraine, registered judging by the registry under the number КВ 9567 (link to the gov.registry https://dzmi.minjust.gov.ua). They filed a complaint under the DMCA procedure for distributing their article without permission and their complaint was upheld. In this regard, materials infringing copyrights were hidden from the search results. Such links become impossible to add as sources to the Wikipedia.--DrPoglum (talk) 23:32, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

• What are you talking about? The link you removed is to "expres.online", not "narodna-vlada.org". DrPoglum's now changed editing style and inferior language skills makes me believe that the person who is using the account now isn't the same as the person who wrote the articles and filed this report... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 06:44, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

• What is the logic behind this? What can it give? English is not my native language, so in complex sentences I can make inaccuracies, especially when I switch to working with several non-native languages. "expres.online" infringes copyright "narodna-vlada".-DrPoglum (talk) 09:55, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

• No evidence for that claim, "expres.online" is the online version of Ekspres, a fully legitimate newspaper claiming to have the largest circulation of all newspapers in Ukraine. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 10:25, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

• According to this Ukrainian news site (provided as a Google Translate translation so that you can check for yourself), the "Ukrainian Academy of Sciences" has nothing to do with real science and scientists, instead being created by non-scientists primarily to award fake academic diplomas to themselves and others... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 12:07, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

• The site above is an aggregator and cannot be an authoritative source. There are only 17 views per article, 3 of which are from me. And an unknown author. And according to this source (national media) this organization brings together scientists and manufacturers and a specific example is given. However, this source has been removed by Ymblanter.--DrPoglum (talk) 20:15, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
• This source that describing the scientific activities of the organization, its history, structure was also removed without explanation.--DrPoglum (talk) 20:27, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

• There are several sources that say it's a sham/scam. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 20:32, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

• I did not removed information about fraud, I am guided by authoritative sources, with a clear author.--DrPoglum (talk) 20:52, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

• The second one is a link to the website of the organization itself. This is what I meant in my first comment of this topic.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:41, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

• I did not find any connection of the https://un-sci.com publication with the organization.--DrPoglum (talk) 20:52, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

  You are right, it looks indeed like this is indeed not the site of UAN, though a high number of articles on this site which cite UAN is highly suspicious. I do not have time now to investigate it further.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:59, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

  This is an interview with the president of UAS. Everything about UAS is said by this president. --Wanderer777 (talk) 09:50, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

  The only thing known about the site is that it is registered in Estonia (!!!). Contacts - error 502. --Wanderer777 (talk) 10:03, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

COI/paid editing by the OP

I had some time to spare so I decided to check the OP's edits, and found that he's active here, with this account at least, only during a short period each year, using his period of activity here last year to create an article, Municipal Guard (Odessa), that can best be described as a hatchet job on what seems to be a private army loyal to the mayor of Odessa, and then during his period here this year going all in on Ukrainian Academy of Sciences (Non-Governmental organization), and completely white-washing it, so since he spent his time here in 2017 creating a bunch of articles about books by South-African writer Jonny Steinberg (books that at first glance don't seem to be notable on their own, including a couple of articles that have since been deleted and one that survived thanks to the tag being removed by a throw-away account that has since been blocked as a sock), editing that seemed to indicate a possible COI, I decided to check if I could find a direct connection between doing a hatchet job on the Odessa Municipal Guard and glorifying the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences. And I found it. According to that article (which is in Ukrainian, but the link leads to a translation of it) the direct connection between the two is Oleg Maltsev, claimed to be running a sect in Odessa, having an organisation that is a rival to the Municipal Guard, and being a prominent member of the "Ukrainian Academy of Sciences". That link also shows that DrPoglum's article about the Municipal Guard, and their attacks on journalists only tells us part of what happened, failing to mention that the confrontation, between the Municipal Guard and Maltsev's group, started the previous day, and that the journalists that were said to have been attacked weren't "real journalists" but members of Maltsev's group. So the OP seems to be engaged in either paid editing or COI editing, but the impression I get is paid editing, supporting whoever pays best, and not doing it for "ideological reasons", since they seem to have switched sides, previously creating articles about books by Jonny Steinberg, and now supporting Maltsev's interests, because Steinberg and Oleg Maltsev seem to be bitter rivals, writing books about the same subjects (a "war" that has previously been fought also here, on en-WP, with the two sides nominating articles about each others' books for deletion, as can be seen a few lines up...). - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 16:11, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

• You are trying to start discussing me, instead of the situation that is happening. By making my modest contribution, I try to be useful to the community.

1. I did not remove the criticism from the article, this can be seen from the history.
2. I am ready to check by Checkers.
3. How does this justify deleting other sources categories and infobox?
4. Do you really believe that the organization that has existed for more than 25 years, which includes scientists and professors, which has private universities, has left only negative information and not related to science?
5. I do not represent anyone's interests, but only talk about neutrality in the article. I do not know about paid edits.
6. One president of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences has more than 150 patents and many scientific papers. Do you really think this is a pseudo-scientific organization?
7. Now most scientific organizations and institutes are private.

I edit when I have free time, and never engage in vandalism. You can put my articles to be deleted if you think they are not notability. I am for observing the basic principles of Wikipedia. You can also expose the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences (Non-Governmental organization) page for deletion, since without the sources that was deleted, the notability is not visible. But what does this have to do with violating a neutral point of view. Ymblanter himself confirmed that he had known the user Wanderer777 for many years, so I am no longer surprised at such a reaction.-DrPoglum (talk) 19:27, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

• Anyone who files a report here is fair game, and will be scrutinized the exact same way that editors who are being reported here are. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 19:36, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

• I do not mind, only about the editors from you did not read anything.-DrPoglum (talk) 19:39, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

• I checked the edits made by Wanderer777 (who I can't remember ever seeing here, i.e. on en-WP, before), and can't see that he did anything wrong, nor did Ymblanter do anything wrong. But you did, since what you added to the article didn't match what I found when looking for sources, which is why I decided to check your other edits... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 19:47, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

• Until I saw a comment on the removal of more authoritative sources, categories, infobox and violation of a neutral point of view.-DrPoglum (talk) 20:34, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

• You'll have to forgive me but I lost you there, and have no idea what you're trying to say. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 20:37, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

• I'm trying to say that you did not see any violations in the actions of Ymblanter and Wanderer777. But how do you comment on the deletion of information confirmed by independent sources and the deletion of the sources themselves, categories, infobox. This is not a violation in your opinion?--DrPoglum (talk) 23:32, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Point 4 above ("organization that has existed for more than 25 years"), reminded me of the Ukrainian/English Europe Business Assembly, which has existed for more than 19 years, and has sold fake awards totalling millions of pounds to many academics and politicians, at least some of whom were likely otherwise reputable. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 07:51, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

The only difference between the Europe Business Assembly and the "Ukrainian Academy of Sciences" (which should not be confused with the fully legit National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine) is that the former is aimed at the international market, while the latter is aimed at the domestic (Ukrainian) market, where being able to call oneself an Academician, and wearing a lapel pin showing the honour, still seems to be as big a thing as during Soviet times, so among the people who have bought, or in some cases apparently been given, fake diplomas, honours etc from the fake "Ukrainian Academy of Sciences" you'll find both politicians, businesspeople and (minor) scientists, many if not most of them people who don't have any legit university degree at all. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 08:32, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

• In Google Sсholar you can see the scientific work of members of the organization. For example Scientific works of the president of the organization Olexiy Onipko, Scientific works of vice president of the organization Livinsky Oleksandr. My request specifically concerned a violation of the neutral point of view in the article. There are more authoritative sources that describe the scientific activities of the organization.-DrPoglum (talk) 09:55, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

• There are plenty of people who are willing to sell their soul for money, if the price is right, so having a figurehead with real credentials is common among sham/scam organisations and companies, and doesn't prove that the organisation as such is legit. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 10:32, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
• Onipko? I know, I know ... Onipko rotor inventor. But independent research has shown the low efficiency of this rotor. Look АКТУАЛЬНЫЕ ПРОБЛЕМЫ ЭНЕРГЕТИКИ АПК // Материалы VI международной научно-практической конференции. — Саратов: 2015 or Бубенчиков А. А., Артамонова Е. Ю., Дайчман Р. А. Применение ветроколес и генераторов для ветроенергетических установок малой мощности // Международный научно-исследовательский журнал — Вып. 5-2 (36) — 2015. — С.37. --Wanderer777 (talk) 11:03, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Those Google scholar results are singularly unimpressive, very far from the kind of citation counts that could pass WP:PROF#C1 and even farther from what most reputable academies would accept as evidence of scholarly accomplishment. To me, they support the claim that this organization is a sham. But the point of discussion here is not that, nor even whether it is a notable sham (that's for the current AfD to decide), but rather whether there is a pattern of problematic editing. If there is, I agree that it seems to be purely on the part of the editor promoting this organization, DrPoglum. DrPoglum has had past articles deleted as unambiguous promotion and some other articles like The Number (book) potentially deserve the same treatment. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:25, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

• DrPoglum is now blocked as a sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:49, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

109.147.186.187

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:109.147.186.187 is adding unsourced content after her final warning. CLCStudent (talk) 15:21, 26 October 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.

Outing

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

---

At least an attempt: [163]. I'm not from Washington (see User:Toddst1#Who_I'm_Not) but he's obviously tried to google stalk me. Toddst1 (talk) 00:38, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

yes, Todd here is having a rather over zealous attack. It is not stalking you to mis-read your identity page. Rodolph (talk)

I think he misread your "who I'm not" part of your userpage. Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:59, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps (probably) you're correct. Still freaked me out. Let's move on - I may be a bit testy this evening. Toddst1 (talk) 06:31, 26 October 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

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.

---

According to User:HistoryofIran, I am, among other things, lazy, the exact opposite of knowledgeable and not someone to be missed on Wikipedia, a sad, little person, and a pretty sad fella who should see a therapist (leaving aside the consistent incivility in all of his comments addressed to me). Some of my comments about his behaviour in that conversation might also be assessed as personal attacks or at least as incompatible with WP:AGF, even though I consider them to be simply accurate and fact-based assessments of the attitude that he has displayed in his interaction with me - briefly, harmful to the project (I'm sure he will oblige with relevant diffs if necessary). However, since he has expressed a desire for our discussion to be reported here (or else for the entire exchange to be deleted), I thought I might as well call attention to it, while making sure that the comments by both sides are taken into account.--87.126.23.210 (talk) 17:02, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

• User:HistoryofIran, do you understand how inappropriate this edit was? Drmies (talk) 17:22, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Well no, I assumed it was the right thing to do as the conversation wasn't exactly a proper one? --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:23, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
    • OK, then I have to tell you that you were wrong, absolutely wrong. You were wrong with this edit already--or, if you want to be right about it, I will be happy to block you for violating NPA since it's very much like the things you said, but yours were worse. Drmies (talk) 17:24, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
      • No need to threaten me, I wasn't doing those removals in any bad faith. If you could link me the rules regarding this bit I would like to read it to know more about it. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:25, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
        • As DESiegel says below, your comments were uncivil ("sad little person" is blockable, IMO) and no different from yours. You can't make comments of the kind that you also think are to be redacted from someone else's talk page. Drmies (talk) 17:33, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
        • Ugh. "Go see a therapist"? I might have blocked you on the spot if I had seen that go by. Surely you don't need to be cited chapter and verse for that. But if you want a "rule" for why what you did was wrong, nothing in WP:RUC gives you a license to just remove an entire conversation from someone else's talk page. Drmies (talk) 17:36, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
          • Well, I'm sorry, I got heated in the moment in midst of being attacked meself, obviously not trying to defend my actions. The removal of the whole section was more of a damage control since I realized that I should have redacted some of own comments. I see that didn't help exactly either. While you are it, please read the whole conversation to see that this isn't exactly one sided ("You and the likes of you, on the other hand, really should leave this site, since you are noxious to it - just as you will be noxious to any other human activity that you participate in."). In fact, looking at the IP's latest comment on his talk page, he brought this issue here to deliberately "hurt" me. He even tries to justify his attacks, as seen on the top of the section and on his talk page. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:42, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) IP Editor 23.210, when you start a discussion about an editor or mentioning an editor here, you must notify that editor directly, as it says at the top of this page and in nteh edit notice. I have now notified HistoryofIran on your behalf.

While the language in the diffs you link to is certainly uncivil, I don't think it rises to the level of a personal attack. And a request that information be properly cited with sources is not out of line. Readers are not expected to use Google or other searches to determine if an article's content is correct, that is what citations are for on Wikipedia. I would have used a {{cn}} tag rather than simply reverting, but that is not a rule. Please bear this in mind.

All that siad, is there something you want us to do about this matter? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:31, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

He did, I just removed it, since I don't want more to do with him nor am I interested in taking much part in this topic tbh. Yes, I already knew that I wasn't no angel in this part, especially when Drmies comment enlighted me about that removal part. However, I suggest people to read the whole conversation (where his comments are arguably personal attacks, and looking at the last comment by the IP, it is clear that he brought this issue here to deliberately "hurt" me). Also, the IP didn't only add unsourced additions, he also changed actual sourced additions, albeit a minor one tbf. Do mind that he had already made uncivil accusations from the start [164]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:34, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) For your information HistoryofIran WP:TPO says Removing harmful posts, including personal attacks, trolling, and vandalism. This generally does not extend to messages that are merely uncivil; deletions of simple invective are controversial. Posts that may be considered disruptive in various ways are another borderline case and are usually best left as-is or archived. I would advise you not to blank entire topics in this way again. Neither party shows to great advantage in this exchange, in my view. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:41, 26 October 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.

Alien autopsy

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

---

I have just deleted alien autopsy with 800 edits. I think this may be a case where recent edits are copyvio but earlier ones are OK. I am not willing to spend time investigating but I hope another admin will be. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:00, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

• I'm a little confused. What is the source of the copyvio - your deletion notice just links to the copyright record of the video itself? Black Kite (talk) 10:33, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
• I think this may be a case where recent edits aren't copyvio either. You just speedied it, no questions asked, on the say-so of a user with 8 edits? —Cryptic 10:40, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

• I'm going to restore it for a second (it's still blanked using the CV tag) so I can use the copyvio detectors on it. Hang on... Black Kite (talk) 10:51, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I'll be very much surprised if you find anything other than mirrors and reverse infringement. There's a clear line of development from the original 2002 stub, and the tagger's edit to talk shows his claim isn't credible or even relevant. —Cryptic 11:04, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

• OK. The main issue is this page, which is someone's own Google page. It was created, according to the "site changes" log, between early 2010 and 2014. However, the material claimed to be copyvio existed in the article well before that (I went back to 2007 and it was there then). The second one is this Listverse article, which is not a problem - it was created on 29/9/2011, when again the material already existed in the Wikipedia article. Then there's this, but this is OK because the article is just quoting a part of Jopson's email and it's well within limits. I am going to remove the copyvio banner and restore the article - OK, it's not a great article and needs a load of work, but it's not demonstrably a copyvio as far as I can see. Black Kite (talk) 11:12, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

• I have removed the blanking / CSD. This ia a WP:SPA here to assert a change in the long-attributed ownership of an item from popular culture. Skepticism is justified, and it is reasonable to place the burden of proof on this user, especially per Black Kite's analysis above. Guy (help!) 11:18, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

• From what I can tell, it's not copyright over the article that is disputed. Rather copyright over the film the article discusses. I don't think there is anything we can do here about that, the OP needs to take it up with the external party they're in dispute with. Nil Einne (talk) 12:51, 28 October 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.

Disputed and WP:BITEy block of new editor

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

---

User:Rcorsini54 created a user page quoting four poems or song lyrics. C.Fred warned Rcorsini54here that Like I said, a line or two is fine, but the parts that look like they're full songs (or at least more than one verse) are probably in violation of policy. I will do you the courtesy of letting you clean them up, but technically, any user could remove them at any time. Rcorsini54 responded on User talk:C.Fred, (diff) saying Thank you, C. Fred... will clean them up. Rcorsini54 then (minutes later) cut the quotes down to 4-6 lines per song posted to the Teahouse asking Just wondering if the edits I made are ok content wise without putting up a complete song lyric. Shortly after that Bbb23 speedy deleted the user page User:Rcorsini54, under WP:CSD#U5, with no other editor having tagged this for speedy deletion. I honestly do not think that the final version meets the U5 standard of Extensive writings and material on topics having virtually no chance whatsoever of being directly useful to the project, its community, or an encyclopedia article. which is included in Wikipedia:User page#What may I not have in my user pages?. Rather it seems to me that this constituted A small and proportionate amount of suitable unrelated material ... such as (free use) pictures from Wikimedia Commons, favorite Wikipedia articles, or quotations that they like. as explicitly permitted by Wikipedia:User page#What may I have in my user pages?

Earlier, Rcorsini54 made edits to Pete Townshend and Adam Duritz (this and this), both were promptly reverted. Each was an apparent attempt to communicate with the article's subject. This is not helpful, but it is minor and easily explained -- however no one attempted to explain -- both edits were reverted with a minimal edit summery, and no note or warning, templated or manual, was placed on the user's talk page.

Not long after deleting the user page, Bbb23 blocked Rcorsini54 indefinitely for Clearly not here to contribute to the encyclopedia; also disruptive and WP:CIR.

I posted to Bbb23's talk page, describing some of this and concluding with I ask that you reconsider the block, please. It seems to me that there is a WP:BITE issue here. The response was this A few other editors posted to thread, and I posted further, all easily visible. But Bbb23's latest response, posted as i was editing this, proposes to wait, leaving the block in place, until Rcorsini54 requests an unblock (assuming that s/he does request one}, and evaluate that, Bbb23 also said All that said, we have three administrators who disagree with my actions here. They haven't persuaded me to unblock, but they have fulfilled their responsibility to talk to me before taking any action. Why doesn't one of you just unblock the user. Accordingly I am about to unblock, but I would like community review of my actions. I want to be clear that I am in no sense seeking to "punish", and I assume good faith that Bbb23 believes the block justified. I would like to know if the community agrees that such a case justifies an indefinite block. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:04, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

• I was first admin on the scene, as it were, to this user. I saw his edits where he expressed his POVs on certain artists [165][166]. These weren't constructive edits, to be sure, but they weren't outright vandalism. The user had also started an autobiography in draft space. I pointed out that was a bad idea, and he assented for me to delete it, CSD G7. At that time, there were one or two small music quotations on his user space; however, the thing that caught my eye was the comment, I will begin populating with helpful info beginning January 1st 2020 for "clear vision!" That was enough to get his talk page on my watch list and to keep an eye on what he was up to, but it didn't create a direct problem.

The next day, he expanded his user page with additional song quotations; I cautioned him, in a non-templated fashion, about copyvio. The user then went to the teahouse to ask questions. All seemed well, IMO, until they said I think this is due to a multiple device look. It was 2... my 2 sons. I asked them not to login as me anymore. WP:LITTLEBROTHER is in the house. Bbb23 blocked a minute later.

This block seems like the nuclear option. The editor surely wasn't off to a good start, but I don't think he was beyond saving. I'm still willing to assume good faith in the user—and see if he rolls back the claim about his sons logging in when informed (gently, I would hope) that account sharing is not allowed and that compromised accounts can be blocked. —C.Fred (talk) 23:29, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

C.Fred The user was warned here in a response to the Teahouse post about the user page deletion. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:37, 25 October 2019 (UTC) @C.Fred: DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:38, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

@DESiegel: That message was 15 minutes after the block. —C.Fred (talk) 23:39, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

No real opinion on the block, but the unilateral unblock without the agreement of the blocking admin was uncalled for and against policy. DESiegel should have taken it to AN first rather than unblocking and coming here. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:33, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

There's nothing in the blocking policy (especially the section you linked) prohibiting reversal of an administrator action. Wheel-warring is forbidden, but a simple reversal isn't. Reaper Eternal (talk) 23:40, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) TonyBallioni, the comment, quoted above, by Bbb23 of Why doesn't one of you just unblock the user seems to be an invitation to do just that. I can to ANI rather than AN because I wanted a quick response in hopes of avoiding a BITE effect. I was originally going to simply describe the situation and ask for community consent to an unblock, when going to User talk:Bbb23 I read that comment (diff above) and changed my mind to unblock right after posting hre. I would also note the comments of other admins at the talk page, which I in no way solicited, seem to make the unblock not exactly unilateral. Must all unblocks now be approved at a notice board or by the blocking admin? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:45, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

(Multiple ecs, replying time Reaper Eternal) Disagree: the section below on unblock requests says if agreement can’t be come to, to take it to AN. Unilateral unblocks are highly discouraged. That being said, I was about to strike it, as Bbb23 said they could unblock, which I didn’t see. That being said, this thread seems like drama for the sake of drama since he said they could unblock... TonyBallioni (talk) 23:48, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

The section of the policy page on responding to unblock requests says: administrators should avoid unblocking users without first attempting to contact the blocking administrator to discuss the matter. If the blocking administrator is not available, or if the administrators cannot come to an agreement, then a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard is recommended. It does not say that discussion must take place before the unblock, nor that ANI is not an acceptable venue. I think my record is fairly clear, I do not like drama for the sake of drama but when an action seems to me to violate policy or procedure and may occur again, I think that a community discussion is often a good way to clarify what should be done in similar cases going forward. I explained my motives above. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:57, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

We have different readings, but as I said, Bbb23 was fine unblocking, so my criticism is moot. On the merits, I likely wouldn’t have blocked, but I also don’t really have much of an expectation that this user will be productive, so I probably wouldn’t have unblocked either. Now that they’ve been unblocked, I don’t see a point in reinstating the block. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:12, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree with the unblock. The block was a little too hasty—the user hadn't yet proven that he wasn't here to contribute. Reaper Eternal (talk) 23:40, 25 October 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 and cleanup needed

• 2601:49:8402:EA20::/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log)

2601:49:8402:EA20::/64 has left behind a massive dump of unsourced edits, mostly fiddling with birthdates in actor bios. What I've spot checked doesn't seem correct, e.g. [167]]. In any case today they've moved on to adding outright death hoaxes, complete with fake sources, so I'm not AGFing here. I've mass-rollbacked all the top edits, but there's probably lots more buried behind other edits that needs to be undone. I'll start, but would like some help. Thanks, all! Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 20:24, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

That's block evasion by Special:Contributions/2601:49:8401:f48b::/64. I'll try to do the clean up. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:06, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Everything is cleaned up. As a bonus, I also range blocked another vandal. Thank you for reporting this. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:23, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! That can be very tedious. For the record, 2601:49:8400:b377::/64 looks like this user's previous IP, but I guess there's too much collateral on ‎2601:49:8400::/46 for a block. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 20:02, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it's very tedious. I volunteered to do stuff like this when I became an admin, though. Anyway, I can keep an eye on the IP range, but I don't think it's necessary to do any wider blocks right now. The collateral probably isn't all that bad, but those /64s seem to stay allocated for a very long time. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:55, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

rev war with users NorthBySouthBaranof‎ & Pepperbeast

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.

---

• NorthBySouthBaranof (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Pepperbeast (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• J. Sketter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Paternity fraud (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi.

