Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive989

Orlando rangeblock for MusicLover650

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

---

Relative to Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/MusicLover650, the range Special:Contributions/2603:9001:985:7B00:0:0:0:0/64, from Orlando, Florida, has been active for the past two weeks. Can we stop the disruption? This person often engages in genre warring, and is especially persistent in puffing up the "associated acts" parameter of the musician infobox. Binksternet (talk) 04:08, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

• Done for one month. Swarm ♠ 23:59, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Mass edits by IP address

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

---

User 2605:E000:9149:A600:B0BD:BEA8:89BB:89CD [1] is going around mass editing articles referring to Companions of the Order of the Bath and other orders of knighthjood in the mistaken belief that they were knights. (ie does not understand the subject it is editing.) Can someone please run a mass revert of its edits? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:18, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

I think all those ones have been undone. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:54, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

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

More eyes on Steve Gottwalt, 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.

---

97.88.37.178 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) would appear to be whitewashing Steve Gottwalt (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Would someone else please take a look at the edit history? Much of the conversation is on my talk page: user talk:Jim1138#Edits to Steve Gottwalt Thank you Jim1138 (talk) 07:19, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Jim1138 - There's definitely issues with the edits made by this user (namely, unexplained removal of content and the replacement of referenced content with unreferenced content). This user has been warned for COI and is on a final warning basis for disruptive editing to the article. At this point, the user will be blocked if any such disruption occurs again - but I cannot block the user now; they're not currently disrupting the project at this time so a block is not justified. If you see the user cause disruption again, file a report at AIV (or file another report at ANI), or let me know and I'll be happy to step in and take action. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:57, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

@Oshwah: Steve6187 also stated he is Steve Gottwalt and has been using an edit request. Other editors familiar with BLPs have cleaned up the article. So the issue seems resolved at this time. Thanks Jim1138 (talk) 17:50, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Jim1138 - Cool deal; thanks for letting me know. I'll go ahead and close this discussion. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:06, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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 editings for another Edit warring about British in Latin America Independence

User:Muwatallis II reported by User:Caminoderoma because the user made Disruptive editings, to starts another Edit warring about British in Latin American independence. He was blocked (x2) by the same reason [2]

Diffs of the Disruptive editings:

1. [3]
2. [4]
3. [5]
4. [6]
5. [7]
6. [8]

The consensus in Wikipedia talk: WikiProject Military history is not put scattered soldiers in belligerents, but put the troops as belligerents if the soldiers were a military unit with a recognizable identity, as they were British Legions.

--Caminoderoma (talk) 15:42, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

This matter was already discussed earlier in Talk:Capture of the Esmeralda and Wikipedia talk: WikiProject Military history. A consensus was reached that the mercenaries integrated into the army are inclusive and not separate entities. Both the military units of an army and the soldiers among their ranks.

I should add that the British legions were not strictly British military units and were not recruited as a unit either. The individuals were recruited by individual contracts and brought to Venezuela to form their army integrating into mixed British and local battalions.

All the information on the nationality of the people of a military force should be made in the body of the article and not in the infobox, as already clarified in previous discussions.

With respect to the insistence of putting "British support" on the information table of the Spanish-American wars of independence, it is partial and out of place. The United Kingdom is not belligerent in the war and did not support any of the parties. The sale of arms was a business carried out by private companies for business reasons, and they sold weapons to realists and revolutionaries alike. The foreigners (not only British) who came to fight for the revolutionaries did so as mercenaries, for other people's reasons, not at the will of their countries. Therefore, that information must be deleted. --Muwatallis II (talk) 20:14, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

User:RK

This user added to article Semitic neopaganism content about Cohenet Institute. Because it isn't neopagan organisation, it was deleted. Currently he started to insulting users who delete his spam as vandals and pathological liars, and he try to convince me that I think that CI are Ortodox Jew, what is completely irrational, because I don't think so and never wrote something ever close to that. --Wojsław Brożyna (talk) 14:28, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

The false vandal-name-calling is going both ways here, see this edit by the filing party, over this garden-variety content dispute. Both editors should be admonished to stop talking about one another, to try to work the matter out on the article talk page and, if that doesn't work, to use dispute resolution once they can show that they've made enough effort to discuss it that the DR processes will take the request. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:20, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

NLT warning

I just received a warning that my editing on Steven Kunes would get me reported to Wikipedia legal, by "several editors". I've given the editor an WP:NLT warning, but would appreciate further eyes on the situation. Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:18, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

I have started a Conflict of Interest Noticeboard discussion concerning the article at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Editing_at_Steven_Kunes.--SamHolt6 (talk) 20:16, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

@SarekOfVulcan: - I've notified the editor of this topic. I tried to engage them on your talkpage, but no reply as of yet. SQL^{Query me!} 22:30, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

The editor seems to be disengaging from the topic, and I don't think these legal threats are serious. We should definitely keep an eye on that article but I'm unsure administrative action will achieve much at the moment. -- Luk ^talk 11:07, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