I seem to be in a rev war with users NorthBySouthBaranof & Pepperbeast over the article Paternity_fraud. Also NorthBySouthBaranof's talk page. Care to take look? Thanks. If I here should inform NorthBySouthBaranof please say. --J. Sketter (talk) 15:40, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

• J. Sketter, say. In the meantime, stop edit warring. Drmies (talk) 15:42, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
• Also, RS is not an "empty claim". It's how we work. I am beginning to think that there are some issues here--pertaining to OR, RS, BLP, and gender matters. Weird claims like "A woman can't cheat by mistake" bother me--and have you never heard of how King Arthur was conceived? I'm about to run to class and I wouldn't be surprised to find you topic banned by the time I get back. Drmies (talk) 15:45, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Gentle reminder that you are required to notify all users that you are reporting to WP:ANI, as I have just done for NorthBySouthBaranof and Pepperbeast. 38.142.216.106 (talk) 15:46, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

I think that J. Sketter is here to push an agenda, and that agenda includes misgendering subjects of articles, such as Zoe Quinn. "It is, we can mention she either wants or really thinks she has many persons in a single woman's body. But I guess there's no RS for her schizophrenia." and "Quinn's quest for plural noun is attention seeking or self-marketing" are particularly fun gems. They also refer to DS notices as "spam". --Jorm (talk) 16:02, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

The OP's history at False accusations of rape is also particularly interesting for context given the similarities to the current dispute. --Jayron32 16:08, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

I have added userlinks and pagelinks at the top of this report. Thanks to the IP editor for notifying NBSB and Pepperbeast. EdJohnston (talk) 16:06, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Goodness gracious. Seems to me that the OP is someone who is WP:NOTHERE.--WaltCip (talk) 16:36, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

I just wait some of the admins to come to the real issue here. This heavy targeting by some block of users is interesting and I'm naturally flattered! As I see I'm against, let me count... 5 named users and 1 IP. I do count the 2 admins as nonpartial ones. Anyways, I return to this tomorrow I believe. So I can deal with every item in order. --J. Sketter (talk) 17:53, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Sorry I'm late to the party, but just wanted to concur with Jorm's comments. J. Sketter seems to fancy himself some kind of gender defender and has an obvious axe to grind. PepperBeast (talk) 21:37, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

J. Sketter - To clarify, I'm not against you. My only involvement was to notify the users you referenced of this thread, which is a mandatory requirement for anyone who posts here. Please don't lump me into any kind of conspiracy theory or accuse me of bias just because I followed a simple neutral rule that is posted at the top of the page. Thanks. 38.142.216.106 (talk) 17:56, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

• I think a topic ban from gender matters is the least we should do here.

  Oh, J. Sketter, you said you were waiting on us to get to the "real issue". Well, that's easy. You were edit warring. You removed a bunch of content that was strongly sourced, you were reverted, you reverted, you were reverted, you reverted again, you were reverted by another editor. You didn't post on the talk page until two hours later, and that post started with an insult: "As so often some editors like to debate for the joy of debating." So, what I see here is a couple of infractions, all of which are blockworthy already--edit warring, disruptive editing (against consensus of at least two editors), vandalism (removal of sourced content), lack of good faith (claiming they're just reverting for the sake of reverting. So I'll be happy to give you a warning for that: do not do any of those things again or you will be blocked. OK?

  But the real real issue is your apparent agenda-driven edits which fly in the face of various guidelines we have, and that is what you invited scrutiny of when you posted here, where I assume you were hoping to get those other two editors punished. We refer to this as the boomerang effect. And I reiterate that a topic ban on gender, very broadly defined, is a good thing for the project. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 18:21, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

• I'm not in a place where I can dig too deeply, but it looks to me like this editor is having problems in the area covered by the GamerGate set of discretionary sanctions, so pretty sure unilateral administrative topic bans (among other things) are fair game here. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 18:59, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

  There is no article more deeply affected by the GamerGate sanctions than Zoe Quinn, with perhaps the exception of Gamergate controversy, so yes. They are absolutely covered by that.--Jorm (talk) 19:08, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

  That's a good point. I don't know if this user's conduct is necessarily driven by GG (though it's plausible) but the article itself definitely falls within the scope.GPL93 (talk) 19:11, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

  Even if not, "gender matters" is within the broadly-construed scope of the GG sanction. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 20:06, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

  Exactly. Drmies (talk) 00:55, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

  I looked at their Quinn edits again and revdeleted them as BLP violations. Drmies (talk) 00:58, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

• I am unsure why, given the content of the diffs Drmies has revdelled, the user has not already been indefinitely blocked. Fish+Karate 08:43, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

To be fair, he's never been blocked or warned before so an indef block for a first offense might be considered a harsh reaction. I can definitely see both sides of the argument though so maybe Drmies is just waiting for the discussion to play out before taking additional action. 38.142.216.106 (talk) 13:00, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

IP, you're pretty much spot on: since I have been responding here and making an edit (and suggestion) or two, I think it is a good idea for me to await what others have to say. The user hasn't been warned, and I am unwilling to just drop the most serious sanction on this person, though I am not convinced that they are a net positive. User:Fish and karate, if you feel an indef block is warranted, go for it: that I haven't done it doesn't mean I'm against it. Drmies (talk) 16:11, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Hmm, I came here to clear a dispute in a article content and got this instead.
@Drmies I see you're threathning me with blocking partially based on rather made-up arguments:
You said // my response
- stop edit warring. // You may see I already did that by posting here
- RS is not an "empty claim". It's how we work. // If I dispute the connection between an article text and the source content it's not rejecting RS's, naturally. And there backing with a RS status is sidestepping the real issue.
- You didn't post on the talk page until two hours later // It's 13 minutes, and still I'm the only editor willing to discuss on the talk page
- lack of good faith (claiming they're just reverting for the sake of reverting) // if my opponents only argument is repeating "it's a RS", it naturally can lessen the good faith
Also I can't edit against a consensus when there had been only one user against my pow.
Further you make an baseless accusation my motive posting here was I "were hoping to get those other two editors punished"?? I'ts odd if an admin keeps a view that users' only motive to ask for admin help it to get his adversaries punished.--J. Sketter (talk) 21:19, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

@Jorm After the 2nd thought your notification was well-intentioned. I'll collapse them, thou.
Thanks for the IP for saving my trouble to notify NorthBySouthBaranof‎ & Pepperbeast. --J. Sketter (talk) 21:19, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

• Proposal - topic ban J. Sketter from all edits about, and all pages related to, (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed, in line with the discretionary sanctions pertaining to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate. Plus a serious warning that further BLP-violating edits are likely to lead to an outright block. Fish+Karate 08:07, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

At first you liked me indefinitely banned, so this proposal shows at least some wisdom on your part, Karatefish. You base your new proposal on the procedure (yesterday they were just guidelines, now we have some more dangerous juridical stuff to deal with - a ref not for cultural illiterates), but you should tell how I'm eligible for that by any of the six cases listed in [[168]].

Further. For the the Gamergate & multipersonal Quinn I don't care if you block me out of those topics {misgendering language redacted}}.

Further, Karatefish, you'd like to block me out of any articles in the constantly updated list Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Current_areas_of_conflict (I had to make this clear to myself and am sure a little bit of clarification helps other readers). I still have failed to read what are the edits you specifically considered to make your criteria? Personal dislike is not a valid reason. --J. Sketter (talk) 13:31, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Since you're new here, you really need to take a step back and try to learn from what you're being told if you don't want to be blocked or banned. For starters, "just guidelines" suggests you don't understand how things work here. You can be blocked for persistently violating our guidelines in a way that is harmful, not least because doing so normally means you're violating some policy (e.g. WP:Edit warring). Please don't take "guidelines" to mean you're free to just ignore what they say.

And you were alerted of the discretionary sanctions regimes for both BLPs and gender or GamerGate related areas about 5 days ago [169]. Any of your actions since then which are considered by admins to come under the purview of the regimes can result in suitable sanctioned. While you cannot be sanctioned under the regimes for stuff occurring before the alerts were given, your actions before being alerted may still be relevant. If you persistent in causing the same problems now, we have more reason to think you're not going to stop.

Also, while you did open a talk page discussion at Talk:Paternity fraud I don't think you should get that high and mighty about it since you opened this ANI only about a day later. And you apparently removed sourced content when you had only read the abstract of the cited article.

In addition, opening a talk page discussion is not helpful when you're discussing something which has been discussed with extensively and you are not adding anything new to the discussion plus you're not even in the right place to change policy, such as with your comments at Zoe Quinn.

Nil Einne (talk) 14:33, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

J. Sketter, if you continue to use transphobic language and deliberately misgender someone, I will personally do whatever I can to ensure you receive the maximum sanctions that can be applied to you. I honestly think you should be blocked for that up there right now as you are obviously aware of the Gamergate sanctions and have just violated them. I am redacting your misgendering. --Jorm (talk) 16:25, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Based on the fact that J. Sketter tried to remove discussion from this page and based on the user's diatribe above, something more than a topic ban may be in order. WMSR (talk) 23:23, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

• Topic ban per Fish & Karate. I'd action this myself but I'm on my mobile phone. I don't think there's any doubt that this is the correct course of action, especially given the editor's comments and removal of others comments here. Black Kite (talk) 00:10, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
• TBAN per Fish & Karate with short rope towards further sanctions too, as J. Sketter's comments here have me unconvinced of their ability to edit constructively. Perhaps moving topics to one they feel less strongly about will help, if they are able to do that. Pinguinn 🐧 10:39, 26 October 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:C. A. Russell: Unexplained damaging hostile action

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.

---

Hey, everyone. I'm here because I am alarmed by an instance of gratuitous hostility from C. A. Russell (talk · contribs).

Today, I visited an article called .NET Compiler Platform. I wanted to perform a certain change that I felt might be contentious. So, I took a discuss-first approach. In the article talk page, I requested C. A. Russell to clarify a couple of things in one of his messages. His answer was curt and a little hurtful, but I assumed good faith and took it to mean that he is simply no longer interested in pursuing the subject. I proceeded with editing the article.

His next action is extremely alarming, although one might not initially realize its gravity: He contacted User:Ermenrich and claimed that I am a sockpuppet of another user. I was initially confused because Ermenrich is not a SPI clerk or a CheckUser. So, I investigated a little bit. It all boils down to this: There is a certain person with whom Ermenrich has a not-so-rosy past feud. C. A. Russell intends to convince Ermenrich that I am that certain person, thus sparking a not-so-rosy feud between us. This course of malicious action has a higher chance of success than filing an official SPI report, since the latter requires strong behavioral evidence. After all, libel is cheap.

So, to summarize: I ask a user to clarify parts of one of his talk page message to me; his response is an act of character assassination. I did not know the humankind is capable of harboring such malice. If this editor is so terminally incapable of adhering to the fourth foundational principle of Wikipedia, he should be treated with a permanent ban. flowing dreams (talk page) 00:40, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

• What is going on here? I think this is the third time that someone invokes "libel" today. Drmies (talk) 01:27, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
• OK, never mind. I read your blog, that is your user page, where everything gets turned into "harassment" immediately; you seem to think that we're a free-speech zone or a free webhost. I don't know what beef you had with Trappist the monk but I kind of want to know, since Trappist the monk, as far as I know, NEVER has beef. But when it comes to ridiculous comments, maybe this takes the cake. Drmies (talk) 01:33, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

• Obvious sock of Codename Lisa (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) is blocked. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:34, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

• Ah, so they have some personal feud with Trappist? All that blogging and all that editing just to set up that run-in? That's charming. Drmies (talk) 01:39, 29 October 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.

Karldmartini

Tumi luggage in aluminium

Dolce & Gabanna Sorrento sneaker animation

Based upon the clear consensus at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Karldmartini, I believe that Karldmartini (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) should be topic banned from adding product images that he has created to any Wikipedia article, but at the same time allowed to suggest on article talk pages that the images be added. I can repeat what was said at COIN here if required, but I think it is easier to simply read it there. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:55, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

• Support proposed topic ban. In what way does for example an animated gif with a rotating random suitcase, a rotating random shoe, such as 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 (and they're far from the only animated shoe gifs that they have uploaded and added to articles), or a rotating random vibrator (added to Vibrator (sex toy)) improve the encyclopaedia? Or an animated gif of a rotating oven ready chicken that has been added to articles on multiple language versions of Wikipedia, including en-WP... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 10:14, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Thomas.W - Honestly, those gifs are kind of cool. I don't know if they necessarily belong on Wikipedia though but I thought they were pretty neat. 38.142.216.106 (talk) 17:45, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Being "cool" and "neat" doesn't automatically make things suitable for inclusion in an encyclopaedia. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 17:50, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

No arguments here. 38.142.216.106 (talk) 18:01, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Karldmartini just responded at COIN, so we may want to see how that discussion turns out before doing anything here. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:15, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Guy Macon (talk · contribs) - I don't know if you had a chance to see this on the WP:COIN page, but it looks like he thinks that you withdrew the initial offer that you made about the restriction on adding images directly to articles, but if you're OK with reinstating that offer and he is going to abide by it then this thread might end up being resolved in the near future. 38.142.216.106 (talk) 15:39, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

It has been 12 hours since I asked for a clarification.[170] I figure we should give him at least 48 before assuming that he isn't going to respond. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:56, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

It looks like Karldmartini has contracted ANI Flu, so it is time to consider whether to impose a topic ban. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:18, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Guy Macon - As I read it he agreed to the stipulation that you presented some time ago, and admits that he inadvertently violated it. Guy does have a point though...I did agree to firstly suggest they be added to "proposed changes' and yes, I did break this rule...quite flagrantly it seems! You may not believe me but I completely forgot about it. It was in May. It is now October.. Reading between the lines I think he does intend to follow that rule and simply slipped up in one instance, but will not do so again going forward. I don't think that he should be topic banned from suggesting images in article talk for other editors to consider and implement -- only topic banned from adding the images to articles himself. 208.185.237.210 (talk) 13:28, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

"...topic banned from adding product images that he has created to any Wikipedia article, but at the same time allowed to suggest on article talk pages that the images be added." is the exact opposite of "...topic banned from suggesting images in article talk"

I don't buy the "reading between the lines". User:Ronz warned him in February of 2016. User:Kendall-K1 warned him in March of 2018. User:JSFarman warned him in March of 2018, I warned him in May of 2019. User:Johnuniq warned him in October of 2019. The edit summaries of his last two rotating image additions[171][172] made it crystal clear that he was well aware of the fact that multiple editors had disagreed with his previous rotating image additions and that he decided to do it anyway because they are wrong and he is right. And now, when I asked him for an explicit commitment to stop the objectionable behavior,[173][174] he went silent. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:25, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

• So, close this and open a new report the next time he does it, close this with a warning, or impose a topic ban? I am good with any of these choices. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:27, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm afraid it's going to be the usual, namely nothing will happen here because it's under control. We'll just have to monitor what happens next and raise the issue again if needed. Johnuniq (talk) 00:23, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
    • Sigh. I am definitely going to get the ANI flu the next time I get reported at ANI... It has been shown to be an excellent defense.   :(   --Guy Macon (talk) 03:08, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Requesting an administrator strike uncivil comment directed towards me at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shinhan Bank Canada

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

---

I am contemplating reverting the comment made by @4meter4: in response to a reply I'd made—days earlier—to another Wikipedia user at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shinhan Bank Canada when I'd legitimately challenged the user's posting completely irrelevant links in an AfD discussion, but didn't know if that's the correct protocol. Nevertheless, I feel as though @4meter4:'s comment to me was uncivil, unnecessary, and may border on a personal attack. It does not belong in an AfD discussion. @4meter4: is most welcome to take this to my Talk page, if he felt it still needed to be addressed, but it doesn't belong in an AfD discussion.

Thanks, ---Doug Mehus (talk) 03:57, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

One ping is enough. Anyway, it's pretty tame as far as incivility goes. I would just move on or ask for further clarifications on the user's talk page. El_C 04:05, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

El C, Thanks for the reply. Can I use the strikethrough wiki markup on that comment from 4meter4? It just bugged me that the user brought something back up which had been resolved days ago. I just think it's a problem with the editor not assuming I was acting good faith with respect to challenging my edits. In other cases, you'll note from the thank logs and my contributions that I've either thanked him via the edit log or agreed with him on other AfD discussions, so you can see I certainly don't have any personal or systemic problem with the editor.Doug Mehus (talk) 04:11, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

No, that would be inappropriate. Again, if you wish to query the user about their comment, their user talk page is place to do so. Also, no one can see another user's thanks logs — that function is strictly private. El_C 04:14, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

@El C:, Oh I didn't know that that our 'thanks' is private information. So you, as an admin, can't even see when I thank another admin or editor for things? At any rate, I sent @4meter4: a wiki bear hug hoping we can move forward positively, and I'll just not reply to the comment in question. Doug Mehus (talk) 04:19, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Sounds good, Doug. No, both pings and thanks are private — no one can see them but you. El_C 04:23, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

I was not aware there was a ping log, but thanks logs are not private FYI Special:Log/thanks. I don't think there's a way to track down the specific edit, but you can see the timestamp of who thanked who. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:47, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: Thanks, yeah, I was certain I'd seen a 'thanks' log, but when @El C: said it was private, I assumed I'd only be able to see thanks I'd given or been given, but looking at that link, I can definitely see other users' recent 'thanks'. I'm also not sure where the ping log is—private or otherwise. I assume it's just in the notifications menu icon maybe?--Doug Mehus (talk) 04:56, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

I stand corrected! El_C 05:01, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi all. I think the comment was taken way more personally then I intended it. I am concerned that Dmehus has recently tried to get other people's opinions striked or altered at a few AFDs because he does not agree with the comments/opinions of others. It's getting to a point where I grimace at participating in an AFD with him. I don't believe it's his intention to be disrespectful or uncivil, but he is making it a difficult place for people with differing opinions to express themselves in a collaborative process. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canada Computers and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/First Nations Bank of Canada. I too have no personal vendetta against Dmehus, and we often do agree with one another. I just have a problem with the way he has demanded that other editors remarks be striked or demanded that they change their remarks. That is very disrespectful to other editors, and I felt the need to say something about his behavior toward User:Cunard, User:Carajou, and myself. Thanks for the wiki bear hug. I know we can get along going forward.4meter4 (talk) 04:28, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

@4meter4: Thanks for your reply and kind words. Your rationale for commenting was helpful for me in knowing that it wasn't directed as a personal slight in some way. I think it would be helpful for me to explain why I had originally requested an admin strike Carajou's comment—there had been some odd coordinating AfD discussion activity in the NewtonX AfD discussion, so my question was to whether or not irrelevant comments and sourcing can be struck from discussions. It wasn't like the source provided was at least relevant to the article at hand - it wasn't; it was on some bitcoin company, CoinDesk, which seemed somewhat spammy to me and I really questioned why it was added. Nevertheless, @ThatMontrealIP: clarified for me, and indeed, in a previous admin noticeboard incident, another admin clarified that admins generally don't strike irrelevant/baseless AfD comments from AfD discussions because, as that admin put it, they'd be doing nothing else all day.

I hope that my explanation is helpful, and I do thank that admin and ThatMontrealIP for clarifying on when comments actually get struck.Doug Mehus (talk) 04:37, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Dmehus, I think when an editor has a sincerely held opinion about sources or notability in an AFD discussion that opinion should remain un-struck unless it is offensive or they willingly choose to retract it. That's just being curteous and keeping a safe environment for all editors to participate in. You can point out errors without having to demand to remove other peoples statements. We all have a voice and deserve the right to be heard and respected in community discussions. Just simply comment on the sources and leave it at that. It becomes too personal when you start demanding retractions. Keep it impartial by talking about the sources. Others will read and see it, including whoever cloeses the AFD. You don't need to shame or punish people for having a bad argument. Just Kindly state why you think it's wrong and the community will see and respond.4meter4 (talk) 04:47, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

4meter4, Yes, I realize that, but I hope you can appreciate from where I was coming. That said, with respect to Cunard's sources, my issue wasn't that the sources were irrelevant and I don't recall requesting Cunard's be struck. With regard to Carajou's, though, it was like citing McDonald's in a discussion on Salesforce.com. There wasn't even a tangential relevance; I guess I'm just of the view to striking such patent nonsense. Nevertheless, since then, I just challenge, as you suggest, such inaccurate statements but won't demand retractions anymore. Hope we can move forward positively now.Doug Mehus (talk) 04:53, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

I know we can. Most of the time we get along just great. You put a lot of thought into these discussions and are a valuable contributor at AFD. Just remember to allow people the room to have their own opinions, even if they seem ridiculous to you.4meter4 (talk) 04:58, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Why not User:Dmehus just assume good faith, and assume that User:Carajou inserted the wrong URL into their link - which surely is the most likely scenario here - rather than denigrating them here without notifying them on their talk page, that they've been dragged into an ANI discussion? Also I don't see how noting concern about your aggressive interactions with other editors is a personal attack, or reason to drag everyone to ANI drama - threatening to delete or strike out another users comments because you don't agree with them, is surely unusual and aggressive editing! Nfitz (talk) 06:16, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

• Question Since I initiated this request and it's been dealt with, can I close this, or does it need an admin to close? Doug Mehus (talk) 06:22, 27 October 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 Wikideas1 uploading screen grabs from the internet without proper copyright attribution

Wikideas1 (talk · contribs)

This guy is screenshotting websites and uploading the media using "Own work", when it is clearly a screen grab. He also adds his "politically biased" graphics to articles to further his agenda. Maybe have a look at this guy.

At the article Forklift he added some ridiculous design which doesn't even fit in the section or the article.

212.98.173.17 (talk) 06:02, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

The reporter neglected to notify Wikideas1 about alleged licensing problems and did not notify Wikideas1 properly about this very thread. See talk:Forklift #"Container_mounted_forklift" for the content dispute in Forklift. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 07:44, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

I have reopened this as it seems to be an issue. I've posted Incnis Mrsi (talk · contribs) closing remarks above, and removed the "close tags". As stated clearly in the posting directions for this page the editor must be notified. I'll do so now. — Ched (talk) 10:23, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

• I'll also supply a couple of the diffs that seem to be in question:

1. Forklift post - forklift pic
2. Abortion in US by state - uploaded picture
3. Incarceration in US - pic

These seem to indicate a pattern in last few months and IMO deserve discussion with regards to how appropriate the uploads and postings are. If Incnis Mrsi feels the IP is posting inappropriately, they should also provide diffs as AN and ANI posts look at behavior of all parties involved. — Ched (talk) 10:29, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

This is definitely my own work I create graphs using numbers for Mac. And to create the map I used pixelmator. Wikideas1 (talk) 15:43, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikideas1 - What about this image? Or this one? Looking at your user talk page on Commons, I see copyright violation warnings and numerous notices for deletions that go quite a ways back, and where the nominator cited similar problems (licensing and the claim of "own work"). What happens on commons isn't something that can be used to justify administrative action here, but local uploads that violate policy, as well as edits to articles that add images that are later shown to have licensing issues or are copyright violations can be. I suggest that we review this user's image uploads (both local uploads and commons uploads) and make sure that there are no other licensing issues or copyright violations that can be found. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:29, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

I've encountered issues with contents uploaded by this user while working on the article Union Pacific Railroad. One of the pictures was a screen capture sans logos from page 5 of the presentation hosted at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-05/documents/jbhunt-trends-intermodal-freight-transport-05-2014.pdf. I found this ANI while reviewing that user's contribution. Despite being hosted on a Federal Government domain, the work is beyond obvious that it's not authored by the Federal Government. The image that the user asserted as public domain has since been removed from commons after I flagged it. It was https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Largest_domestic_53_foot_container_companies.png which this user added in this diff. For the 3D drawing, every one of them they uploaded have link to his 3D Warehouse profile and it almost looks as if he's trying to promote his 3D drawing. On their 3D warehouse descriptions, they don't state that they've released it to the public domain and the TOU for the 3D Warehouse says "Can I print a model on a 3D printer? Answer: Yes. But the commercial sale of exact, physical reproductions of models is not permitted." Well, that's not consistent with the "public domain" licensing. Graywalls (talk) 10:19, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

IP editor spamming user 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.

---

115.78.230.128.

(FWIW, Akane Yamaguchi already has 30 citations.) Narky Blert (talk) 07:59, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Well that was quick, mass-reverted and blocked just as I posted :-). Narky Blert (talk) 08:03, 27 October 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.

Sca and an 'enemies list'

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.

---

Colleagues, This may only be a minor point, but I have twice asked Sca to remove what can only be seen as an 'enemies list' from his talk page. I had a minor disagreement over the renaming of the 2019 Grays incident article (and the applicability of WP:TITLEVAR in using the British term term "Lorry").

The following day I went to his talk page to apologise if I came across as terse, when I saw the message "This page, and its archives, may not be edited under any circumstances by users Fgf10, Wakari07, Davey2116, Nfitz or SchroCat". (Looking in the history, "this edit added me to the list which, at the time, included The Rambling Man, Fgf10, Wakari07, Davey2116 and myself. A subsequent edit removed TRM but added Nfitz to the list in his place - Nfitz also countered Sca's position on the Gray's title, and appears to be the only interaction between the two of them, but I haven't gone through the full history). I politely asked Sca (from my own talk page) to remove the notice, but he did not. I left a message on his talk page repeating the request, but this has also been ignored. (For the record, that was only my second edit to that page, the previous one was a 'Happy Christmas' message in 2015). I have no desire to post on that page again (aside from the necessary ANI notification).

I believe such 'enemies lists' are frowned upon (as seen with this matter) for being polemic in outlook and uncollegiate in spirit. Thanks – SchroCat (talk) 16:32, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

We tend to respect that editors can request someone else not post to their talkpage. Making that request should be sufficient on its own, without documenting it at the top of the page. Sca, if you ask someone not to post there, the burden is on that person to remember, and if they do it anyway then you can bring them to ANI. So no particularly good reason to keep such a list, it seems. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:44, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

I hadn't even realised I'd been released from the dreadful guilt and harassment. But nevertheless, I saw it much more as a reflection of Sca rather than a reflection of the people he considered "banned" from his talkpage, so I never really thought twice about it, despite Sca feeling fine with interacting with me and mentioning me many times and in many places across Wikipedia. Having been removed from the banned list, I can now rejoice in my new-found love of Wikipedia! The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 17:01, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Basically User:Sca lost an argument over WP:ENGVAR and is now going to throw their toys out of the pram.In light of their approach, is there any reason you'd want to post there; after all, discussion takes place on the talk article page. Which will soon, of course, be getting moved to its new title. ——SerialNumber54129 17:09, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Absolutely no reason I'd post there at all, which makes it all the more bizarre to ban me from the page. The only reason I went there in the first place (and saw the note by accident) was to apologise of coming across as terse. I don't think that message would be welcome now! - SchroCat (talk) 17:16, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

SchroCat recently has posted argumentative comments in reply to my posts about legitimate editorial subjects, particularly those related to the Grays Incident – especially on the Grays talk page. Upon reflection, I concluded any further interaction with SchroCat would be counter-productive and pointless, and added him to those users prohibited from posting on my talk page – this, in order to obviate possible future use of said page as a forum for argumentation on his part.

For my part, in the interest of harmony, I hereby undertake not to post on SchroCat's talk page or to engage with him elsewhere on Wikipedia. (I would welcome a no-contact order affecting both of us.)

Regarding TRM's comment, he and I formerly had an unpleasant history of conflict, but in recent years he has mellowed and we've had no disputes of note. Indeed we occasionally cooperate at WP:ITN/C. I'd been thinking for some time of removing him from the do-not-edit note on my talk, and did so coincidentally with adding SchroCat.

The do-not-edit note is by no means an "enemies list," as SchroCat polemically asserts. It is solely an effort to avoid fruitless argumentation. (Other users listed there reflect serious past conflicts.)

My ideal for WP users/editors is collegial harmony. – Sca (talk) 19:31, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Not particularly about the lorry deaths, only about the lorry deaths in the past 12 months or so. Ditto for Nfitz. These weren't "argumentative comments": they were disagreeing with someone who decided not to bother with our guidelines. Ditto for Nfitz. Considering we operate in entirely separate spheres of interest, the offer of "a no-contact order" is laughable. Just take the enemies list off your talk page, as I've asked and others have advised. It's uncollegiate, unco-operative and completely unnecessary. I know you don't want me to post on your talk page: I get that, and considering the only comment I'd made on your talk page before that note was a Christmas message, I don't know what you were trying to prove. If your aim is "collegial harmony", as you claim, in what way is "A stupid, annoying comment" an example of that? - SchroCat (talk) 19:47, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't think "collegial harmony" is facilitated by you displaying such a list. As for a formal interaction ban, I get the sense that such a remedy would be premature at this time. But I also get the sense that this will be informally subscribed to, anyway. El_C 19:39, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

• I'm a little baffled on this, as I don't even recognize the name of User:Sca. Digging deeper, we had a brief, and I thought civil and thoroughly forgettable exchange the other day at Talk:2019 Grays incident about not needing to change titles of British articles to not use British English. The exchange was pretty much me saying why, him responding that 75% of the world don't understand what a "lorry" is, and me pointing out that most English speakers live in Asia, and know what a lorry is, and tagging them to ask how they get 75% - to which there was no response. Obviously this can't be about that, as I don't think I've ever looked at their talk page before, and can't find any edits by myself ... can User:Sca tell me what previous encounter I've forgotten - I'm not finding much, but "Sca" isn't the best search term. Sorry to have to ask this - but I do have some memory gaps from the 2015-2017 period, when I was having some health issues - I have no doubt it's me that's forgotten! Nfitz (talk) 23:29, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
• The text is unhelpful in a collaborative community, and it is factually incorrect. If one of the named editors raised an issue concerning Sca at a noticeboard, policy would require the editor to post a notice at Sca's talk—there is no such thing as "under any circumstances" at Wikipedia. Regardless of that, posting an enemies list is a violation of WP:POLEMIC and the text must be removed. Johnuniq (talk) 00:29, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
• By longstanding practice the community has made it clear that editors may, within reason and with obvious exceptions, tell other editors not to post on their talk page. While I discourage the practice in all but the rarest cases as it creates a road block to communication, sometimes I acknowledge it is the lesser of evils. (Full disclosure, over the years I have asked two editors not to post on my page.) Obviously there are going to be exceptions as noted above. If there is an established rule for how to go about this I'm not aware of it. But to my mind, posting a list of the excommunicated may not be the best way. I'd suggest a polite note while pinging the other editor and letting it go at that. On which note, I have always interpreted such requests as a defacto severing of diplomatic relations and that is not a one way street. On the rare occasions when I've run into editors who tell someone to stay off their TP and then turn around and continue to post on the other's, I have made my disapproval known. As for this specific case, whether or not Sca's list is a good idea may be debatable, but I'm not seeing a convincing argument that anything here is actionable. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:58, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
• IMHO the list should be removed as per POLEMIC, Given some noticeboards explicitly state notices must be given it sort of makes Sca's notice void/invalid, List should be kept off wiki imho. –Davey2010^Talk 01:11, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

• As others have said, it's generally accepted that when someone asks another editor to stay away from their talk page, this should be respected with reasonable exceptions like compulsory notices. The editor 'banned' should remember the request and if the persist on violating it, they're likely to be sanctioned for it. Since it's not a formal interaction ban, if an editor barely engages with another and forgets about the request after a year and violates it, the editor who made the request can just remind them if they still wish it to be in place. It's not necessary to include any sort of notice on the talk page listing the editors, and such lists should be removed given the problems they cause.

  As has also been said, if you want an editor to stay away from you, you should stay away from them. This includes not posting on their talk page except in cases when it would be acceptable for them to post on yours. And limiting any discussion of them or their behaviour. On your talk page, you should basically never discuss the editor, not even obliquely. If someone else brings them up, remove it or at least tell the person who brought it up you will not discuss it and ask not to post about the editor any more. On article talk pages and similar, discussion of user behaviour is often off-topic anyway and while there's some tolerance of it when it's directly relevant to disputed content, it's problematic to do so when the editor cannot discuss your comments of their behaviour directly with you. On noticeboards like AN, you can mostly post like normal. Although you may want to at least tell people you banned the other editor from your talk page. And you should harder than normal to ensure your comments have some relevance to deciding what to do about some situation.

  For the user who was 'banned', it's more complicated. We don't want editors to escape sanction or scrutiny simply by 'banning' people. But at the same time, given a desire to disengage, if the discussion seems more needling than useful scrutiny, this is likely to be taken more harshly than normal. Ultimately since it's not a formal interaction ban, the editor who issued the ban is free to remove it if they feel they want to engage more directly with the editor 'banned' over their concerns. (Again, game playing like persistently 'unbanning', saying something, than 'banning' again is likely to be perceived poorly.)

  I would add that while I think many of us can understand it coming up once or twice, if you've felt the need to 'ban' 6 people from your talk page, there's a fair chance this speaks more of you than of them. In addition, even if you do ask someone to stay away from your talk page, it's generally expected this arises because of actual disputes you've had on your talk page such that you don't welcome further communication there. Rarely I can imagine it arising from dispute on the other editor's talk page. It arising from disputes you've had in other places seems something that would be very rare. If it's happening a lot to you, again maybe consider what this reflects on your editing here.

  Nil Einne (talk) 01:28, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

I think we've all seen people banned from talk pages, because of what is said on each others talk pages. Not sure that's the issue here. I've ran the interaction tool, and some other searches, and the closest that Sca and I have ever come to each other before a brief and civil exchange yesterday on a mainspace talk page, was that we both posted on the same Admin's talk page, 2 weeks apart, in September 2006, in two different threads. Surely simply and politely pointing out an error in assumption in a forgettable discussion on a minor style issue, during a rename debate, isn't worthy of being banned from someone's page, you've never looked at before. How is that not a violation of WP:5P4 - unless it's some case of mistaken identity. This is a collaborative project, and blocking collaboration on trivial issues doesn't work. At the same time User:Sca has a 15-year long unblemished block history (the one block appearing to have been erroneous) - so I can only assume that this isn't typical. I remain baffled on how I got swept up in this (and how I've never encountered Sca in 15 years - presumably we edit in different circles). Nfitz (talk) 04:15, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

• Comment Apologies for being late to this discussion. As I'm one of the users on the "enemies list" I was curious as to what caused me to be put on. I found that I was added to the list on January 9 of this year (although I did not find out until today). I interact with Sca solely on the ITN/C board, so given the timestamp it appears that this discussion, on whether to post a coup d'état attempt in Gabon, was the one that earned me this coveted distinction. From the fact that Wakari07 was added at the same time as me, I surmise that the exact exchange in question is:

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.

---

• Comment Incidentally, where's the "systemic bias" crowd? They're everywhere when we're trying to post the James Comey firing or the Kavanaugh confirmation or a freaking government shutdown (18 days and counting), saying we wouldn't post a corresponding event from a small African country. But now when there's a coup attempt in a small African country, there's no one saying we wouldn't not post a corresponding event from a Western country. What gives? Davey2116 (talk) 23:46, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Davey's user page is blank. What gives? Sca (talk) 02:46, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Sca: that's not an argument, and I think you know that. Wakari07 (talk) 09:05, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Personal user pages are optional. Not creating one doesn't mean you're not allowed to comment on talk pages. If Davey2116 is a newcomer, you should know not to WP:BITE them over not doing something that's not even required & has nothing to do with the discussion. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 17:27, 9 January 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.

This "user page is blank" business was some sort of long-running slightly-bizarre joke played by Sca on several ITN/C frequenters. (See this cryptic message left on my talk page.) I've always interpreted it as some good-natured fun. Regardless, it seems to be a small thing to be banned from his talk page over. Or perhaps Wakari07 and I were banned simply for our support for posting the ITN item, while Sca opposed it; but then why were we singled out among all of the !supports?

The thing is, none of the interactions I've had with Sca at ITN/C, including that one, seemed particularly negative or uncivil. In my estimation we've agreed and disagreed on ITN nominations in roughly equal proportion, and we had that hilarious exchange on the spelling bee, months after I was banished from his talk page. So it baffles me that I've been one of just four to six people on his banned list, this whole time. I haven't had occasion to leave a message on Sca's talk page (and I do not foresee that I will) so in practice whether I will be removed from the list or not makes no difference. However, some explanation would be appreciated, just for closure's sake. Davey2116 (talk) 09:03, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

My, my, 1,800 words in response to my 200. You-all are wearing me out. (I can say it that way 'cause I once lived in Kentucky.)

I'm going to remove Wakari07, Davey2116 and Nfitz from my do-not-edit note, although I suggest that Nfitz and I agree to avoid such terms as "complete nonsense" in future exchanges. I'm also going to remove the phrase "under any circumstances," which I had borrowed from a friend, Hafspajen, who had been subjected to harassment by certain users. (Alas, "Haffy" is no longer active on Wiki.)

Re Fgf10, we haven't had any interaction since I listed him in my my do-not-edit note three years ago, and I prefer to keep it that way.

Similarly, SchroCat will continue to be listed for the time being. If SchroCat and I avoid unpleasant arguments elsewhere for some time, I'll consider removing him.

Happy Halloween. – Sca (talk) 12:58, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

I think you should take account of all the above neutrals saying how inappropriate the list is, regardless of who is on it, or your motivation in putting them on there - 1,800 words in response to your 200 should be an indication that you are not acting very well here. You seem to be displaying signs of WP:ICANTHEARYOU; maybe you should read through the thread again to see just who says it's a good idea to have the list.

I cannot remember ever having had any negative interaction with you, except over this one article, and that is fairly minor (My memory may be playing me false, but I cannot remember any). Are you that thin-skinned that you have to create a divisive and disruptive list just because someone says the better path is the one that it guideline-compliant, despite you disagreeing with it? Delete the list in its entirity please: I have no intention of interacting with you or of posting on your talk page: I promise not to send you a happy Christmas note again, which was the only time I posted except to ask you to remove that list. - SchroCat (talk) 13:10, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

p.s. Please remove the YouTube link from your thread above and from your talk page: the material is still in copyright, I think, so it fails WP:LINKVIO. - SchroCat (talk) 13:12, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

"Complete nonsense" might not be the best phrasing, but it was in context to the other user I was replying to. Though I remain unaware of how you think that 75% of English speakers don't know what a "lorry" is, given that there's only 1 or 2 nations, that don't use the word. Or why your are ignoring the very clear WP:TITLEVAR policy. Not sure why not simply express concern rather than making polemic personal attacks. Nfitz (talk) 20:21, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

• Oooh I'm on an enemies list? I'm deeply honoured. I have no clue why I would be on there, but given Sca's normally abrasive and unhelpful behaviour, I'm sure it was for a good cause, probably an attempt to counter systematic bias on my behalf. Not bothered in the slightest by being on a such a childish and pathetic list, in case anyone is wondering. It did make me laugh, so that's a postive, I guess. Fgf10 (talk) 17:30, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Well there is a notable precedent for seeing enemies where there are none  :) ——SerialNumber54129 20:45, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

• It is perfectly acceptable to explicitly list editors who are not allowed post on your talk page (indeed, it's preferable to randomly saying "I thought I told you last time to STAY AWAY!!!!!!!" out of the blue, like some people I could name have done). Additionally, the term "enemies list" being applied in an ANI header and OP comment, without any apparent inline clarification of what it is (I had to click the diff), is misleading and needlessly inflammatory, and activated my PTSD from this incident (where a disruptive editor claimed that an SPI draft I was working on constituted an "enemies list", despite his considering himself to be my enemy and not being on it...) -- can we just auto-boomerang editors who use words like "enemies list" for list of people forbidden from posting on a talk page, obvious SPI drafts, etc.? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:24, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

• Given the overall tenor of this thread, I'm sure you know the answer to your question. Lepricavark (talk) 02:21, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
• I've never heard, User:Hijiri88 of having a list of people who can't post on ones talk page, when the majority of the people on the list have never posted on either party's talk page ever. Are there other examples? Though, we are probably hitting the "move on" stage of this discussion ... Nfitz (talk) 04:15, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

I briefly placed such a list on my talk page (or considered before stopping halfway through...). The list would have almost certainly included Beyond My Ken, who at that time had only ever posted on my talk page twice,[175] and GoldenRing, who had never posted on my talk page, due to my then-ongoing conflict with both of those users on ANI. People can forbid others from posting on their talk page for whatever reason they wish, and unless serious evidence of bad faith is presented, there should be no question of sanctioning editors for doing so. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:08, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

No-one is stopping people from requesting not to post on their talk page and no-one is asking for sanctions. What is being asked for is the removal of the list, which tend to be frowned upon for being uncollegiate and divisive. POLEMIC is the guideline. (And COPYVIO for the removal of the copyright violating YouTube link here and on the talk page too. - SchroCat (talk) 06:41, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

FWIW, I think it somewhat muddies the waters by bringing up copyright (as you have done twice). A lot of editors are not familiar with the blanket ban on linking YouTube videos that are presumed to violate copyright, and it is basically unrelated to the point of this thread (which is to get Sca to remove the so-called "enemies list", with the presumed consequence of not doing so being a block). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:02, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

No-one is talk ing about a block except you: that should be set aside as being a rather silly step to take and one I would not want to see happen. Sca should remove the list from his talk page. While he is doing that, he should also remove the COPYVIO. Yes, there are two slightly separate points, but there is no water-muddying going on. - SchroCat (talk) 08:04, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

No-one is talk ing about a block except you You come to ANI to request blocks. Bans and other restrictions are traditionally sought at AN. Unless an OP explicitly states that the administrative action they are looking for is a "warning" or a "post this on this person's talk page because I'm not allowed to", it is assumed that what is being requested is a block. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:00, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

"You come to ANI to request blocks": nonsense. You come to ANI to have situations resolved. It has been resolved here to the satisfaction of most with no blocks or punishment - an ideal resolution. There is no other forum to have problems like this resolved, and not everything needs a big stick to end it. - SchroCat (talk) 10:01, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

• It is not an "enemies list" (as Sca said) does not mean it does not violate POLEMIC. In my reading of the guideline, inclusion of an "enemies list" (or a "please do not edit my talk page" list) does indeed violate its spirit and should ideally be removed. Also noting, ofcourse that there is no rule that states that editors cannot edit another's if asked to or that an editor cannot ask other editors to not edit their talk page. This is borderline POLEMIC but is there really something that needs administrative action here? The easiest resolution would be for Sca to remove the list and just ask these editors to stay off their TP via email (or something). --qedk (t 桜 c) 11:17, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

I'd think getting a random email telling one to stay off a talk page that one has never visited before would be far worse than having a note at the top of page that one has never visited before. The former seems agressive, while the latter seems passive. Nfitz (talk) 12:41, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

I's agree that an email would be worse. A ping or a brief message should suffice, rather than an enemies list. In this particular situation I think people now know where everyone is. The only thing left is for Sca to remove the list from their talk page. - SchroCat (talk) 12:58, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Wouldn't the easiest resolution be for Sca to stop imposing talk page bans over content disputes that didn't even involve their own talk page? Lepricavark (talk) 13:02, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

It probably would, but I think there is a difference between keeping an open list (which goes against the guidelines) and a desire not to have conflict brought to ones own talk page (which I think may have been his intention - at least that is my take from his first response in this thread). There was absolutely no danger of that in this case, but I think it's not unreasonable that people would like to avoid interaction on their own talk page if possible. (I realise I may not be phrasing this terribly well, but I hope you get the gist, at least). - SchroCat (talk) 13:06, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Still doesn't change the fact that this is a non-issue. Any editor can ask another editor to stay off their talk page (or any page), the implications are meaningless as there is no hard and fast rule that states you have to abide by it. It's not in the spirit of a collaborative environment but nothing here would have had any real difference in the working of the world really. Time to close this up and move on, imo. --qedk (t 桜 c) 16:44, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

• My explanation is here[176] and I think this resolves it if Sca accepts my edit. Jehochman ^Talk 13:18, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done The following request was posted on the talk pages of SchroCat and Fgf10:

"In relation to my ANB case, I hereby ask you not to post on my talk page. Thanks."

– Sca (talk) 15:00, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

PS: Jehochman et al., are we going to prohibit do-not-edit talk-page notes Wikipedia-wide? – Sca (talk) 15:04, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't want to encourage instruction creep, but I would give the same advice in any parallel situation. The best way to handle it is the leave the other editor a communication which they can read and delete. Jehochman ^Talk 16:23, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

• I don't think that is the answer User:Jehochman. I don't want to be emailed, or pinged, or messaged on my talk page, by someone I've barely remember, nor had any negative interaction with, to stay off a talk page I've never looked at. I'd much sooner they leave a note on their talk page, which is merely odd - rather than messaging me, which surely violates WP:CIVIL. If there were previous issues sure - but most of the people on this list, weren't even aware of it, or what had lead to it. This seems far worse to me, than making the list on the talk page - for which there doesn't seem to be any rules against. Nfitz (talk) 17:18, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

• If you'd like to be on a list on Sca's talk page, by all means he can put you on such a list. The issue I'm addressing is if the person on the list objects to being talked about on a page where they are expected not to reply. Your position is unexpected, but if you like it that way, fine with me. Jehochman ^Talk 17:59, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
• Your position is baffling, primarily because you can't restrict anyone for anything on a say-so basis. Sure, you don't want to be notified in anyway but if they wish to, they still can. It does not violate CIVIL's letter (maybe its spirit at best) to tell another editor to stay off any page, it's just meaningless - because you would be under no obligation to do as I asked. CIVIL would be if the way it was said was particularly uncivil. --qedk (t 桜 c) 19:15, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
• What's baffling? 3 of the 5 people on the "list" were not aware of it, had never been on his talk page, thought that everything was civil, and would have no reason to be aware of the "ban" ever. Ska and I have both been editing here for about 15 years, without ever encountering each other before - and I didn't even know who he was, when I was alerted to this thread. Personally, I'd have preferred if I'd never known about it - and I don't think encouraging Ska to start notifying people rather than keeping his quiet list, is going to help - it's more likely to cause more negative interactions - and potentially complaints about unnecessary warnings. Really though - I think this discussion can be closed as without any decision, as there's not much to be done.. Nfitz (talk) 01:24, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

• Just as a reminder to all concerned parties, none of the above time-sink happens if Sca had not issued a few wholly unnecessary talk page bans for reasons that weren't even related to Sca's talk page. As I understand it, Sca had a firm yet civil disagreement with these editors. That's not a reason to ban someone from your talk page. This is hardly collaborative behavior and we shouldn't be encouraging it. Lepricavark (talk) 00:48, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Wish I could be someone's enemy... *kicks rock sullenly* HalfShadow 00:51, 29 October 2019 (UTC)    Done Nfitz (talk) 01:28, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Hey HalfShadow, you're sitting alone, want to be enemies? It's like elementary school all over again! creffett (talk) 01:33, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Can I kick puppies, grow a long, greasy mustache and laugh wickedly while I stroke it? I take my fun where I can find it. HalfShadow 02:44, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

• Okay, this kind of IDHT behaviour over the copyvio links has me a little concerned. He replaced the link I removed with a different one that might be okay (Gounod died in 1893 so his work is all presumably public domain, but I see no reason to assume that recording is, and I'm not sure about the legality of uploading copies of legitimately purchased commercial recordings of public domain music onto YouTube). But this one is still live, and he has shown no intention of removing it. I can't remove it because I'm pretty sure I'm also on his ban list right now. The ban list issue appears to have been resolved by User:Jehochman, but given that it happened on ANI, has been going on for months, and shows no signs of stopping, I think we really should also demand a statement from Sca that he understands why what the YouTube links were inappropriate and that he doesn't intend to do so again. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:55, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
• Well aren't we all wasting a lot of time on this? Sca, if I ever found a reason to post on your talk page - not that I see why I would, or think I actually evenrhave - I will most certainly do so. Anyway, If Sca wants to feel persucuted or whatever, let them. Not for us to worry about. Shall we close this nonsenes and all go back to ignoring Sca? Fgf10 (talk) 09:00, 29 October 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.

Multiple disruptive behaviours

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

---

This is in regards to the varied and intractable disruption caused by User:Baburjahangir:

• Continual unsourced changes to articles and removal of sourced content in spite of several warnings.[177][178][179][180]

• Very likely used a separate IP account in order to make edits (based on the similarity between editing habits), in spite of warning. The IP in question is User:223.185.31.203.

• Created a string of articles which ranged from non-notable to down-right false. These were solely composed of unsourced infoboxes which contained images of completely different individuals and events. All have been (or are in the process of being) speedly deleted.

• Added infoboxes to existing articles which were not backed up by sources and/or contained unrelated images.[181][182]

• Repeatedly blanked articles and replaced them solely with infoboxes, again containing irrelevant images.[183][184][185]
  Alivardi (talk) 11:16, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

I have changed the mobile diff links in the post above to regular diffs for readability. --bonadea contributions talk 11:19, 27 October 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.

Abusive language and threats

I have no idea how to handle this. Someone is posting the most vile accusations and threats in a talk page. I’d like assistance please. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Special_Task_Force_(SAPS)

My advice to you, BoonDock, would be not to engage in conversations like that in the first place. The IP editor is not making a suggestion about how to improve the article, just soapboxing - the best thing to do would have been to remove their comment with an edit summary along the lines of 'Remove soapboxing; talk pages are for discussing improvements to the article'. As for now, I'd advise you to disengage and apply WP:DENY - just ignore them. I'll remove the thread now, and warn the IP. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 17:33, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you BoonDock (talk) 17:35, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM too is grounds for instant removal. Which sounds a little Judge Dredd, but you get the gist. ——SerialNumber54129 17:43, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

True - that's another classic. Favonian has also blocked for 48 hours for the PAs, I've removed the thread - I think we're done. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:53, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

LG-Gunther and sock tagging

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.

---

LG-Gunther (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I won't name any other names here for the purposes of WP:DENY, but my beef here is that said editor, while he may have meant well, kept on tagging sockpuppet accounts of a certain long-term abuser even though that did more harm than good, i.e. unwanted attention from said LTA. I've already filed an MfD request before, using this as precedent; problem was that I didn't word it right enough to merit a delete consensus. And even if I did make a successful MFD, I'm worried that LG-Gunther would disregard the consensus and (unwittingly) tag the pages regardless despite the troll craving for such attention. Blake Gripling (talk) 02:41, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

@LG-Gunther: please leave tagging to checkusers and SPI clerks. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:55, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

@LG-Gunther: As mentioned above, tagging users should be left for others—please do not do any more tagging such as the 16 pages in the last five weeks. The most recent of those have also been tagged for speedy delete. I would support deleting all of them. Johnuniq (talk) 06:19, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

@Blakegripling ph: yes will be delete as sock of User:My Royal Young accounts and otherwise should to delete. LG-Gunther :  Talk  09:02, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: sure thing i got using these delete as WP:MfD for delete as sock of User:My Royal Young

LG-Gunther has now gone off to MfD nominate about 30 user pages they had already put the sock tag on, see page creation log. I've asked them to stop doing that, but would it be possible to batch close the MfDs, which fill no function and just clog up the process? --bonadea contributions talk 09:47, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

I'd rather consolidate it to a single MFD and be done with it as there's no point with keeping and/or tagging sock account pages as, well, socks given the attention it is soliciting. To be honest LG-Gunther, while he has the heart and willingness to help, has some difficulty with policies and whatnot. I'm not going to spite or ridicule him for this though; I just wanted to be a bit frank and set things straight about this ordeal. Blake Gripling (talk) 10:09, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Do you want to procedural close the ones at MFD and have LG-Gunther and Blake Gripling work directly with SPI clerks to do the appropriate tagging or speedy deleting if appropriate? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:42, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Here are the articles in question. I'm not sure if it needs to be proc closed and updated separately, or they can be handled en masse here. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:42, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

• User:Heneralemilio (I attempted a proc close on this one)
• User:Alfonso Calabarzon
• User:Yesterdayistoday
• User:Van3AIing Oreo
• User:Yoshi is a Homosexual Dinosaur
• User:Last Yoshi Goes to Edit War
• User:Finger Your Butt
• User:UsedforVendilism
• User:OnlyUsedForVendelism
• User:IDidUsedForVendelism
• User:LoccoPocco
• User:OneTopicSpree
• User:MariachristinaFall
• User:HarleyDude69
• User:Indian or Jew?
• User:WhenDatHotlineBling is copying MRY
• User:Rayboythemaster
• User:WhenDatRoyalBling
• User:Xandermydude
• User:Bimboy77
• User:Terabyte bios settings
• User:Vadebal77
• User:Maxsun motherboard bios settings
• User:Gigabyte motherboard bios settings

I have two brief comments. First, I would like to thank User:Blake Gripling for bringing this MFD mess to the attention of admins and SPI clerks by posting it here. Second, I would like to suggest that User:LG-Gunther may need admonition or mentoring, or, unfortunately, a competency block. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:54, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Sure thing i thing so that using as Since September 18, 2019 as Personal Attack to me as Sock of User:My Royal Young and clearly like even violently everything. LG-Gunther :  Talk  19:16, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

• What a mess. Since when does WP:DENY say to create dozens of pointless MFDs. I've deleted the 24 userpages listed above, which consisted solely of sock tags and MfD tags (and in some cases vandalism), under a combination of G3 and G7. I've also deleted/removed the MfD nominations as they are moot. I'm having some trouble parsing Lg-Gunther's comments here, so I can only hope that they understand not to tag socks that someone else has already blocked without tagging, and that they will seek advice from a more experienced editor if they ever feel the need to create a large number of XfDs, as grouping related pages into a single nomination would have been less disruptive. Another admin can feel free to close this as resolved if they don't believe that any further action is needed. ST47 (talk) 19:43, 27 October 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.

Talk:Abu_Bakr_al-Baghdadi

Special:Contributions/70.115.139.248

Disgruntled IP using foul and unnecessary language across the talk page

Special:MobileDiff/923248193 Special:MobileDiff/923248545

There's more. Its the only thing the IP has done is respond to every talk subject — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slywriter (talk • contribs) 20:58, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

I have removed these unconstructive comments. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:53, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

_Any_ features mention in Retrospect (software) turns article into PR "advertisement", claims Guy

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.

---

Here's the relevant section of the Retrospect (software) Talk page. For those of you who insist on diffs, here's one, but the difference part—not the lengthy "latest revision" part—leaves out a a few preliminary comments in the relevant section (because old sections of the page had been archived immediately before the starting point for the diff, so a diff that went any further back was really unreadable).

Dirk Beetstra stated Guy's peculiar non-WP-established definition most clearly: "Just to pile on: the 'standard features' and 'editions and add-ons' in this version just do not show why they have to be in the article, verifiable existence is not an inclusion standard, it should be relevant (and for thát you need independent, reliable sources showing that relevance). As it stands in that version, it is just an indiscriminate collection of information. You will have to show specifically why a certain feature is so special, not just that it exists. Listing features and add-ons here is just promotional material (even when not written with a reason to promote). (and yes, I do note that a lot of other similar articles have the same indiscriminate material, and that should also be removed)."

Farther down the section Dirk strengthened their non-WP-established definition even further: "DovidBenAvraham, I have just one answer: I challenge the statement that the features are special, it is to you to show that they are indeed special. That is what is reflected in all our sourcing policies and guidelines. Mere existence alone, even if verifiable, is not worth mentioning. I can believe that some of the features are 'special', but you'll have to show that they are special. That also likely boils the list down to a smaller size, and that is probably better worked out in prose than in a list-like format."

Dirk was most specific about the definition when he stated still farther down: "... but you keep on pushing these features into the article which strongly suggests that they are special. WP:V: '... and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by inline citations' .. our challenge is that they are not worth mentioning, if they are to be included one needs an independent, reliable source to show that they are somehow special. That is also in line with WP:LSC's 'criteria for inclusion should factor in encyclopedic and topical relevance, not just verifiable existence.'" The problem with WP:V: is that that entire article doesn't say anything about inclusion implying that an item is "somehow special". The problem with WP:LSC is that it states "For example, if reliable sources indicate that a complete list would include the names of ten notable businesses and two non-notable businesses, then you are not required to omit the two non-notable businesses."

In my last version of the article I did a reduction in features sections to "special"-only—meaning not usual in consumer backup applications. I also eliminated any cites of a 2009 TidBITS article that Dirk thought had a conflict of interest, because it offered a discount for Retrospect ordered through that website. Lastly I eliminated all first-party feature cites, even though these were to Retrospect Inc. user documentation—and IMHO those should be allowed under "The organization's own website is an acceptable (although possibly incomplete) primary source for information about what the company says about itself and for most basic facts about its history, products [my emphasis], employees, finances, and facilities."

However the real focus of this ANI is Guy, because from 12 September 2019 on he did very substantial actual deletions from the article. His first Edit Summary notation for a deletion was "There is clear consensus on ANI and elsewhere that the level of detail here is excessive, the content promotional, and the sources lack intellectual independence (press releases / publications by Retrospect." Guy's next principle-driven Edit Summary notation (embedded within a couple of deletions of extensive quoting—which I had put in to guide a reader—in extensive second-party source articles) were "rm more PR". His last pair of principle-driven deletions were from this later article version which I had created; the Edit Summary notations were "WP:HOWTO". "Describing to the reader how people or things use or do something is encyclopedic; instructing the reader in the imperative mood about how to use or do something is not"; does anybody see (I've made it easier to answer that question by not giving you a diff) any "instructing the reader in the imperative mood about how to use or do something" in the "Standard features" and "Editions and Add-Ons" sections Guy deleted?

What was bothering me was Guy's motivation for an evident antagonism to any features sections in the article, and for his refusal to explain his peculiar non-WP-established definitions of "advertising" and "PR".. Because on 12 September 2009 he added a ref in the current article's lead to this 2003 😗 review of the Windows variant of Retrospect, I had a hunch Guy had prior personal experience with the application—and that experience motivated him to create his own intentionally-inadequate features paragraph. Lo and behold, Guy delivered a "smoking-gun" confession on the article's Talk page (linked-to in this section's first paragraph) about 2.5 hours ago. "Yes, I would have reverted it [my latest version, because you are basically adding back material that has been removed, discussed, and been agreed to be inappropriate. I fully understand that you do not accept that Wikipedia is not the place for what is in effect a marketing document. I have suggested an alternative venue - Wikibooks - where you can include as much HOWTO and PR detail as you like, but you seem very reluctant to accept this. What you need to understand is that however hard Retrospect try to spin it, there is pretty much nothing unique, or even distinctive, about their product. I was a long-time user of it when I ran Mac networks and when I worked for an Apple reseller. I deal with backup software in my daily life. I know the product landscape. Restrospect [sic] is not seen as a significant player, and Wikipedia is not the place to fix that." Can anybody see a violation of WP:NOR and WP:NPOV?

What do I want to be done to Guy (Dirk hasn't actually done any editing of the article; just the making of comments). I could probably insist that he be punished for WP:Vandalism; the "malicious removal of encyclopedic content, or the changing of such content beyond all recognition, without any regard to our core content policies of neutral point of view (which does not mean no point of view), verifiability and no original research, is a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia." But I feel merciful towards a sinner who has confessed. I'd be happy if Guy is simply banned from directly editing the article. Here's the latest version I've written]; I've obviously gone a long way in satisfying Guy's and Dirk's legitimate complaints about the "Standard features" and "Editions and Add-Ons" sections, which I've reduced to about 0.66 screen pages from 1.2 screen-pages (for 3 features sections) on 12 September 2019. I'm willing to make further size-reducing edits if Dirk and Guy can convince me on the article's Talk page that my latest version (which I posted and immediately reverted at Dirk's suggestion) violates any real Wikipedia definitions they can give me links for. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 12:43, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Holy wall of text, Batman! EEng 12:19, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Can anybody see a violation of WP:NOR and WP:NPOV?

Nope.

Also, perhaps you should use more-generally understood definitions of "smoking gun" and "vandalism". --Calton | Talk 13:07, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Calton, what I quoted in the last paragraph of my 12:43, 27 October 2019 (UTC) comment is the definition from WP:Vandalism. As to WP:NOR and WP:NPOV, see my forthcoming reply below to Guy. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 19:19, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

what I quoted in the last paragraph of my 12:43, 27 October 2019 (UTC) comment is the definition from WP:Vandalism

You quoted the definition: you either showed no understanding of it or, worse, are deliberately misapplying it to malign an opponent and win a dispute. --Calton | Talk 00:12, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

• @DovidBenAvraham: Among your many transgressions, you failed to notify Guy or Dirk. Another user notified Guy, and I just notified Dirk.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:42, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks for doing the notifications, Bbb23, and my apologies to Dirk and Guy. I pulled a 10-hour over-nighter writing this ANI—because I had promised, went to bed at 9:30 a.m., and only remembered the notifications when I woke up 3 hours later. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 19:08, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

I have no clue how we cannot get that a sentence like "Retrospect is sold with varying backup server capability levels, called "Editions", with non-expiring license–codes[13] that cover one major version" (my bolding) cannot be interpreted as 'promotional'. That one sentence can be heavily toned down to "tq|Retrospect is available with different backup server capability levels<full stop>}}" (and probably even further). Then we have '"Add-Ons", which activate additional backup server features via Edition-linked license codes, may also be purchased" (again my bolding) with standard capabilities like "backing up to multiple single tape drives simultaneously[13] or to a multiple-drive tape library". In the features: "Backup destinations: Termed Media Sets[note 1]—can be on any of the usual consumer storage media,[11] tapes or WORM tapes[12]—with barcoding[13], or CD/DVD discs.[7]" .. what is so special about 'usual consumer storage media, tapes or WORM tapes .. or CD/DVD discs. In DovidBenAvraham's own words: "Kissel describes them in two single-screen-line sentences", that is what this should be reduced to, at most.

As far as I can see, JzG knows what they are talking about.

Note: you pinged me, but did not notify me on my talkpage, as is requested at the top of this page (thanks Bbb23). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:51, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

I originally stated on the article's Talk page, Dirk Beetstra, that I was going to delete any mention of Editions. However I later discovered a problem, described by my friend as the 2004 Dantz-Development-originated "soak the presumed rich installations" pricing strategy. Because Dantz already had many tens of thousands of "poor installation" customers, EMC and Retrospect Inc. have continued to offer the US$120 Desktop Edition license—a bargain my friend and I take advantage of. All Edition licenses except the most expensive one come with a maximum number of "client" computers, while the Desktop Edition license—and only that license—gives you free "protection of Windows systems NTFS open files". So I left in a minimal two-line explanation of Editions. As for tape drive backup destinations, that feature—much less with barcoding—is so unusual for consumer backup applications that the 2019 Kissell Online Appendixes don't even have a column for it. Kissell does have a column for CD/DVD, but unaccountably left it blank on the Retrospect Desktop line; therefore I left in a specific mention of those two backup destination types. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 20:09, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

DovidBenAvraham, again. I had a consumer tapedrive in my computer 20 years ago, in the time before DVD burning and large harddrives and memory cards and RAIDs were normal. You can buy those things, you know (though, are they still used?). My company archives email and network backs up my harddrive. I backup pictures from my iPad to the cloud. You base your comments on incorporation in a table (an erroneous table as you confess). Come now with a reputable secondary source that states that Retrospect is the only piece of software in the world that can do that on Macs and I will grant you a one-liner for that. But not 80% of the article on it. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 03:59, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

My basic question in this ANI, Dirk Beetstra, is where is this "only piece of software in the world that can do that on Macs" requirement stated as a Wikipedia rule? Nobody has been able to link to it, and I think it is a piece of editor folklore that is convenient for "interceptor pilot editors" trying to keep out "spam". You can't buy a modern tape drive for less than US$1500, because "By 2014 LTO had become the primary tape technology." AFAIK the only other Mac backup programs that can write to tape storage media are Tolis BRU and Archiware P5; both of these are substantially more expensive than Retrospect, and have tape capabilities because they're oriented towards media producers (you can't backup your two-hour movie to any available portable HDD). DovidBenAvraham (talk) 08:02, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

@DovidBenAvraham: that has been pointed out to you, I challenge the point that these are features worth mentioning. You cannot show me that that feature is something 'special', it is commonplace, especially now you state to me "... the only other Mac backup programs that can write to tape storage media are Tolis BRU and Archiware P5", meaning that it is not unique (and there may still be more).

And there it is again .. "... both of these are substantially more expensive than Retrospect ...", again a promotional statement. Who cares that the others are more expensive, that is not encyclopedic. We are not a sales site or a price comparison site.  --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:44, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Beetstra, It may be true that most other products will no longer write to tape, for much the same reason they don't write to Bernoulli drive or clay tablet. The only time I hear about tape in my professional life is in the context of how to get rid of it. I have a huge stack of legacy format drives and tapes in my graveyard of IT, including DLT and autoloaders, various LTO generations and even some Travan if I can find it! Guy (help!) 11:14, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

• Again? How many venues is this you've tried now? The fact that I used Retrospect (as I presume do you, given your zeal to pad this article out) has zero relevance. What, you think I had a bad experience and hate it? Nothing could be further from the truth. I loved it. I don't use it now because I'm not a twenty-something running branch office Mac networks, I am leading year-long migration programmes involving hyperconverged virtual infrastructure, Oracle appliances, AIX and such. I have worked with Retrospect, BackupExec, NetBackup, Tivoli, Networker, Veeam, CommVault, Crashplan, Mozy, Avamar - those are just the ones I remember. Guy (help!) 15:47, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Trout for DovidBenAvraham for what looks like a bad-faith ANI report and the accusations of vandalism (please take a moment to review what is and is not vandalism around here). JzG's actions look entirely reasonable to me and I agree with the citation of WP:NOTHOWTO (and would add WP:NOTCHANGELOG to the list of policies in play here); there's no need for detailed listing of product features unless they are the subject of significant third-party coverage. The mere mention of a feature, especially one which is standard in backup software, doesn't necessarily merit coverage (I'd suggest that WP:ROUTINE applies here). Further, whether or not JzG has used the product before is irrelevant, and your "smoking-gun confession" is nothing of the sort. NPOV would apply if JzG were trying to bash the product in the article or cherry-picking negative reviews, but I see no personal bias or POV in their actions. creffett (talk) 17:52, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

My "bad-faith ANI report", creffett, was based on my feeling that Guy must have antagonism to the Retrospect application to have used a 2003 pre-enterprise review as his only reference—quoted at length—to its features. He denies any antagonism, and in my current charitable mood I think that—distrusting TidBITS because he was too busy to discover it's not a blog (a question I have dealt with in a RSN topic archived here in my only other venue), Guy went back to the only publication he felt he could trust. So last night I felt justified in quoting the definition of WP:Vandalism, but I now think that I should WP:AGF on Guy's part. As for WP:NOTCHANGELOG, creffett, you'll find no changelog in my latest or earlier versions of the article; here and here are "Exhaustive logs of software updates" in the WP articles for competing enterprise client-server applications. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 21:09, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

DovidBenAvraham, you probably have no idea how many people have tried to ram wads of spammy content into article based on the claim that because they argue a source is RS, so everything mentioned in that source should be in the article. You are violating MPOV. And WP:IDHT. And WP:STICK. And WP:NCR. Guy (help!) 22:58, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Proposal: block DovidBenAvraham as an inveterate and long-time timewaster

DovidBenAvraham, you have been arguing about the article Retrospect (software) and its sourcing for a number of years, I saw on your page. I noticed an interesting comment of yours from 2016, showing a basic misunderstanding of Wikipedia's sourcing principles: apparently you believed then, as now though with more frills, that if there are no secondary sources, that means you're justified in basing an article on primary sources. "When I tried to enhance the article, I ran into the fact that there are no modern secondary sources other than one short Macworld review by Stuart Gripman"[186] (your italics) "As I've said in my third paragraph above, I can't do much about the "Primary sources" issue because there essentially are no secondary sources."[187] Your conclusion that you must use primary sources because there are no others is erroneous. The correct conclusion is that if there are no secondary, reliable, independent sources, Wikipedia shouldn't have an article about the subject either.

You were immediately told so by an IP user: "If no reliable and third-party sources exist for a subject, it should not usually have an article".[188] But you don't seem to have heard it at that time, three years ago. You probably never clicked on their link; or if you did, you never wrapped your head round it. It's a very good "explanatory supplement" link. Try clicking on it now. Guy, speaking from his extremely long and wide Wikipedia experience, explained it to you more recently, after you had tried to explain the policy to us all on ANI.[189] I congratulate Guy on his patience in responding to your long-time, long, repetitive, and bludgeoning insistence on your own views on our sourcing policies on many talkpages and noticeboards. I'm considering blocking you as a timewaster. Guy and Diannaa and the other people who have been trying for years to educate you about Wikipedia policy and practice should be freed to use their time better. What do people think? And, DBA, I have one question for you that I hope you will consider: why are your posts on talkpages and noticeboards so much longer than everybody else's? (As well as generally being more numerous than everybody else's.) Bishonen | talk 18:35, 27 October 2019 (UTC).

• As proposer, I support an indefinite block of DovidBenAvraham for wearing out the patience of the community. If this seems harsh, as a secondary proposal, I suggest limiting DBA's input on noticeboards and talkpages to something reasonable, because, currently, just reading all of it is exhausting. (I would not limit their article edits.) Say, no more than four posts in any 24-hour period, and no single post longer than 500 words. For comparison, their opening post in this ANI section is 1,222 words long. I mean four posts altogether anywhere, not four posts per individual page. Please say "Boo! Censorship!" below. Bishonen | talk 18:35, 27 October 2019 (UTC).

• Boo! Censorship! A topic ban would be sufficient. But I am by now distinctly weary of this. As Bish notes, just reading it all is exhausting. And I say that as one who is notably prolix. Guy (help!) 18:47, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
• Changed tack. see below. Well, I'd also probably prefer a TB:but I acknowledge, what from? Just this article? Making accuastions of NPOV? Spamming and/or pushing their own demi-NPOV?! So I can see that a bock is just simpler. And a topic ban that is sufficiently complex that it consumes editors' and admins' time to the same degree that they did before they were Tbanned seems otiose.
  Long and the short of it, I guess ablock until DBA can demonstrate that they have read, understand and can work under the both the policies they have been repeatedly reminded of and that they cite (albeit mistakenly) themselves. ——SerialNumber54129 19:01, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
• As a counterpoint to the verbosity of DBA: if ((wc -w DBA_talk_posting) >= 100) then DBA_talk_posting > /dev/null. Cabayi (talk) 20:01, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
• Reluctant to prevent any good-faith editor from contributing, but support block until DBA can show firm determination to stop wasting the time of other editors – see for example this thread, 26 posts totalling almost 40k, all because somebody made a mistake. I've no talent for succinctness myself, but here I'm reminded of Ogden Nash (or perhaps one of his imitators?) on Augustus John, something along the lines of: "Augustus John, goes on and on, and on and on, and on and on and on". It's not OK to do that here. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:57, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support Bish's secondary proposal; an indef is always an option. Miniapolis 22:41, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
• I guess that a topic ban from anything backup/archive related would be a good thing. Maybe learning how sourcing works on other articles maygive them the possibility to one time return to the subject that they do seem to know quite a bit about (if you know that there are no secondary sources ...). Some restriction as to how to communicate might be a good thing as well (drop the bolding and cut the length). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 04:06, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Nah, I support a block, still does not get it that 'but this is the cheapest piece of software that can do the trick' is not encyclopedic. Serious WP:IDHT or WP:CIR issues. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:44, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support indef block or backup-related topic ban per Bishonen's arguments. I don't think the secondary proposal is sufficient and it might be too complex to monitor. Johnuniq (talk) 06:15, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support block so DBA can take some time to read up on our basic policies.-- P-K3 (talk) 13:08, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support - At least unless he is willing to study Wikipedia policy and develop a stronger understanding of the rules. Accusing an editor of vandalism for what is, at most, a content dispute is already a personal attack; filing a lengthy ANI case in an attempt to win a content dispute goes beyond personal attacks and into the realm of forum-shopping or deliberate manipulation of the process. I would not support a sanction if he showed any signs of understanding why he is getting a backlash. But as written, he doesn't seem to get it IMHO and I think we will back here again and again. 38.142.216.106 (talk) 13:39, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support indefinite block until some clue is obtained. Ordinarily I would suggest starting with a topic ban, but after reading this, it became clear that it's not the topic that's the problem. --Calton | Talk 13:59, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support block for the IDHT issues, also for personal attacks - accusations of vandalism and the statement But I feel merciful towards a sinner who has confessed don't engender a feeling of collegiality as far as I'm concerned. I'd support a TBAN but agree with SN54129 that the issue is too nebulous to effectively define a TBAN. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 14:00, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose as written and Question This seems kind of harsh to me, though I'm not certain how often this user brings notices to ANI (if more than once every couple of days, then that's excessive, I'd say). What about an alternate proposal whereby an administrator, or a long-term editor, takes the user under their wing in a forced mentorship arrangement whereby the user in question is forced to read through the key editing policies and the escalation procedures? It seems to me that the user may not even be aware of article Talk pages, how to initiate an RfC, how to initiate an edit request, peer review, or some sort of process, so he just reverts edits instead of discussing them consistently (which is inconsistent with WP:BRD). This forced mentorship arrangement could, and perhaps should, be accompanied by a 30-day ban (provided such ban still allows for the editor in question to complete quizzes on the material covered in the policies) and a very stern, written warning from an administrator that continued recidivism will most likely result in an indefinite ban. Doug Mehus (talk) 17:38, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

• Not sure your alternative suggestion is realistic, Doug Mehus. I do believe you'd have to force not just DBA, but also some admin/long-term editor, into the arrangement you describe. We probably don't pay them enough to do it willingly. Mentors are hard to come by, especially for such a Herculean task (quizzes? seriously?). Bishonen | talk 17:54, 28 October 2019 (UTC).
• @Dmehus: If anyone needs that level of overseeing, then surely there is an lack of understanding as to what we are actually doing here? ——SerialNumber54129 18:00, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

@Bishonen: and @Serial Number 54129: Completely agree a willing admin or editor to mentor DBA will be hard to come by. I'm too busy at the moment with real-life things, but if you wanted to shorten the proposed indefinite ban to, say, 6 months, I'd be willing to take DBA under my wing for, say, 30-60 days, following the conclusion of his shortened (albeit not insignificant) 6 month ban. I see potential with him, and the key policy for him to review seems to be WP:CIR, as well as WP:BRD and other policies previously cited. Doug Mehus (talk) 18:05, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

@Dmehus: ^^^Does you credit. But remember indefinite does not mean forever (or whatever it is, I paraphrased): DBA's block would actually expire the moment he could convincingly demonstrate understading and appicability, etc., of policy—which could, theoretically, take a week. And, less theoretically, could certainly take less than six months. ——SerialNumber54129 18:28, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Dmehus - I really like your idea as an alternative approach. DBA has been around for 3-4 years, so he really should have been able to pick up some of the norms around civility within this time. His willingness to try and set up another user with a bogus vandalism charge and his view that editors who disagree with him are 'sinners' is really worrisome for an experienced user who should know better. However, if he's willing to turn over a new leaf and participate in a mentoring program in good faith then that would change my impression of him. 38.142.216.106 (talk) 18:09, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

38.142.216.106 Thanks. And, for clarity, the 6-month proposed ban could be shortened pending a willing admin/editor being willing to take DBA under a 30-60 day forced mentorship arrangement sooner, and, of course, I'd be willing to take over as assuming mentor at the 6 month mark (from today). Speaking to a larger issue, I think a lot of these incidents, edit warring, repeatedly going to ANI and such stems from a fundamental breakdown in our new member welcoming committee protocols and we might want to raise some sort of revised protocol to help try and stem off these sort of problems. Skimming through some of the linked correspondence, at the root, I see DBA as cordial and complimentary in his replies to other editors and admins (the copyvio ANI thread, for instance). So, I think he's fundamentally a good person, but the problem stems from a lack of understanding of escalation techniques and to policies. He may not even know about DR, the Teahouse, or even the Village Pump. He may not know about RfCs and how they can help promote an Edit talk page discussion. All of this could be solved with a mentor, who could also tell DBA to "stick to the facts" in any future ANI incidents he raises. We don't need a 3-page, single-spaced exhaustive treatise, but rather just the key facts; sentence fragments are fine. (And yes, I realize the irony of me reminding DBA of the need for verbosity.) Doug Mehus (talk) 18:20, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Less verbosity, surely? Cabayi (talk) 18:39, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Cabayi, Where did I say less verbosity? I'll correct immediately as I meant more. Doug Mehus (talk) 19:13, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

In that case, I am no longer sure that this mentorship would be a good idea... ;) 38.142.216.106 (talk) 19:26, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

• Support indefinite block Changing from "Vague moan regarding DBA's behavoir" to "WTF isn't this guy blocked already?!" This discussion has being going on some days, and DBA has had examples of his spamming / COI / PoV—whichever it was at the time—raised mutlipe times, but does he stop? No, and more to the point, he continues with the same behavior even now, as JzG's link shows. This is no longer in the realms of "all he needs t do is convince us, etc"—we're now in deep WP:IDHT territory, and that pretty much precludes the liklihood of a basic reading of policy being sufficient.
  In other news, can an uninvolved admin wrap this up? a) much of the discussion has become generalised rather than focussed on the original question, and b) since the behaviour that caused the thrad is on-going, the question is one of policy. Cheers, ——SN54129 17:21, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support indefinite block. I'm too exhausted after reading through all of this to be verbose, so I'll just say I'm also of the "WTF hasn't this guy been blocked yet. Doug Weller talk —Preceding undated comment added 19:59, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support indefinite block; Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a sales flyer. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 21:03, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Revision to Alternate Proposal Above: As I thought more about sussing out my alternate proposal above, following initial favourable reception from 38.142.216.106, what about this...assuming we can impose bans on editing in specific namespaces,

1. an indefinite Main namespace ban on DBA, for which the closing admin would note key policies for DBA to read up on, absorb, and self-quiz himself (WP:CIR, WP:BRD, and other policies cited above). This would still allow DBA to contribute productively via relevant article Talk pages using "edit requests" (even though normally used for WP:COI, a special case can be made for having another editor review his proposed edits for WP:RS, WP:NPOV, citations, etc.), peer review, and RfCs; and
2. a prohibition, if not an indefinite topic ban on WP:ANI, as this would force DBA to resolve his disputes through WP:DR, mentorships, and The Teahouse. If he received threats to his personal security, there is always the option of him e-mailing the Wikimedia e-mail address for such matters. Similarly, if the DR mediator felt he had a legitimate case for an ANI issue, DBA could raise the ANI issue through the mediator. Doug Mehus (talk) 22:57, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Legitimate question for DovidBenAvraham: Looking in to Retrospect (software), this seems like an innocuous macOS backup software. What's your personal fascination, if any, with this software article? (Sorry, didn't read the whole case and prior case(s), if any.) Doug Mehus (talk) 23:05, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

I've used Retrospect for multiple machines (Macs plus a job-mandated Windows 95 desktop) on my home LAN since 1995, except for 2010-2015 after my ancient "backup server" died of old age. I have no connection with the developers; I've always personally paid for my licenses. I want the developers to sell enough licenses to stay in business, but their business model of charging extra for "server OS" licenses has broken down because almost everybody uses Linux-based servers now—which IMHO is why they chose to be acquired in June. I'm also fascinated that most of the developers have worked on the product for 25 years and keep devising new features (although their beta testing capability hasn't improved since 2009). DovidBenAvraham (talk) 05:04, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

(I've added this paragraph after Doug Mehus responded, because it doesn't affect his response—and I should have included it in the paragraph directly above.) There's another important reason why I want to promote Retrospect, which I freely admit I want to do within the limits of documented (see my comment below) Wikipedia rules. This table of consumer-oriented Macintosh backup applications shows that Retrospect is the only one with true client-server capability. IMHO that's vital for SMEs, in which I expand the definition of "enterprise" to include governmental and other non-profit organizations (hospitals and local libraries). Those organizations are being hit by ransomware, and they're frequently badly hurt because they haven't been doing management-enforced backup of their individual computers. The problem with doing that using consumer-oriented near-CDP backup applications is that each user's computer is attempting to back up without any coordination with any other user's computer, and that generally means the backup destination HDD device is overloaded if more than a dozen users' computers are backing up simultaneously. The long-time-known solution is scripted client-server backup, but Retrospect is the only application that is both cheap enough and simple-enough to do that without the aid of an expensive IT professional such as Guy. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 06:37, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

@DovidBenAvraham: (Response to David's second paragraph added following my initial replies to his first paragraph that follow this reply.) This seems reasonable, but, not being an expert in this area, I'm wondering if—as an alternative to adding such details to Retrospect (software)—this could be forked off as a sub-page of that page or as a related content fork? I don't know what such a page would be called, but perhaps it could be named as Retrospect (software)/Name of sub-page or as Name of content fork of Retrospect (software). Do you see what I'm saying? Also, do you know JzG (Guy) is an IT professional? Assuming you do, just friendly "bro tip" from editor to another, we need to mindful of not WP:OUTING other editors. You haven't named his last name, which is good, but if he hasn't named his profession on his userpage or elsewhere, then you've outed his profession. At the same time, when you add the subjective adjective "expensive," it can be construed in a pejorative (negative) way. I assume good faith in that this isn't what you intended, but other editors will not necessarily be so charitable, especially if they see apparent habitual use of such language. Contracting an IT professional is usually costly, but like in our editing, in our interactions with other editors, we need to try and maintain a neutral point of view and be objective. This isn't always possible, in heated discussions (i.e., at AfDs), but we should save our criticisms for other's arguments and not try bring a personal element to it. Ping me, and Guy, if something like this is workable. --Doug Mehus (talk) 07:04, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

@Dmehus: To alleviate the outing concerns, I think that's DovidBenAvraham's inference from what Guy said above in this and this edit. — MarkH21 (talk) 08:33, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

@MarkH21: Okay, yeah, that all looks good—it's pretty clear he acknowledged his occupation by those edits. I'd intended my comment to @DovidBenAvraham: to be more of a "teachable moment" for the future anyway as it was a pretty mild case of outing, if it were that. Doug Mehus (talk) 16:00, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Dmehus, the place for this is Wikibooks. He wants a ridiculous level of detail about features and enablements that are completely generic. This is a very small player in the market and we shouldn't include that level of detail even for major players. I am also concerned that DBA seems to be rewriting the central article on backup software when he has virtually no knowledge of anything other than this one product. That feels like someone rewriting the article on relational database management systems when they have only ever used FileMaker Pro. It would be better for someone who has never used anything, because these niche products skew your view of what the market looks like. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JzG (talk • contribs) 9:20, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

JzG Yeah, I tend to agree, but was just thinking on if there might've been an opportunity for a spinoff article on Retrospect (software)'s features. A "how-to" manual or exhaustive product review analysis tends to favour Wikibooks more. In terms of DBA's questioned expertise, I tend to agree with you here, but in the spirit of collegiality, I'm wondering if, perhaps, an indefinite limited topic ban (perhaps following a short term Main namespace ban while David reviews and absorbs the noted policies in this thread—to the extent it's still a discussion thread and not a book in itself) whereby DBA would still be able to propose edits through Peer Review or RfC and you primarily (as well as editors) could provide him with brief but useful guidance on why the edits would be rejected, need to be cut, or otherwise modified? I know for myself, given my lack of expertise in this area, I would probably limit myself to performing minor grammatical fixes, citation adds, and infobox updates, and would discuss proposed ideas on the Talk page. I think we should encourage DBA to do the same. That's not to diminish in any way DBA's abilities or competence, but just a matter of saying, "hey, this is a complicated topic, let's get some outside experts to weigh on your proposed edit(s). Doug Mehus (talk) 16:00, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Dmehus, no, a spin-off would just be a SPAMFORK. This belongs, IMO, at Wikibooks, where I think it would be perfectly fine. Sure, there is similar content in some other articles. We should nuke it there too. Meanwhile we got yet more pormotional text today: [190] - including claims of novelty sourced to a patent (a canonical primary source). I just don't think DBA knows how Wikipedia is supposed to work. Guy (help!) 16:48, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

JzG, Fair point. I do tend to agree with you here, "I just don't think DBA knows how Wikipedia is supposed to work." In fairness, he is not alone in this thinking, sadly, by the number of people who dispute AfDs on non-notable companies. To me, this lack of understanding of Wikipedia's core purpose and to its main policies (especially WP:CIR and WP:BRD) is the main problem here, and the reason I know support an indefinite ban (preferable Main namespace ban, so he can still propose edits through WP:RFC and WP:PEERREVIEW via Talk pages...or would he still be able to do this with a blanket indefinite ban?)Doug Mehus (talk) 16:56, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Humourous aside: Can we spin-off this ANI into multiple threads per WP:ARTICLELENGTH? ;) Doug Mehus (talk) 16:56, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

@DovidBenAvraham: Thank you for that response. You seem quite knowledgeable on the subject, and you're generally quite well written, David, I have to say. I admit, I haven't read all the ins-and-outs of this editing dispute, but what what I did manage to glean is that in a Talk page, Guy, recommended for you to use your writing skills and write more detailed content over at Wikibooks. That seemed like a reasonable approach because you have to remember that encyclopedias, as Wikipedia notionally is, aren't meant to be detailed treatises on every possible topic. Some topics will be longer than others, but if they get too long, we need to refashion things and split things off. There's a Wikipedia policy, can't remember which one, or possibly an editing tag, that reminds editors not to focus on such nuanced details, minutiae, and the like that would only appeal to a narrow, niche audience. That sort of thing belongs in the scholarly journals, trade publications, and, yes, even Wikibooks. Heck, you might even be able to have a named byline/attribution over at Wikibooks. Do you think this could be a reasonable approach?

At the same time, in your editing, while bold moves are encouraged, when an edit is challenged, we're supposed to revert and discuss, in the talk page. I know sometimes talk page discussions languish unanswered, but there's a tool called RfC whereby you apply an RfC tag atop your talk page discussion, and a bot will invite editors to participate in your discussion. There are also other tools, like WP:EDITREQUEST and WP:PEERREVIEW that you can use. Do you think you can work really hard to adopting this approach? You're obviously well written, well spoken, and quite knowledgeable, who has a high intellectual capacity and incredible potential. I just can't stress how serious this is, and, it seems to me, that you're within a CH (maybe two) of facing an indefinite block to force an editing behavioural change. I really don't want to see this happen. If you would like to discuss this off Wikipedia, I'm willing to guide you, to the extent I have available time, but you may have to be patient for replies. If you want, reach out to me via LinkedIn. Doug Mehus (talk) 05:27, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

First of all, Guy explicitly outed himself (I assume from his "handle" that he's male) as an IT professional in his 15:47, 27 October 2019 (UTC) comment in the section of which this is a subsection]—although he had given strong hints of it in previous comments. I have no idea of his last name (I don't even know if "Guy" is his real first name), and I wouldn't disclose it if I did. I'm quite sure from what Guy wrote in that comment that he is worth every penny, but anybody who can work with Backup Exec and NetBackup is IME likely to be highly paid—because those client-server backup applications have large-enterprise features that aren't needed by mere SMEs.

Second, let me respond in one comment to the basic "block DovidBenAvraham ..." topic. The tl:dr version is I need a mentor for about 3 hours, during which he/she will spend most of the time refining the answer to one simple question: Based on any article links the mentor can provide, is there a written Wikipedia policy that says articles about application software can only mention features that are unique to that particular application? If it exists I've proven overnight that I am willing to comply with it; I remembered a unique feature of Retrospect, and I slightly-adapted a long-existing Features paragraph covering it into the fourth paragraph of the article lead.

If you skim this section of the article's Talk page, you'll see that Guy and Dirk Beetstra steadfastly evaded my repeated posing of the question in the preceding paragraph. They responded instead with links to other WP articles about editing, in the course of which Guy implicitly called me names such as "monomaniacal" and "proprietor of a Single-Purpose Account" and "writer of a How-To guide". Frankly I think their evasion is because that written WP policy doesn't actually exist. The charitable explanation of why they are nevertheless citing it is that "interceptor pilot editors", who do dozens or hundreds of edits a day, think it would save a lot of time in their unceasing battle against "bomber pilot editors"—some of whom (like me) tend to write articles that have at least promotional intent even if they don't violate written policy. If I'm correct about its non-existence, my mentor will have to spend considerably more than 3 hours writing that policy and getting it approved.

As for my filing the subsuming-section's ANI, I did so in desperation only because on 26 October 2019 Guy filed this (archived) Miscellany for deletion of my Sandbox. What motivated him to do so was my unimaginatively having put a diff of the then-current and my proposed new version of the article into the article's Talk page. Guy's expressed reason was because it's "where this user has been padding the article and pushing back against all attempts to prune it back to something less like an advertisement for months". That sounded to me like attempted sabotage, which is one reason I cited WP:Vandalism in the ANI. The only excuse I can think of for Guy's doing that is his frustration that he has been unable to convince me—which IMHO he should re-direct into getting the "only unique features" policy written and approved.

As for an RfC, I did one 6 months ago to deal with Pi314m's un-discussed merging-then-deleting of related articles into the Backup article. The result was a very-temporary promise on his part not to redo it if I split that article, but IMHO Pi314m only made that promise because I also filed an (unsuccessful due to my lack of experience) ANI (because he's done un-discussed merging-then-deleting into other articles every January for the last 3 years, violating a written WP rule)—and I think that scared him. Since my inescapable first RfC requirement would be "show me the written 'only unique features' policy", I don't think that would achieve any result. Moreover (in the wake of a fairly successful RfC that got me to cut the article from 7 screen-pages to 4 screen-pages two years ago) I filed an RfC 1.5 years ago, only to have it immediately turned down because there was a third editor involved—and Dirk would count as a third editor in this case. In short, IMHO I already know enough about WP alternate options for conflict resolution not to need a mentor for that, but thanks to Doug Mehus for his offer. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 09:16, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

You need to keep away from the entire area of backup software. This edit, for example, uses a niche book on backing up small MacOS X networks by TidBITS, an equally niche Mac specialist publisher, to make generalised statements about backup. You seem to seriously misunderstand your level of expertise. You're backing up a SOHO network, but writing as if you're an expert on enterprise data protection. You are looking through the wrong end of the telescope on this. You also replaced a not-terribly-good generic secondary source with a much worse primary source about a specific filesystem, NILFS. I presume you use that also? Sourceforge pages are not approrpiate for generic statements like that. "Products like X do Y, source, the SourceForge page for X where it says it does Y" is never appropriate even when X is a major player.

Your comments about Beetstra and me are blatant WP:SEALIONING. Every word you write is predicated on the assumption that you are right and everyone who challenges you is therefore wrong. You have a total of 2,500 edits, mainly related either to this or to an article where you admit a WP:COI and which you created. You literally wrote an article on the person whose publication company you now state you run. Your email address is at the same domain as the official website. Guy (help!) 09:45, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Another data point: you created a section in Backup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) called "automated data grooming". I can only find one reference that uses that term other than specifically in respect of Restrospect. No other product calls it that. You have the illusion that your experience is generic. It isn't. Guy (help!) 10:39, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

@DovidBenAvraham: Are you sure you don't mean WP:3O instead of WP:RFC? Third opinion requests require that only two editors have been involved, whereas RFCs do not. I think this kind of misquoting and misunderstanding WP policies and dispute resolution methods is precisely why the issues and the need for mentorship extends beyond just your persistent focus on the non-existence of a "unique features only" policy (which by the way completely misses the point - discussion and consensus are critical when there is no explicit policy against some particular content or conduct). — MarkH21 (talk) 09:45, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Some analysis

From DovidBenAvraham's edit count, he has 1,427 main space edits.

• 575 to Retrospect (software)
• 340 to Backup, in many cases presenting an idiosyncratic point of view founded on his use of a niche product in SOHO networks.
• 251 (including creation in August 2015) to Ronny Lee, where he has a COI which was declared in September 2015 (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:DovidBenAvraham&action=history) - I assume that 71.183.27.217 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is also DBA based on [191], which would add another 50 or so to this number.
• 198 total to various articles relating to backup / Retrospect
• 20 to Daniel Hertzberg

DBA admits to being CEO of Ronny Lee Publications, the website he links says it is run by David Hertzberg. WHOIS for ronnylee.com: [192], DBA's company website according to his user page - registrar David Hertzberg. Hertzberg is a reasonably common name but that's still a bit striking considering that DBA is personally involved in every other topic he edits.

So that's 17.6% admitted COI, 79.2% related to retrospect and backup, and 3.2% to other topics. Based on this, he is lecturing people with hundreds of thousands of edits to tens of thousands of articles on the correct interpretation of policy. I now think a TBAN would be a waste of time, and we should just politely show him the door. Guy (help!) 11:00, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

I mostly agree, but I want to point out that he is lecturing people with hundreds of thousands of edits to tens of thousands of articles on the correct interpretation of policy is a dangerous thing to say. I get what you mean and I think that the preceding edit breakdown is valid, but implications based on edit count are improper. — MarkH21 (talk) 11:15, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

JzG and MarkH21 As long as DBA remained objective and neutral in his edits of Ronny Lee, I'm less concerned with this than I am with his apparent over-confidence in his level of knowledge and to his admitted not understanding of the purpose of Wikipedia. I think an indefinite Main namespace ban would be in order, until such time as he reviews and absorbs the applicable policies cited in this thread treatise. After which, this would be converted to an indefinite limited topic ban on Retrospect (software), whereby his editing contributions would be welcomed, albeit indirectly, through WP:RFC, WP:PEERREVIEW, and/or WP:3O, as applicable. (And I'm quite a patient guy, but, not having reviewed everything in the preceding months and years, it's clear something needs to be done, so long as this ban will be curtailed the moment DBA acknowledges his shortcomings, understands both Wikipedia's purpose and its policies, and agrees to modify his interactions with editors.) Doug Mehus (talk) 16:39, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

It's a legitimate criticism. A user whose limited experience of Wikipedia is mainly COI and inserting an idiosyncratic POV is not well equipped to lecture others on policy. Guy (help!) 11:50, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

• Additional comment: Doug Mehus, I will restate that I have greater faith in the benefits of an indefinite (not infinite) block than in any of the rather complicated solutions you propose, including overhauling our "new member welcoming committee protocols", etc. There's a concrete problem to be solved. I congratulate you on the amount of good faith you're able to assume; I too, and probably most people here, believe DBA means well; but I don't share your optimism about changing his bad habits simply by pointing them out. That's been tried, a lot, and for a long time. In this discussion I see so far six seven people supporting a block, two one supporting lesser sanctions (topic ban or prolixity sanction), and a couple supporting either block or topic ban. (I've changed the figures because Guy recently went to supporting a block rather than a topic ban.) (Cabayi would have to use more words for people like me to get what they do support.) So it looks right now like your proposal will probably become moot. And frankly, that proposal seems more likely to work for a newbie without DBA's Wikipedia history, IMO. It looks a bit as if you do take him for a newbie, with your (mistaken) guess that he might not know what RfC's etc are; you acknowledge not having studied his history. I know doing that is a bore, but you probably need to, before making such far-reaching offers of your own time and effort to help him. Anyway, I suppose you may be less inclined for these offers now that you can see his response to them, especially where he repeats yet again his request for an impossible level of detail creep in our policies: "The tl:dr version is I need a mentor for about 3 hours, during which he/she will spend most of the time refining the answer to one simple question: Based on any article links the mentor can provide, is there a written Wikipedia policy that says articles about application software can only mention features that are unique to that particular application?" Original bolding. In my ears, that, the essence of which he has repeated so frequently, says a lot about his attitude and about the reasons people agree above that a block is needed. Bishonen | talk 12:46, 29 October 2019 (UTC).

• What is any attempt to link an editor to an IP address doing on a public WP page, per WP:OUTING?

If Retrospect is a notable topic, then it's notable whoever wrote it and we should keep it. If it isn't, then delete it, per usual. But COI has a vanishingly small involvement in WP:N, at least for how we try to objectively measure that. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:02, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Andy Dingley Was this directed to me, or just an open question? I didn't question Retrospect's notability, and I didn't suggest linking an editor to a public IP as outing.Doug Mehus (talk) 16:39, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Ah, the perennial gadfly appears. Nobody is suggesting deleting the article on Retrospect. It is notable, but minor. Thanks for dropping y, though. Guy (help!) 16:51, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

JzG I can't make heads or tails of the end of your comment as to Andy Dingley's dropping of the letter y. Only thing I can think of is that it should be by?--Doug Mehus (talk) 18:00, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

• Gee whiz. All that work by Guy researching my past edits, that could instead have been devoted to finding the written Wikipedia policy article stating the "only mention unique features of software" rule. I take that performance as a roundabout admission that the policy article doesn't exist, and that the policy as of right now is only "interceptor pilot editor" folklore. Why doesn't Guy write that policy article from scratch, or edit an existing policy article, and get it approved? He'll have a tough time phrasing that article so that the policy doesn't apply to OSes such as Windows and macOS and Linux. He'll also need to put in some kind of "grandfather clause", so that the policy doesn't apply to big-ticket enterprise client-server backup applications that he has used—such as Backup Exec (35 first-party out of 49 features mentions, by my rough count) and NetBackup (13 first-party out of 38 features mentions, by my rough count). My reading of the articles, for the purpose of putting in some links to the Enterprise client-server backup article, indicates many of the mentioned features are in fact identical to competitor features—and to features whose mention Guy has deleted from my former version of Retrospect article.

As far as alleged COI is concerned: I wrote the Ronny Lee article starting 4 months after he died in 2015, which was the day after my last visit to him in the hospital. The edits that have an IP address instead of my "handle" are because the Wikipedia article was my first one. Ronny Lee Publications didn't make money in 2015, barely did in 2016, and didn't in 2017 or 2018. The years it didn't make money were years in which I had to reprint some of Ronny's guitar method books; I keep the business going only because there is a small continuing demand for them. The edits to the Daniel Hertzberg article were corrections he—a close family member—requested because whoever wrote the article was no longer available; I initially told him I couldn't do the edits, and I guess I shouldn't have changed my mind. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 17:34, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

DovidBenAvraham I like you, you have enthusiasm, show genuine interest in improving Wikipedia articles—albeit the plural use of articles may be stretching it a bit—but, not being an expert in this area, I tend to agree with JzG here that your proposed edits are too detailed. Wikipedia has lots of policies, to be sure, but there is not a written policy for every edit action on every type of article, let alone every article. Thus, some inferences are required. I can refer you to WP:HTRIVIA, which states that, while welcomed, such trivial details that are only of interested to a narrow (or supposedly narrow) section of the population usually do not matter. For instance, while interesting to me, I would not add an exhaustive section on the capital adequacy of Scotiabank and its evolution over time. I really think you should consider writing about, in detail, Retrospect (software) over at Wikibooks. If you ask Guy nicely, I'm sure he might even peer review and/or recommend your wikibook in the event it was ever nominated for deletion. I see potential for the two of you to working together, in a mentor/protegé relationship, as there's obviously a shared topical interest, but I think you've got to remove your self-affirming biases, if I may be so blunt. I'm certainly willing to help you, where I can. Doug Mehus (talk) 17:49, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

DovidBenAvraham As far as WP:COI, see my comments above. I am not very concerned about this, so long as you remained objective in your edits and you have disclosed the conflict on your userpage. My bigger concern is whether you understand Wikipedia's central purpose and whether you can drop your self-affirming biases.Doug Mehus (talk) 18:00, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

• @DovidBenAvraham: I haven't read all of this and won't offer any opinion on any sanctions proposal, but I just want to try to explain one thing. You appear to be seeking "a written Wikipedia policy that says articles about application software can only mention features that are unique to that particular application". But Wikipedia does not, and can not, work like that. It is just not possible to prescribe precisely what specific details can be added to every single possible article subject. Instead, in most cases policies and guidelines regarding what is appropriate to promotion, levels of detail, encyclopedic content, etc are more generalised. When there's a disagreement whether something constitutes promotion (or unencylopedic detail or whatever), it is decided by consensus guided by policies and guidelines. In fact, those policies and guidelines are decided by consensus in the first place. So if you want to include something in an article, and in that specific situation the consensus is against you, then it is incorrect to include it, simply because consensus is the ultimate decider. There doesn't need to be a specific prohibition against a specific kind of information in a specific class of article. That's just how it works - hope it helps. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:54, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Promotion

Above, User:DovidBenAvraham wrote, There's another important reason why I want to promote Retrospect...

That statement ALONE should see him immediately blocked for trying to use Wikipedia for selling, and his appending ...which I freely admit I want to do within the limits of documented...Wikipedia rules simply means that he is hunting for loopholes to enable him to continue using Wikipedia for his free advertising. --Calton | Talk 12:36, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

@Calton: and @Bishonen: Yes, that was the statement that I had to read twice when I read DovidBenAvraham's reply to me. David, I think there might be a complete misunderstanding in what Wikipedia is not. To your credit, you are not alone in this thinking—I've argued with other editors at AfD that strive to protect long-standing companies and organizations that fail WP:NCORP and/or WP:CORPDEPTH, thinking every company needs a Wikipedia page. Wikipedia is not a value-added SEO service for companies...full stop. Your intent is good and, to be honest, I'm less concerned with conflict of interest concerns with respect to Ronny Lee so long as you remained objective and neutral in your edits. In fact, that's probably a red herring in this whole discussion. The biggest problem, as I see it, is that you appear (a) to be over-confident in your expertise on relational database software intricacies and (b) to misunderstand the whole purpose of Wikipedia. You will be pleased to to hear that I disagree, to a degree, that Wikipedia editors should be focused on more than a single article or particular area—indeed, many of my edits have been in Canadian financial services companies and Canadian radio stations; however, your level of interest in Retrospect (software) and your comment about needing a mentor for all of three hours does, to me, show an unwillingness to heed suggestions and work cooperatively. Thus, I do think that an indefinite Main namespace ban is in order until you agree to refrain from editing Retrospect (software) without using WP:RFC, WP:PEERREVIEW, and/or WP:3O. Doug Mehus (talk) 16:27, 29 October 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:Siihb at Talk:Steve Huffman

• Siihb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Steve Huffman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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:Siihb filed a thread at DRN for dispute resolution on Steve Huffman. In looking at it, I saw that User:Siihb was using the talk page as a forum rather than discussing, and was ranting about censorship, and was also making conduct allegations about User:opencooper who was addressing Beutler requests for edits because of Beutler COI, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Steve_Huffman. I closed the thread at DRN. User:Siihb asked me at my talk page to re-open, posting a long screed. They and User:MarnetteD began quarreling on my talk page, and I hatted the discussion. I then went to Talk:Steve Huffman, and cautioned User:Siihb that I did not normally pay attention to an editor who posts at length but erases messages from their own talk page. Siihb replied with a diatribe: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Steve_Huffman&type=revision&diff=923143003&oldid=923081524&diffmode=source

I would also take incident with the statement of me quarreling on your talk page. I simply asked for the thread to be revisited and Marnette chimed in with insults in the exact same way they are on this thread. Siihb (talk) 04:43, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

I am neutral. I tried to look at a dispute, and was insulted by Siihb, and am finished with this dispute. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:07, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Siihb has been using talk pages as a battleground including making lots of accusations without a shred of proof. Ponyo has tried to explain things to the editor but has been ignored. I apologize to you Robert McClenon for the posts on your talk page. I was just trying to leave you links to some relevant talk page threads to save you some time. MarnetteD|Talk 04:04, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

User:MarnetteD - Apology accepted. My real issue was with User:Siihb, except that I wasn't interested in re-opening the dispute anyway. As I tried to caution Siibh, they are acting like an editor with an open mouth and closed ears, and should listen to Ponyo. They are the user who owes me an apology, but I don't expect it. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:25, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

I see, yet again, users making negative comments about me. Once again, as I did on your talk page Robert, I will ask that we focus on the actual issue here. The issue is over formatting on controversial/negative issues relating to the subject. Matt Lauer's page has a scandal clearly broken out as a separate heading, However, on the Huffman page, editors (specifically opencooper) choose to remove an edit breaking a major news incident out as a separate heading. If my DRN wasn't formatted correctly thats fine. I will re-file. The issue, which has received 0 attention, and 10000+ words of posts deflecting, is that this article for Huffman is not in line with similar articles (such as Lauer). Which of the two is correct. If you want to beg off of help for the incident because I was insulted, you should recall that you insulted me first by suggesting I wasn't worth listening to because I engaged in fully allowable wikipedia behavior (removing talk from my talk page), and pointed out you had done the same. Does anyone at all want to get back to the actual issue or should we all keep wasting time and energy about a simple heading for content that was already on the article and sourced, well before I even joined wikipedia. FFS.

Siihb (talk) 04:41, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) It took me all of 5 minutes to see that Siihb clearly has no intentions to productively edit the encyclopedia with other users, and has mainly engaged in POV pushing. I'm all for a NOTHERE/tendentious editing block until an admin is reasonably assured that this user can productively edit in a collegial manner without any battleground mentality. OhKayeSierra (talk) 04:56, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

I've edited numerous other articles and had no issues until this article. I am happy to follow whatever required rules are necessary to get this article consistent with Wikipedia rules. I opened the DNR because opencooper reverted the edits I made to bring the article in line with Wikipedia rules and consistent with other wikipedia articles. After they reverted edits and pulled in other users to do the same, I held off and submitted the DNR. Yet again I ask that this article be brought in line with wikipedia rules and be made consistent with other wikipedia articles. Siihb (talk) 05:49, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

The actual issue is that you don't understand how Wikipedia works and haven't taken a second trying, even after many users have tried to link you the relevant policies. As others have mentioned, you have a battleground mentality which is why no one wants to engage you, especially as you tend to act like you're in some holy war. I recommend dropping the stick and learning how the encyclopedia functions first. Case in point, you went to Rhiannon's talk page laying in on them, where they explained to you that prior to their edits, there was zero mention of the topic you're all up in arms about. You just come off as someone lashing out at everyone. I also somehow became a target when all I did was help Rhiannon make proper COI edits out in the open. But you're probably just gonna get back to making "threats" about going to the media and repeat ad nauseam. Opencooper (talk) 04:57, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

You reverted an edit I made to bring the article in line with Wikipedia guidelines which clearly were quoted repeatedly. After I undid that and found myself in an edit war, I brought the DNR and asked for assistance. My DNR was poorly formatted and was correctly closed, and so I engaged Robert asking for him to give another look at an article that had had edit wars over this very subject in the past well before I ever joined Wikipedia. The article has multiple edits made by you on behalf of paid editors. When I see an editor reverting edits in line with Wikipedia guidelines, and that same editor was used by paid Wikipedia services, the entire process smells. I will continue to present within wikipedia boundaries that the Steve Huffman page needs the comment modification controversy broken out as a separate section. This is consistent with Wikipedia rules and in line with other articles such as Matt Lauer. I do not need CONSENSUS to bring an article in line with standards. I submit that your revert of my edit was incorrect and I stand by that statement. Siihb (talk) 05:49, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Message for Siihb about Anger

User:Siihb – I have looked over the exchanges at Talk:Steve Huffman and DRN and my talk page and here at WP:ANI more than once. You want to get back to the original actual issue. You also say that you see a lot of users getting angry. I don’t know what the issue is about Steve Huffman, and am not able to determine that. I see that you are angry. It is very obvious that you are angry. I do not see other users being angry. I see that you are angry at and about User:opencooper because of some edits that they made for a conflict of interest editor who had requested the edits. I don’t know what was wrong with those edits. I don’t know what the controversy is about Steve Huffman, because all I can see is that you are angry.

I didn’t close the DRN thread because of a formatting issue. I closed the DRN thread because you had not tried to discuss the issue with the other editors, because you were just expressing anger. That is why I closed the thread, and your anger is why you are having so much difficulty editing about Steve Huffman.

User:Siihb – If you know how to stop expressing anger, stop expressing anger. Try to discuss without expressing anger. If you can take a break from Wikipedia, take a break from Wikipedia and express anger at your refrigerator. If you can’t stop expressing anger in Wikipedia, an administrator will block you to keep your anger out of Wikipedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:45, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

I've repeatedly made clear the issue, both on the DRN, on your page, on the talk page of the article, on the admin thread we are on, and yet here you are saying and I quote "I don’t know what the issue is about". If you can't see the issue at this point, why are you still making repeated personal attacks against me on multiple pages? I will refile the DRN correctly and then we can all wait for to see what reasoning is given then for not bringing the article in line. If you have nothing to contribute about the actual article that is in violation, please move along. We already have several other individuals attempting to muddy the waters and do not need yet another. Siihb (talk) 19:38, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

User:Siihb - I am not making personal attacks on you. I am pointing out that your anger is interfering with your communication of your concern about content, and you are personalizing everything that everyone says. Just to show that I am not engaging in personal attacks, I will restate what I understand. What I do understand is that you have a content issue about Steve Huffman, and that User:opencooper reverted the edits that you made, and that they were acting at the request of a Beutler editor who has a conflict of interest, and that User:MarnetteD may agree with them. What I don't know is what the disputed content about Steve Huffman is, and that is why I said that I don't know what the issue is, and you are expressing anger so much that I don't know what the content issue is. If you refile at DRN, I will leave your filing alone (unless it is defamatory or otherwise requires immediate action) and will let another volunteer deal with it. However, you will have to state a content issue, because at DRN, we discuss content, not contributors, so that complaining about User:opencooper will be useless at DRN. If you have a clearly stated conduct issue about User:opencooper, you can state it here or at the conflict of interest noticeboard. Just venting anger isn't doing you any good, and is likely to result in a block. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:35, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for contributing a lot of words and no solutions to this issue. Surely your assistance has been productive. Siihb (talk) 20:03, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Inappropriate user page use

Just a note that Siihb is currently misusing using space for WP:POLEMIC purposes. Opencooper (talk) 06:34, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

This reminds me of the discussion above about maintaining an "enemies list" on user space. The consensus seems to be that a user page like this discourages collegiality and should be avoided. It is fine for users to ask other users to avoid posting on their talk page (outside of posts required by policy, such as ANI notifications) but maintaining a list of enemies, critics, or other individual users being held up for censure is discouraged. 38.142.216.106 (talk) 13:20, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Just a note that I see through your attempt to obfuscate the issue. Please stay on topic and bring any personal disputes to the proper forum. This is in regards to the Steve Huffman controversy edit revert that you did without discussion. You and the others have now made personal attacks on every single place I have made legitimate Wikipedia changes or complaints in the proper forums. Please cease your incessant and borderline harassing behavior towards me. I've made my positions on the issues clear and request that we keep the focus on the issues. Siihb (talk) 09:55, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

I’ve removed the personal attack in user space and strongly suggest that if Siihb restores it, they be blocked for disruption and personal attacks. @Siihb:, you are pounding your head into a brick wall - you don’t get to unilaterally decide that you are right and everyone else is wrong. If your proposed changes do not have consensus, they will not be implemented. Leveling accusations and personal attacks at your opponents ends only one way: with a block. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:24, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

I've reverted your edit to the SIIHB user page. Currently you yourself have a personal attack against you HIGHLIGHT on your user page as well (Things I have been called by vandals "Tree-hugging liberal pansy"). I would request that you stop modifying the page tied to my user without consensus. If you'd like to make a change to my user page please use the talk page to reach a consensus first. Thanks and have a great day. Siihb (talk) 20:05, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

You don't get to have consensus to call other users "disingenuous" - that's a simple violation of our policies and guidelines. If you put it back again, you will be blocked. Black Kite (talk) 20:15, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

It is not a violation to document my user opinion on a subject (These three editors). The individual you are replying to has identical reminders of their own interactions they dislike. If you persist on haranguing me and nitpicking my user account I will seek resolution from all involved and request the page be locked from your edits. Siihb (talk) 20:21, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

It is a violation. This is not a webhost where you get free space, Siihb. I have found temporary resolution by blocking you for personal attacks and disruption; whether you should be blocked indefinitely per NOTHERE could be decided by editors here. Word of advice: it is not a good idea to piss off everyone and defy an administrator who's giving you good advice on how not to get blocked. Drmies (talk) 20:33, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

The accusations of paid editing continue. Most tiresome. MarnetteD|Talk 05:56, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

User:MarnetteD - Well, there really may have been an issue about conflict of interest editing, except that User:Siihb was so busy raging that they couldn't frame the issue clearly. User:opencooper was acting as a neutral editor, making requested changes by a Beutler paid editor, presumably being paid by Steve Huffman. User:Siihb had some issue with those edits, and thought that they were not being properly neutralized and were still favorable to Huffman. They could have had a legitimate case, and that was probably what they originally wanted to discuss at DRN. I closed the dispute request at DRN because Siihb hadn't been trying to discuss the issue, only to vent anger. There still may be an issue. I don't know if there still is an issue. I know that Siihb didn't state an issue that I thought was ready for moderated discussion, and it appears that Siihb isn't capable of stating issues objectively because they can't separate fact from anger. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:04, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your analysis RM. I know I've never been paid in anything other than barnstars and my editing is not disingenuous. As to the specific content issues I think Ponyo's statements here User talk:Ponyo#Controversies on user biographies are well said. Best regards. MarnetteD|Talk 22:06, 29 October 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.

An unblock request waiting for three days

See User_talk:Tatzref#ANI. Maybe it was malformatted. As I wrote on his talk page, while I cannot access the original content, seems to me like he should have gotten a warning, not an indef block. Suggesting that an off-wiki site should out an editor, while there is no proof one even knows of WP:OUTING, should merit a warning, yes, but hardly an indef, IMHO. PS. Also, if Tatzref lost temper a little, it is worth considering that he was subject to some off-wiki harassment like someone impersonating him to suggest he was posting on StormFront, see last paragraph here. Nobody identified who tried to frame him, but a few weeks ago User:Icewhiz got indef blocked for offline harassment of which I think Tatzref might have been one of the victims. I'd advise Tatzref to cease pointless speculation on whether there is any connection between those incidents, but I don't think he did anything warrant an indef (he didn't out anyone, nor did he harass anyone on or off wiki, did he?). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:35, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

He should be aware of it, as he was made aware of it by an admin in a couple of different places,[193][194] but continued making them.[195][196] He also cast aspersions on a bunch of editors regardless of fact,[197] and his sourcing - to nationalist authors like Marek Jan Chodakiewicz,[198] and antisemites Mark Paul[199] and Gilad Atzmon[200] - is some of the worst I've ever seen. Tatzref is not here to WP:BUILDWP,[201][202] and should not be allowed anywhere near it. François Robere (talk) 12:13, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Even if he was aware of it, and it is hardly clear, suggesting on wiki that a policy should be disregarded is hardly a crime. If I were to say that any policy is wrong and should be changed, do you think I should be indef banned? Ridiculous. After all, that's how we create and change our policies. Now, if I - or him - where to violate it, it would be another thing. But the point is he did not violate it. To be banned for suggesting that a policy should be violated is not far from punishing thoughtcrime. And as for his sources, this is irrelevant here. You can take it to WP:RSN. You could even take it here to propose a community ban if you think it would have a change. But he wasn't banned for any issues with sourcing, but for violating WP:OUTING, which IMHO he clearly didn't do, since he didn't out anyone. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:42, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

You've made a similar argument for PB, so you should see how it can apply here.

Tatzref was warned by an Admin, then did the same thing three more times. His net contribution to Wikipedia is negative. There's no reason an admin would consider this twice. François Robere (talk) 15:21, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

"Even if he was aware of it, and it is hardly clear, suggesting on wiki that a policy should be disregarded is hardly a crime. If I were to say that any policy is wrong and should be changed, do you think I should be indef banned?" -- I know nothing about this situation, but I'm going to point out that suggesting that a policy should be changed and suggesting that it should be disregarded are two entirely different things. --Tkynerd (talk) 15:31, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Editor repeatedly calling others racist

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.

---

Despite repeated warnings Elspru (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) continues to call other editors racists because they are casting doubt on some Russian sources. See WP:FTN#Pyramid power, Russian research and Alexander Golod their talk page, their edit summaries and [203]. Doug Weller talk 20:07, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

• Indeff for WP:NOTHERE. They're clearly not collaborating, and are only here to push absurd fringe theories. Its a longstanding pattern too, see this wacky edit from 2011 [204]. They are simply wasting the community's time. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:20, 28 October 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:Jamesmiko being disruptive on NHL and NBA userboxes

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.

---

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

I want to report Jamesmiko who is being WP:TENDENTIOUS (both edit warring and disruptive editing) on NHL, NBA and NFL userboxes (see his recent edit history). I recently reported him at WP:AN/EW, but no action was taken. Therefore, I am taking the matter here. I standardized the NHL (all of them), NBA (began doing it, but due to lack of free time stopped) and NFL (same reason as NBA) userboxes in 2018. However, Jamesmiko started reverting the changes once in a while and has now been doing it constantly (for about the last two weeks). He ignored my every attempt to try and work it out (he either ignored my messages or wrote that I did not have any authority to issue any warnings or make changes). The user in question states that, because he created many userboxes, he can do whatever he likes with them and by the looks of it – that is a case of WP:OWNER and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. He also added that if I wanted to make a change then I had to do it for all the userboxes and I do not have time nor I am interested in most of them. His messages can be seen at User talk:Sabbatino#Userboxes. Going back to the issue, I made the changes according to MOS:ACCESS (specifically MOS:COLOR) and MOS:NAVBOXCOLOR so it would comply with these policies. For example, his version and my MOS-compliant version (the page has already been protected due to disruptive edits by Jamesmiko). The changes were also made according to coloring schemes used in teams' infoboxes' titles, template, etc., but Jamesmiko for some reason thinks that "the more colors, the better". Jamesmiko just reverts either citing "consistency" or saying that no policies apply to the userboxes, or does not use the edit summary at all. In addition, by reverting to his preferred version, he reinstates wrong abbreviations for some teams, uses unverifiable color codes, and reintroduces non existent categories. This has been going on for far too long and it is evident that the user is being WP:POINTy by trying to show that nobody else can make changes except him. I am looking forward in dealing with this situation. – Sabbatino (talk) 21:34, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Sabatino only edits the userboxes of teams s/he supports. As far as the designs I made a few years ago, most of the users who use them appreciate the format I used. There are a couple of other users who understand the template pattern, and I rarely alter their designs. Sabatino is not one of them, as s/he comes in to destroy these userboxes based on nothing other than "I can't see." Templates should not be subject to emotional responses. The userboxes in this format best demonstrate each teams' branding. Yes, they are meant to be colorful and to use the entire template of the teams' official colors. The purpose of userboxes is not the same as the purpose of articles. The colors I use are taken from official team websites and media guides; they are not random. I use two eyedropper programs to sample the real team colors. However, Sabatino's color choices are random and seem to be wild guesses at the color code. For example, the color codes on the Pittsburgh Pirates website are #000000 and #FDB827. Oftentimes, users edit the userboxes with their assumptions of team colors, which are often demonstrably wrong. There are also times when users insert pictures that do violate userbox guidelines. There is nothing in WP:Access which says every single letter must be readable, as the team names are intentionally the part left to be readable. Sabatino also uses completely random team abbreviations, based on opinion. However, the ones I use come from the official league websites and ESPN tickers. For example, when one watches ESPN, they see "TB" as the official abbreviation for the Tampa Bay Lightning, not "TBL". Sabatino is actually the disruptive user, as I am interested in preserving the integrity of the original userbox designs. Besides, there are plenty of websites which use color-on-color which still fit ADA compliance guidelines. Compliance isn't restricted to white on color, which Sabatino seems to assume. S/he is uses their own personal interpretation of WP:Access and ADA compliance, which is demonstrably and categorically false. James Miko (talk) 01:18, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

When I see article history like this and this, I'm really tempted to block both of you. Maybe you don't cross the WP:3RR rule in a 24 hour period, but it is still edit warring and disruptive editing and it's going to stop one way or another. These aren't even articles - they're userboxes for goodness sake. I suggest that the two of you find a way to work it out. We don't really do content here, WP:ANI is primarily for behavior problems - and I'm looking at a couple right now. Go have a WP:RfC on one of the talk pages, get others involved, find a consensus, and learn to live with it. — Ched (talk) 02:13, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

(ec) It's not a matter of editor interpretation, it's a question of empirical evidence. There's online tools available to test color combinations as to whether or not they meet Web Content Accessibility Guidelines. Plug foreground color #ED174C and background color #006BB6 into this contrast checker and you will see that combination fails both WCAG AA and WCAG AAA, even when using large text. Snook's tool also shows this combination as failing web contrast accessibility guidelines even at 18pt+. In this version User:UBX/NBA-Clippers, the red letters will be invisible to people who are vision impaired or color blind. I can hardly see them myself.— Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 02:22, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

@Jamesmiko: I do not make up color codes. They come from the teams' sources. Therefore, stop accusing me of wrongdoings. While you, for some reason, just invent color codes. So stop saying that you are using official codes. Just look at LA Clippers Reproduction Guideline Sheet. Where are the color codes that you imply on using in this version? Every NBA code is taken from the teams' "Reproduction Guideline Sheet" files. Same goes for NFL. Meanwhile, the NHL color codes are taken directly from the teams' page sources (click "View page source" to see them). No program or tool, which you are using, can be more accurate than official teams' sources. So just stop. Regarding the abbreviations, all of the come from the NHL, NBA and NFL official sources (websites, media guides, playbooks, etc). Just because ESPN or any other unofficial website uses whatever abbreviations they like does not mean that they are correct. And finally, I do not "use own personal interpretation of WP:Access and ADA compliance" as I am following those policies unlike you. I want to also add, that non existent categories are reintroduced when the navboxes are reverted to non MOS-compliant versions.– Sabbatino (talk) 07:50, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

This is what Sabatino wrote: "I will act in bad faith and will restore the MOS-compliant versions and I do not really care if I get banned, because it is you who started it." This was his/her intent all along. The userbox patterns were a product of earlier consensus between myself and other users. The issue is between accurately representing a team's brand vs. ADA compliance. However, the ADA compliance is coming at the cost of using false color codes that are wild guesses at team colors. The accurate team colors may be found by "eyedropping" on team websites and media guides. Also, ADA compliance doesn't require every single word to be white on a color background. There is no way to agree to disagree on this issue. A design must be chosen, which is hard to do when users have unequivocal access to edit. I frankly cannot accept Sabatino's designs because they fail to represent team branding. If you go to a team's website, they meet the legal ADA requirement with color arrangements similar to the existing userbox patterns. There is no real issue, but an assumed one based personal preference and a poor interpretation of ADA compliance. Also, because userboxes are limited in size, they don't meet ADA compliance for letter size or font, anyway.

Instead of blocking anyone, how about establishing consensus on a design? Everyone wants to go immediately to making threats, which only blocks communication. I never started this edit warring, but I'm not going to let it go, either. Sabatino is a "johnny come lately" on this userbox design, which have existed in their current state for several years. Futhermore, s/he doesn't even edit them all, only ones s/he is interested in. The boxes should have team colors and formal abbreviations, not randomly chosen ones. James Miko (talk) 02:41, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

I have made a suggestion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Userboxes#Userbox colours; perhaps discussion can be held there? isaacl (talk) 04:46, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

@Jamesmiko: When I wrote "I will act in bad faith and will restore the MOS-compliant versions and I do not really care if I get banned, because it is you who started it.", that was a means of indimidation, because some users (you included) just do not understand some things in a civil manner. The fact that I wrote here just shows that I was not gonna do what I wrote so stop crying like a little kid. "The userbox patterns were a product of earlier consensus between myself and other users." – when I asked you to show it, you failed to do that or you deliberately did not provide of what you were asked for. Regarding the colors, I already wrote in a reply above about them so I will not repeat myself. "I frankly cannot accept Sabatino's designs because they fail to represent team branding." – this is a clear case of WP:OWNER and WP:IDONTLIKEIT so there is nothing more to say to this. You suddenly want a consensus when I took the matter here. So why you ignored my attempts to discuss it earlier? You thought that you are untouchable? No, you are not. – Sabbatino (talk) 07:50, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

The emotional outburst is amusing, to say the least. I was referring to a consensus that already existed, which you choose not to recognize. James Miko (talk) 20:02, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

The two of you are going to end up blocked if you keep bickering and edit warring. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:35, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

@Jamesmiko: What consensus? This is the fifth or sixth time I am asking you to show the discussion/discussions that would show the consensus, but you do not show it at all. So I am asking again – where is/are the discussion/discussions? – Sabbatino (talk) 14:06, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Note to admins: Jamesmiko wrote on my talk page that his edits are superior to mine (and I assume everyone else's). The same song is being repeated regarding colors, abbreviations, etc. (I already wrote everything in my reply in this discussion). In addition, I am being accused of being the disruptor, while the reported user has been restoring his version ignoring my attempts to discuss it. Additionaly, the revert has again been made at User:UBX/NBA-Grizzlies without any edit summary, which means that the reported user is openly using Wikipedia as a WP:BATTLEGROUND. – Sabbatino (talk) 14:09, 29 October 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.

vulgar and uncivilized language as well as vandalism

Please refer to the vulgar and uncivilized language directed towards me in his edit summaries by IP address here [205] who is the same as Jatbrand based on his edit summaries: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/JatBrand He is also generally modifying quotes and disrupting wikipedia. Thanks Acharya63 (talk) 10:43, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Those edit summaries will need reliable translation (I'm assuming from Marathi?). The claims of being the same as another editor could be something for WP:SPI, but seems likely. — MarkH21 (talk) 10:48, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

• Blocked the /64 for a month. Whether it's a sock or not, it's certainly a vandalism-only account. Black Kite (talk) 13:28, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Tetsou TheIronman

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

Tetsou TheIronman keeps adding incidents that don't meet the inclusion criteria to terrorism-related list articles. The inclusion criteria per a recent RfC says To be included, entries must be notable (have a stand-alone article) and described by a consensus of reliable sources as "terrorism". Their edits don't meet those criteria, since they almost never are notable. I didn't check them for the "described as" criterion but at least this incident didn't meet any of the criteria.

Tetsou TheIronman has been warned several times on User talk:Tetsou TheIronman#October 2019. His additions have been reverted with an explanatory comment [206] [207]. It should be clear to them that their additions don't meet the inclusion criteria. Sjö (talk) 11:56, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Tetsou TheIronman evinces one of the strongest cases of WP:IDHT I've ever seen. I've explained the RfC set criteria to them countless times, and they've claimed to understand, and that they will cease inserting inappropriate entries. Then the second they think nobody is looking they go right back to it. A topic ban from Terrorism related articles would be appropriate. Simonm223 (talk) 12:30, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

[208]is an example of them promising to improve their conduct in September. They did not. Simonm223 (talk) 16:15, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Tetsou TheIronman (talk) 17:42, 26 October 2019 (UTC)hey i think there should be changes in the criteria, because i have made editions with reliable sources and they are deleted (for example an incident in Mexico in November 2015), I consider that these editions are arbitrary and go against the global principle of Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means and the use of common sense

As evinced by the unique way Tetsou TheIronman signs their comments, there's also some WP:CIR going on here. Simonm223 (talk) 12:52, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

@Tetsou TheIronman: There was a long discussion at the RfC, but as far as I can see you didn't take part in it. That would have been the best time to make that argument. As it is, there is a consensus about the inclusion criteria, based on Wikipedia principles such as WP:V. As it says in the links you posted "Ignore all rules" is not a carte blanche and in case of conflict what counts as an improvement is decided by consensus. When several editors disagree with you,, and when there is an RfC about what incidents to include as terrorism, the consensus i clearly against your edits.

The "list of terrorist incidents in X" still has many incidents that are poorly sourced, non-notable or undue, and not always described as terrorism by the sources. There is an ongoing work to clear the articles of those incidents and the last thing we need at this point is somebody adding more of them. Sjö (talk) 04:42, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Precisely, what we have here is not a reasonable case of WP:IAR but rather a single editor who wants to go about doing things the way they had before a bunch of editors noticed what was going on in this article set and set about improving it. These "list of terrorism incident by month" articles were vast clearing houses of WP:SYNTH. And the criteria Tetsou TheIronman prefers are WP:SYNTH criteria - they take incidents not described as terrorism and then apply another organization's standards for what is a terrorist incident, filtered through their personal judgment, to determine whether these meet list criteria. This is the exact opposite of the consensus decision that came out of the RfC. Simonm223 (talk) 13:57, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

(talk) Right, I will no longer make editions or past, recent or future incidents, my intention is never to be "non neutral" or "vandalize" the section, we better leave this for peace, I will also be carrying out other projects in Wikipedia in spanish so I will refrain from posting here (in the English version). Also when the change of criteria does not participate in it for external reasons, so if you make a modification in the future, I would be happy to participate in it, as long as I am notified — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tetsou TheIronman (talk • contribs)

User:BrianaMalaEdo

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.

---

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

Editor is inserting the same pornographic gif into unrelated articles. Trackinfo (talk) 06:42, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Banhammered. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:03, 29 October 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.

208.185.237.210

• 208.185.237.210 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Geolocate:[209]
• 38.142.216.106 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Geolocate:[210]

Same person? Note the similar geolocate, similar interests, and see the edit filter log for 38.142.216.106 --Guy Macon (talk) 04:01, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, this is definitely Donald Trump editing on his iPhone. Can we legally block President Trump? Elizium23 (talk) 04:05, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Watch out for a tweet tomorrow telling us that "Wikipedia is the worst, they're failing, they're fake news. Jimbo Wales is a sad, sad man. Lock him up!" ^{[just kidding]} Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 04:35, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure we may legally block President Trump. Court rulings suggests that President Trump may not "block" (in the sense of Facebook and Twitter) other users, or request that they not interact with him. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:22, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Repetitive personal attacks on me

Moved from Wikipedia:Administrators noticeboard § Repetitive personal attacks on me.

User:Elizium23 has been doing repetitive personal attacks on me and accusing me of bad faith. We have been involved in conflict and I has pinged several editors for third opinion and to came on conclusion but the user went for personal attacks.

1. It started on the talk page of Weeping crucifix in Mumbai. In this section, he accused me twice for WP:OWNing when I objected his synthesis in the article and asked for synthesis in RS. I didn't show any of the WP:OWNBEHAVIOR in the article and didn't stop anybody to making changes. He never showed differences for accusation.
2. When I said about what is written in RS then he said that only this can be good explanation, this can't be and used word absurd twice. After it, he capitalised word 'YOU' and again started personal attacks.
3. The same editor accused me of accusing him for bad faith on even noticeboard when discussion about the topic was going on and later told that you get yourself blocked.
4. I generally issue caution or warning after removing content and it is my habit to notify concerned editors. One can trace my all changes which I reverted or removed then I give explanation on user's talk page. When I did it on the talk page of ELizium23 then he called Your DYK sucks and get over it in both diff and edit summary.
5. Suddenly after it, he came on my talk page and attacked me for bad faith by WP:AOBF and without any differences. He even called me that I am kneejerk reverting his edits but in fact, I edited only few in which there was high Christian POV (I can assume it from disclosure of his COI) and I did it too with summary and replying on talk page.

These type of repetitive personal attacks and vituperative mudslinging are harming my presence on the Wikipedia and draining my energy. I can too fall on same lines and attack him personally by calling him as kneejerk and accusing him for assuming bad faith directly but I want to follow the policies of Wikipedia. I am looking for stringent action on the concerned editor for ad-hominems on me.-- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 02:32, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

In my defense, his DYK does suck. Elizium23 (talk) 09:06, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Elizium says in his user page that he's affiliated with the Church and claims that "Since I would not be able to contribute neutrally to these topic areas, I pledge to refrain from making direct edits to these and other related articles." Yet then he does this. Shame. TryKid (talk) 09:45, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

COI 101: It is not, and never has been, a conflict of interest for a member of a church to edit articles about that church. What I said is that I would refrain from editing articles connected to organizations with which I am affiliated. And I have stood by that pledge. Now quit trying to shame me for this. Elizium23 (talk) 09:47, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Here is a little reality check: The archdiocese of Mumbai is halfway around the world from Phoenix. It's in another country, another continent, another tectonic plate, another climate. The archbishop and pastor there have zero, count it zero, jurisdiction over me in Phoenix. There are 1.9 BILLION adherents to the Catholic faith worldwide. If everyone with a "COI" (as you put it) refrained from editing Catholic Church related articles, nobody at all would be editing them, I promise you that. Elizium23 (talk) 09:51, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

What I should do is institute a counter on my user page that counts up the number of times someone accuses me of a COI, when there is none. Guys, I appreciate that I have made myself a COI-accusation-magnet by disclosing two very minor affiliations, but c'mon, you can do better than to squeal "COI! COI! COI!" every time I make an edit to a topic that has no actual bearing on anything I am actually affiliated with! Thx! ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Elizium23 (talk) 09:59, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't think every Wikipedia editor is a Catholic. If Catholics refrained from editing article about the Church, I would certainly be editing them. Many other editors too. Your last statement is demonstrably false. The first statement ("It's not COI for a church member to edit about his church") doesn't seem to be true to me, too. Also, I'm pretty sure Jesus and the Mumbai church are related to the Phoenix diocese, since they both come under the Catholic Church. (Forgive me if they don't both come under the Catholic Church, I'm not very knowledgeable about that). It is COI to edit favourably towards the Church that files a case against someone who showed basic common sense. TryKid (talk) 10:02, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Hmmmm, I wonder who wrote Human??? TryKid, please don't stretch COI beyond breaking point. Cabayi (talk) 10:10, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

A million monkeys, typing away? Jonathunder (talk) 15:32, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Hmm, basic common sense, such as mocking the Church calling her "anti-science" and "miracle mongers"? That is the "common sense" that Indian rationalists know and love? Elizium23 (talk) 10:16, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

And (heh) once again we have someone who has no clue what the sources say about the case. The Church didn't file anything! The Church has no control over the criminal charges, didn't bring them, can't dismiss 'em! Read the sources, people. Sigh. Elizium23 (talk) 10:18, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

The Catholic Secular Forum seems pretty close to the Church no? But looks like I was wrong, so I apologize about that. The thread is not about the content of the article and what Sanal and the Catholics did though, it's about your behaviour. Another editor has weighed in that you I'm wrong about you having COI, so I apologize and I won't make that accusation again. I still think that you have a non neutral Christian POV not supported by reliable sources that you're trying to enforce but I don't have time and energy to argue about that. Also, you have a left message on my talk about removing some uncivil comment of mine, (Diff), but I don't see any removed comment. I request you to withdraw the misleading notification from my talk page. TryKid (talk) 10:33, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Some notes from my impression of this: no, being a Catholic doesn't mean you shouldn't articles about Catholicism. Yes, telling someone that their DYK "sucks" is inappropriate. Apart from that I'm not seeing much egregious here. Saying that someone is exhibiting WP:OWN behavior with your mere second comment on the talk page is unnecessary escalation, but both parties have been reverting more than talking. Regardless, this is primarily a content dispute, so nothing for admins to do. If discussion doesn't go anywhere, use the various WP:DR processes to get some outside opinions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:51, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: Isn't accusing someone for bad faith and issuing final warnings on talk page or you get yourself blocked is an inappropriate? -- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 15:20, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Like these? Elizium23 (talk) 15:52, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

• Being a member of a religion does not mean you have a COI and shouldn’t edit within that area. Secondly, personal commentary on talk pages is inappropriate, that’s true. However, when the personal commentary is accusations of policy violations, we’re just as concerned as to whether those allegations are true. Saying someone’s DYK sucks is a personal attack, but a relatively minor one in the grand scheme of things and probably best handled by letting it go. Based on the diffs this looks like a frustrated content dispute that should move towards dispute resolution, rather than an actionable behavioral problem. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 16:06, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

In the space of 2 days, Harshil came at me with seven (7) user talk page warnings. I believe that is a tiny bit excessive, when we are moving toward a productive conversation on article talk pages. I found some discussion of his past, off-wiki history informative (is out WP:OUTING to mention he was banned on Quora?) Elizium23 (talk) 16:13, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

To add to what @Rhododendrites: said above, WP:COI doesn't apply, as I understand the policy, to Catholics editing articles about catholicism. They could optionally disclose they're Catholic, but even that, I don't think we can even constitutionally compel. The most egregious WP:COI, as I see it, is such where the editor has been paid to edit. A little down the pyramid is an editor editing for a company for whom he or she works for regular pay (as an employee or independent contractor). A little further down would be a volunteer directly editing an article about an organization to which the person currently volunteers. Basically, anyone who works for, is paid by, currently volunteers for, or any of the editor's immediate family members (to parents, grandparents, offspring, and the offspring of their offspring) that work for, are paid by, or who volunteer for an organization/company.

It seems to me that the WP:DR recommended by Rhododendrites is the best solution here, perhaps with an added note of caution for the parties to refrain from each other's talk page pending successful completion of the DR. Alternatively, the extent of any admin involvement needed here, perhaps, to order involuntary mentorship for the parties on what constitutes COI editing, how to identify it, and, crucially, how to action it. Doug Mehus (talk) 16:36, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

I must ask, and beg to differ, why a few people here seem to think that "his DYK sucks" is a personal attack. It is the opposite of a personal attack because it is a comment on content, not a contributor. In all honesty, I stand by the statement that the DYK in question sucks (although that might be coarse language for a Catholic like me) the DYK premise is truly awful, it should never have made it to the front page. DYKs are approved by committees and so they are not intrinsically tied to a single contributor, and so there is nothing wrong with my judgement when I come out to say that this DYK leaves much to be desired and should not have been promoted, and in fact this article should be blown up and redone from scratch if possible, because the tabloid hot takes are just outlandish. Elizium23 (talk) 18:47, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

For what it's worth, you might get less pushback if you offered more specific criticisms on what they could fix rather than just saying 'your work sucks'. I can't weigh in on whether your description is accurate or not, but just telling someone that their content sucks might not technically be a personal attack but it isn't particularly constructive either. Again, not saying that you are wrong, just saying that this might be a better approach if your goal is to improve the content. 38.142.216.106 (talk) 19:23, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Elizium23, if you replaced the word "his" by "the" then you might be right, but what you said was personal. I'm an atheist myself, but I always thought Christians were supposed to be a bit more kind about such things. How about both of you agreeing to discuss things on article talk pages without edit warring or being nasty to each other? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:32, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

How about this: I shall recuse myself from the weeping-statue article altogether. I see no point in working on it in this state. I shall also attempt to avoid interaction with Harshil169. Our topic areas don't really intersect. I hope this will satisfy everyone involved. I am not interested in pursuing a dispute that's so bitter and not winning me any friends. Thanks for all involved, and your good counsel is taken on board for future reference. I do apologise for being abrasive and coarse and rude. It is totally uncalled-for and my hands are not clean in this dispute. Elizium23 (talk) 23:54, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

I think it would be a shame for you to drop your activity on that page, as the version of it Harshill69 defends has little basis in reality. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:18, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Well, edit-warring or falling afoul of WP:Discretionary sanctions were poor alternatives. Elizium23 (talk) 01:47, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

‎Umfront and edit-warring

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

For this user with 240 edits in total, the main conflict resolution avenue is edit-warring. They have been previously warned (by two different users) and blocked (by me, in February) for edit-warring. Today, they started an edit war at Sergey Aksyonov, who was born in Moldavian SSR, currently Republic of Moldova. Aksyonov's name is given in the article, among other languages, in Romanian, the state language of the Republic of Moldova. The user four times [211] [212] [213] [214][ changed {{Lang-ro}} to {{Lang-md}}, which points out to Moldovan language, which is a name of Romanian language used in Moldova. The template survived and was not nominated for deletion because it should be used for citations of Romanian text written in Cyrillic, see the talk page of the template. Using it in the articles to substitute Romanian is not appropriate. The user was not interested in discussing at their talk page or at the talk page of the article, they just kept reverting.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:58, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

My apologies for coming here too often recently, for whatever reason the rate of disruptive editing in East European articles by newish accounts, several hundred edits, dramatically increased recently. I do not understand why.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:02, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

First of all, I'm not a new account (since 2009). Secondly, according to the basic law - the Constitution of the Republic of Moldova, its Official language is Moldovan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Umfront (talk • contribs) 19:46, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, this is indeed an argument you literally repeated in your edit summaries. It is completely irrelevant what the constitution of the Republic of Moldova says on the subject. In common English usage, the language is Romanian.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:15, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: As far as why the increase, maybe SAD as fall sets in and winter approaches. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 22:59, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

This is indeed my basic hypothesis, though I am afraid its consistent application is not encouraged by WP:NPA.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:08, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

User:GreenC editing disruptively at Talk:Sarah Jeong

User has thrice removed the same comment by another user [215][216][217] claiming "WP:AGF personal attack etc." The comment was a response to their own trollish post. The insistence on WP:AGF is laughable given their other comment in the thread (which I've removed as a legitimate WP:ASPERSION). Note that DS are in effect for this article. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:13, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Maybe if people would just relax and let things go, this wouldn't be here. It's not too late. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:21, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I warned them about editing others' comments after the second removal.[218] —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:23, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

GreenC and Joel B. Lewis trading reverts back-n-forth in a hatted section? I know there's passive-aggressive, but hidden-aggressive? Shenme (talk) 06:03, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

@Shenme: in the next section (below) we have archived-aggressive, as well. --JBL (talk) 11:18, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

• A bit bizarre, GreenC. You personally attack a group of users for disagreeing with you, in an apparent implied personal attack and bad faith accusation that they’re sock or meatpuppets, and then when someone suggests you take it to SPI, you delete their comment as a personal attack? Knock it off, you don’t get to delete other people’s comments in general, but particularly in the context of ongoing disruptive behavior on an article under active discretionary sanctions. I have little tolerance for trolling behavior on that page in particular. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 06:33, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
• IMO at a minimum GreenC shouldn't be removing a comment which had been replied to without at least some clear indication that it happened e.g. replacing it with a redacted. I mean XavierItzm's comment may not significantly address what JBL said, but at least it's indented as a reply to JBL whereas with the modification it's easy to misread it as a reply to GreenC with the wrong indenting. Nil Einne (talk) 08:26, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
• FWIW, I had restored my comment yet again (maybe violating 3RR?) before I saw this thread, and have self-reverted (i.e., removed it again) pending a closure here. GreenC's behavior is indeed bizarre. --JBL (talk) 11:36, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

  @Joel B. Lewis: I've restored your comment for you, as there's absolutely nothing wrong with it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:39, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

  This is all really silly. For the record, GreenC Sarah Jeong has been on my watchlist almost forever, mostly as a result of her conflict with Naomi Wu. I have not now, nor have I ever, knowingly engaged in off-wiki communication with JBL or with Sangdeboeuf. My comment on the issue of the New York Post is, rather, of a cloth with multiple comments I've made at WP:RS/N and other locations in recent months that Wikipedia depends too much on newsmedia sources and should be far more restrictive of which newsmedia sources are considered reliable. You'll note that I didn't express any great love for The Hill in the discussion either. Now could you all please stop this silly sniping and focus on article content? Simonm223 (talk) 17:34, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

User:Jicco123

Jicco123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Continues to make disruptive edits against MoS (now primarily on Mixer (service), where user consistently insists on using an image of the service's language menu in place of a textual list of languages, and inserting an uncited statement about a major streamer [who does not have a Wikipedia article] also moving to the service), and refuses to properly collaborate. Has recently had a 48-hour block for the same reason (WP:CIR). ViperSnake151  Talk  17:01, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

I have no opinion about the underlying content dispute, but must note that Talk:Mixer (service) is totally devoid of discussion, and that the history of User talk:Jicco123 contains nothing but templates. How do you expect people to react if nobody talks to them as human beings? Phil Bridger (talk) 17:50, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Edit warring, pointy edits, and harassment

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

---

Can someone please have a word with Ballastrae? After beginning an edit war at Baylor University, he or she has continued to make the exact same edits to a couple of other articles in a clear attempt to make a point. After I warned him or her that this behavior would likely lead to a block, he or she began to make edits (e.g., copying my post to a Talk page, copying my warning to my own Talk page) clearly intended to harass me.

He or she is welcome to continue discussing the original edit to Baylor University; there is an ongoing discussion and other editors are beginning to join in. But making the exact same edit to other articles, edit warring to preserve those edits, and then harassing another editor are all unacceptable. Please convince him or her of that. ElKevbo (talk) 02:25, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Seems to be a continuation of the behaviour that led Ballastrae to be blocked back in 2017 after removing large sections of an article on a University because "we are not holding up the same standards for other universities, such as Baylor and Penn State and the list. Fair is Far!!!!" [219][220][221][222]. 86.134.79.237 (talk) 03:05, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Harassment, inputting his points of view, reverting pages, and Edit warring

Will someone please have a conversation with ElKevbo, as he has initiated an edit warring, as he does not agree with changes and feels that editors MUST meet his requirements for editorial changes and not Wikipedia's. He invoked his feelings and reverted the changes back to what HE FELT was appropriate. Key words - he felt.

He expressed a concern from a 2017 change, but he did not correctly express that the changes in 2019 reflect the conversation that was outlined in the 2017 discussion. Yet, in user (User talk:ssg2442) 20:02, 18 June 2019 (UTC) sent him a STOP Unnecessary Reverts because of his continued reverts. Additionally, User Atlantic360 called him out for edit warring again in 2019 :You started edit warring, they are references Atlantic306 (talk) 18:16, 13 August 2019 (UTC). Further, he was a part of another incident in 2019 that became edit warring, because he did not like the edits by a user: 00:50, 21 October 2019 (UTC)RobertM87. In review of the totality of the concerns, the focus of edit warring is initiated by ElKevbo when he does not like the changes to pages, as he has a prescribed methodology for the way that pages should be listed.

ElKevbo was not harassed, Ballastrae was the user that was harassed by ElKevbo and he continues to harass Ballastrae by sending up this message and then ElKevbo left another message on Ballastrae's talk page. He pointed out his view and when I would not agree with his view he began to disparage Ballastrae on Ballastrae's page and on the university pages. Again, when he saw something that did not fit his "perfection" mold, he balked and then started reverting pages and sending out messages. Ballastrae responded to these allegations and afforded him the warning that continued reverts were not positive.

ElKevbo is becoming condescending, intimidating and very aggressive. Ballastrae (talk) 03:30, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Harassment, retaliation, and Edit warring

Will someone please have a conversation with Jeff in CA, as he has initiated edit warring. Upon agreement with ElKevbo, a non-nonsensical reversion was made to a proper change on the Pennsylvania State University page indicating controversy.

There was NO reason for the reversion as the original change was proper. Again, people are allowed to make their rules based upon their feeling and remove proper changes because another user complains. The change does not NEGATE the fact that Penn Had Major controversies that are to be flagged.

Further, there has been NO rules outlined that define that a Controvery/Controversial section cannot be attached. When this does happen then the other universities will need to be corrected. Until then the change was proper to include.

This was a retaliation. Ballastrae (talk) 05:52, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

A single revert with edit summary including "Please discuss in Talk" is quite normal. I've checked both user talk pages and don't see any collusion, so your saying there was is prejudicial (and quite the wrong way for you). Your progressing from Baylor University to Pennsylvania State University seems more the 'retaliation' you mention. Shenme (talk) 06:25, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

And btw you templated Jeff in CA for their single edit on their user page, not on their user talk page. Shenme (talk) 06:30, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

• Ballastrae has failed to follow WP:BRD on these articles and has edit-warred on more than one; and has then made WP:POINT edits to a number of other university articles. Given that these are practically their first edits since being blocked for similar in 2017, I have blocked them for a week. Black Kite (talk) 10:46, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

@Black Kite: Thanks for your help with this. He or she has created a new account, User:Ballastrae1, and is blatantly evading the block. ElKevbo (talk) 15:38, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

I've blocked the sock and warned them that if they try it again their block will become indef. GiantSnowman 15:42, 30 October 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.

IAmTheRealOne is NOTHERE

• IAmTheRealOne (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 172.222.162.227 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

This user, and IP, have done nothing but edit war on two articles. For an account that is over one year old, it appears that this user is not here to build an encyclopedia. I'm requesting a block of the user and possibly the IP. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:09, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Blocked the account for 72 hours with an explanation; blocked the IP for one month. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:12, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Legal threat

User:FifeHouseOwner is threatening me with legal action if I make any further edits to his copy about how he renovated his own house. --Lord Belbury (talk) 08:55, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

I've indefinitely blocked for a clearcut legal threat. But @Lord Belbury: as it says at the top in massive letters, if you submit something to ANI about a user, you MUST notify them on their user talk page. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:45, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Apologies for that, I didn't consider that a black-and-white threat report would count as a "discussion". Noted for the future. --Lord Belbury (talk) 09:52, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

It looks like User:FifeHouseOwner is now evading his block by editing as an IP here. aboideau^talk 15:20, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

That's looking pretty clearcut, I'm not in a position to do the needful (including updating the original block notice), if someone else can handle it Nosebagbear (talk) 16:14, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP (range) and placed an additional notice on FifeHouseOwner's page. I did not modify the block, they're already indeffed. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:40, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Benjaminkirsc reverting my edits to My Sims Agents, adding a copyvio back to the page in the process

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

---

Hello! This happened last month but I only noticed this now. Benjaminkirsc undid my complete rewrite of My Sims Agents, citing that the information I added was "unnecessary" and had "possible incorrect grammar". However, when they did this they failed to realize that the whole reason that I rewrote the page is because the version they reverted the page to is a fairly obvious copyvio, which was mostly unsourced, and was literally written like a sales pitch, because it was one. Normally, this would just be something that I would warn a user about, but I realized that they had been reported to ANI once before. I'm honestly not sure how they could miss that they were reverting the page to a version that was literally an advertisement. TheAwesomeHwyh 00:58, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

I've been keeping an eye on Benjaminkirsc's edit since the last AN/I visit (I was hoping to see improvement), and while they've managed to stop swearing so much in edit summaries, they're still having issues with edit warring and civilly disagreeing with other editors (including a handful of undos with the edit summary "wrong," like Special:Diff/920805947 and Special:Diff/920805947. Their reactions to others on their talk page have some communications issues as well, with very brusque replies and no further engagement. creffett (talk) 01:06, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

​FYI: the first dif you posted is of an edit by Zacharyalejandro, not Benjaminkirsc. TheAwesomeHwyh 01:19, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

TheAwesomeHwyh, oops, I always have trouble getting the right diff ID, it's probably the next diff. Thanks for pointing it out, fixed. creffett (talk) 01:24, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

I feel that the copyvio is wrong Benjaminkirsc (talk) 01:10, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

​So... then why did you revert back to it? TheAwesomeHwyh 01:17, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Because it was a problem Benjaminkirsc (talk) 10:51, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

​??? What? You reverted to a copyvio... because the copyvio was a problem? TheAwesomeHwyh 22:25, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Proposing indef block: I just took a quick look into their edit history and found these summaries showing some serious WP:CIVILITY issues. An where an IP user literally only added the number "90" to the article, which could've easily been a mistake, was reverted with the summary "WHAT WRONG WITH YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!". Another, where another IP user added the wrong release date, was reverted with the summary of "YOU ARE WRONG!" Both of those edits were done after this AN/I report was filed yesterday / earlier today (depending on timezone). TheAwesomeHwyh 22:39, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

That's not related thouogh. Do that somewhere else. Benjaminkirsc (talk) 00:58, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

​I don't think you understand. This page is for all of your behaviors, not just the one mentioned in the section title. TheAwesomeHwyh 01:04, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

I can undertand what your saying but, this is talking about My Sims Agents. If you want talk about that, please let me know in my talk page. Benjaminkirsc (talk) 10:08, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

​No, as I've already said this page is for everything related to your edits. TheAwesomeHwyh 01:13, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Benjaminkirsc, you're missing the point. Having your attitude and competence repeatedly discussed on the noticeboards is NOT normal. How many editors are following your edits to make sure you're not going off the rails yet again? If you continue as you are, then sooner or later the community will decide that the value of your contributions is not worth the cost of watching out for, and correcting, your mishaps. Cabayi (talk) 08:23, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Cabayi et al. Benjaminkirsc, you were warned about your behaviour especially the way you were dealing with vandals and others in edit summaries. You seem to have cut out on your "fuck" and stuff but some of your edit summaries still leave a lot to be desired. The fact that some of the examples highlighted don't seem to be clear cut vandalism is even more reason to be concerned. In this case [223], your edit summary was okay. However as I pointed out your edit seems to be wrong. Two of the most recent sources support Imagine Publishing as the publisher, so does the image of the cover in the article. If you are going around yelling at people for being wrong, there's a good chance you are eventually, if you haven't already, going to yell at someone when you were the one who is wrong. Think about that for a minute. Note when I reverted you, I did not see the need to say "WHAT'S WRONG WITH YOU, THE 2014 SOURCE CLEARLY SAYS IMAGINE PUBLISHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!". It does not help you or anyone else. Not really the place for this but since I brought it up here, it seems Future plc acquired Imagine in October 2016. So the current digital only edition is I assume published by Future plc although it may also be published by Imagine depending on whether they maintained that as a subbrand which I don't know. This was after the print edition ended in April 2016, which suggests the print one was published by Imagine to the end, which is supported by the source suggesting to buy it from the Imagine store. Nil Einne (talk) 10:59, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: Good thing I didn't yell or curse there. Benjaminkirsc (talk) 21:32, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Well you're still missing the point. You also still haven't explained why you reverted to a copyvio, so.... Nil Einne (talk) 22:14, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Resorting to the maximum right from the get-go might be a bit much...Buffs (talk) 18:31, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

TheAwesomeHwyh, your report begs the question, why didn't you tag the copyvio with {{copyvio-revdel}} to clear it out of the article's history? Why haven't you still? Cabayi (talk) 10:45, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Cabayi I don't know, actually, sorry. I've done it now. TheAwesomeHwyh 01:03, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks TheAwesomeHwyh. Cabayi (talk) 08:23, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Support indefinite block or community ban. The editor does not appear to understand they should not revert to copyvios and has shown little ability to understand the feedback they've been offered. Nil Einne (talk) 22:14, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Very weak support for CIR block - it's pretty clear that this editor just isn't getting it, if you look at their talk page, responses here, and responses in the previous ANI thread. I'm reluctant to block here, but I'm not sure what other options are on the table when they just don't seem to understand why their actions are inappropriate, and I suspect that if nothing is done we'll be back here in another month or two. I'm kind of perplexed by this editor's actions, to be honest - usually in these kinds of cases it's not listening, but my read here is more "not understanding" than "deliberately ignoring." creffett (talk) 23:41, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps a block of a few months to give the editor some time to mature? WMSR (talk) 05:30, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Support indef block. It seems like his MO is to do something bad and then refuse to understand the negative feedback. If you look at his talk page it is filled with final warnings for the same conduct going back several months, and his responses have been mostly glib one word answers or one-liners. There's no sign that he is really getting better. 38.142.216.106 (talk) 13:09, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Support indefinite block. I've sorta been keeping an eye on him for a while and have greatly noticed his refusal to work with others and deciding to ignore site policy. Him yelling at other users through edit summaries (and the occasional cussing) don't help his case either. Namcokid47 ^(Contribs) 16:00, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

• Support a REASONABLE-length block Near as I can tell, he's never been blocked before An indef block is a significant first block that isn't generally supported by precedent. Anything from up to a week is fine by me; otherwise, oppose. Buffs (talk) 18:31, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Good point. I didn't realize that he hasn't been blocked before. I can see your point about him not getting a block before, and frankly I'm surprised since I've seen people get in trouble for less severe misconduct and IDHT issues in the past. 38.142.216.106 (talk) 19:18, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

• Comment I suspect we're dealing with a lack of competence due to youth. A block for a couple years wouldn't be necessarily a bad thing. WP has plenty of editors who were a pain in the ass but after maturing for a few years they became very productive editors. Blackmane (talk) 00:00, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Support reasonable block. I agree with Buffs, a permanent ban is a bit over the top. I've had limited dealings with Benjaminkirsc, so take my opinion for what it's worth. When he removed some info about a mobile port from a video game article (Special:Diff/918276204), I reverted and said he needed to use the talk page to explain his deletion (Special:Diff/918278677). Which he did. I explained his reasoning from flawed, and that was pretty much the end of it. So he is certainly capable of listening to others and taking advice. And I have no reason to believe he's malicious in any way. However, I'm inclined to agree with Blackmane, I do get the impression that he's very young, so a block of a few months/years might not be a bad idea. Bertaut (talk) 04:30, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Courtesy: this is the talk page discussion Bertaut is talking about. TheAwesomeHwyh 04:53, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Maybe I'm naïve, but I don't see how a block of a few years (!) is that much kinder or gentler than a 'nuclear' indef block. If anything, it might be better to offer the guy mentorship or something instead of a block. If he's really just immature but could be contrusctive and in good faith this might be a better option. 38.142.216.106 (talk) 13:25, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Problem is, we did offer mentorship (and a run through the CVU course) during the last AN/I discussion, Benjaminkirsc didn't engage with the offer (as you can see from the above discussions, part of the problem is that they basically don't engage in discussions at all). creffett (talk) 02:46, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

That's fair. The distinction between an indefinite block and a block for several years does sort of escape me though, but I'll defer to your judgment on that of course.208.185.237.210 (talk) 13:34, 24 October 2019 (UTC); strike CU blocked IP --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 06:01, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

A block for several years expires automatically when the several years is up. An indefinite block doesn't expire ever, but must be removed based on some other condition (discussion with the blocking admin or a successful community appeal, usually), which can be a time of a few minutes or many years depending on the circumstances. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:40, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes. I would add that while time limited blocks automatically expire so may seem to be a lesser block and generally speaking, any block can be appealed; with a time limited block it isn't that uncommon especially with a long block like a month or more, that the is the block is expected to last the length of the block unless a mistake was made. (Sometimes, especially with edit warring and stuff, it's expected that the time limited block will be successfully appealed if sufficient reassurance of not repeating the behaviour.) When I supported a indef block, I explicitly intended this as a "indefinite" block and not a permanent one. I also didn't want a WP:cban, but a normal indefinite block which can be appealed to any admin. I was hoping some admin would share my views and impose one without much more discussion. (Technically, this discussion could be taken as "Editors who are or remain indefinitely blocked after due consideration by the community".) Although I do have concerns over their edit summaries, my main concern is they really have given no indication they understand or care about copyvios. If they give sufficient reassurances their block could last minutes. I mean it doesn't even have to be a block if they would properly engage with the discussion. What they've said so far doesn't reassure me they are capable of this at the time whether due to WP:competence issues or something else, but it could also be they're just ignoring the concerns since they feel they can. Nil Einne (talk) 03:33, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

• Support indef block No reason to believe a short block would resolve the issues. Disruptive editors with clean block logs get indeffed all the time. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:36, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support at least some form of action. I feel like an indef might be a bit too harsh for a first block, but none of my interactions with Benjaminkirsc have been particularly great (this was my first one, BTW). JOEBRO64 13:23, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support some form of action, as Joe says above. Here's another example of, at best, a miswritten edit note. To revert a months old redirect as "not notable" is difficult to follow. Been dealing with similar issues for months now, or repeated changes to infoboxes despite being informed of documentation and MOS, etc. Another example that I just found while reviewing is this claim that information is false while simultaneously removing the sources that show it's not. -- ferret (talk) 17:47, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

• Separate of this, I've just reverted yet another edit where he removed information as "false information" or similar such phrases that was either reliably source, or for which I could easily find sources for, and I've independently given him a final warning. If this thread doesn't block him, I probably soon will. -- ferret (talk) 15:50, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

• In regards to some comments that the editor seems to just shrug off criticism, the user's response to my "final warning" was to simply ask how long he'd be blocked. I felt that was fairly...flippant. -- ferret (talk) 20:50, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

• Support block. I'm not sure how long for though - I'm reluctant to say indef for a first offence, but the entire impression I'm getting is that they'll just shrug off a shorter one and then carry on as they were - I'm seeing absolutely no indication that understand why others have a problem with their edits. A short block after this long at ANI also somehow feels punitive. So maybe an indefinite but explicitly not infinite block, allowing for unblock when they demonstrate an understanding of the issues. Thryduulf (talk) 16:18, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support block. Idk if indefinite is appropriate, but at least a good long several months. It is strange talking with this editor. IDK if it's their age or a language barrier but they lack some basic comprehension needed in this space. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 19:25, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support block per WP:CIR. WMSR (talk) 04:41, 2 November 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.