• As someone who worked a bit on that article ... last year, I think? ... I think the semi-protection was wise, but I'd like to reiterate the call for more eyes on it from the opposite angle, that of BLP. I've posted to the talk page about my strong feeling that we now have an attack piece. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:49, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Rangeblock request

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

---

Hi. Please could someone look at possibly rangeblocking the 86.99 (and possibly the 2.49) address on this list. They pop up pretty much every single day between 10am and 2pm (UK time) making the same disruptive edits time and time again. They were previously rangeblocked under their 39.57 range in May 2018. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:13, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

I range blocked Special:Contributions/86.99.16.0/21 and Special:Contributions/86.99.216.0/21 for a month. It's harder to figure out workable range blocks for the other one. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:26, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Assuming this person doesn't care about German sports clubs, it might be Special:Contributions/2.49.184.0/21 and Special:Contributions/2.49.8.0/21. I didn't range block them. Let me know if there's more disruption from 2.49 IP editors. If I'm right about this, range blocks should be workable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:52, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your help with this, NRP. It's saved myself, @Spike 'em: and @Widr: some precious extra minutes of work each day. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:22, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

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

T*U

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

---

T*U seems used 2 accounts (see 96.55.... in Southern Europe article; he "used" Croatia to change Switzerland) to edit and for vandalism. His history smells of sock too.And not only at my eyes.Maxim3377 (talk) 17:47, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

What exactly is 96.55? And some diffs would help. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 19:29, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

MaximMaxim3377 is referring to the IP editor at 96.55.23.253 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). I fear MaximMaxim3377 is aiming for a WP:BOOMERANG here, as their editing on Southern Europe is approaching an edit war. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:38, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

(User link above corrected; Maxim3377, not Maxim) Dorsetonian (talk) 20:14, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Only off by som 7000+km. "Using Croatia to change Switzerland" is a weird accusation. However, the accusing account is (probably) a new account not used to Wiki ways. Please do not bite them too hard. --T*U (talk) 21:52, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Not clear timing in it.Why should have changed a 96.... Switzerland?Nothing to do with Croatia.He acted more on Switzerland than with Croatia even if he mentioned always this one.You seem very practice in Noticeboard administrator site.You also move very well in Wiki.It means in my opinion you know it well and since very long time.It's in favour of sock.Maxim3377 (talk) 06:57, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

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

George Bell (Bishop). Appeal for impartial help.

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

---

• George Bell (bishop) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am in dispute with another editor who repeatedly reverts legitimate changes in the entry and will not engage in discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clockback (talk • contribs)

I have blocked Clockback (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) based on a review of contributions, which skew heavily towards highly biased editorialising e.g. "sabotaging his own education" and "Nor was there any reason for a complaint to be passed to the police since, as Bishop Bell was dead, he could not be prosecuted and they had no statutory role in the affair. A complaint might as well have been passed to the Fire Brigade or to Tesco". This looks like a case of WP:NOTHERE, WP:RGW and m:MPOV. Undoubtedly WP:TE, and the opinions are unsourced. Guy (Help!) 08:24, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

[Edit conflict]:A complaint might as well have been passed to the Fire Brigade or to Tesco.[9]

Why yes, that certainly looks like a legitimate change to me.

Note also that Clockback is Peter Hitchens [10] (note JzG's first link above), who writes for The Mail on Sunday and is involved in the topic itself. --Calton | Talk 08:34, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Should have guessed. If only his brother were here instead. Guy (Help!) 12:20, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I have to say that I know Guy is no fan of the Daily Mail, and consequently indefinitely blocking an established Mail journalist is probably a conflict of interest and a misguided move. The Mail would be only to keen to ham up the “Wikipedia banned prestigious journalist!” angle, which could be a PR disaster for the WMF. Does anyone else endorse an indefinite block? For the record, I think Clockback’s edits are wholly unsuitable for a neutral article and should not be allowed to stand. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:10, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Except, of course, Guy didn't know who Clockback really was when he blocked him. Read a few lines above: Guy learned this when I posted the information after his block of Clockback.

...is probably a conflict of interest

This will be good: what, exactly, is Guy's conflict of interest here? Did he get a job as journalist while no one was looking? Is he working for the Church now? Hitchens, on the other hand, is no stranger to conflicts of interest, considering that one of the two articles he created was about his own book.

The Mail would be only to keen to ham up the “Wikipedia banned prestigious journalist!” angle

I fail to understand why anyone on Planet Earth should give two shits what the Daily Mail thinks. --Calton | Talk 07:21, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

• AFAIK the WMF has never issued any guidance to admins to treat journalists or journalistic organizations with any extraordinary degree of sensitivity. Not sure why’d you introduce a narrative, without evidence, that the block was motivated by personal malice, if you were so concerned about PR. 🙄 Swarm ♠ 07:29, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Like it or not (and it’s fairly obvious which my view is), the Mail is either one of the biggest or the biggest selling British newspaper, and can influence public opinion that can spill onto WP. I’m not saying a block wasn’t deserved, as it obviously was, rather I just wish somebody else had done it. I think the relevant essay is WP:REALWORLD. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:45, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

...rather I just wish somebody else had done it.

Because...? --Calton | Talk 10:10, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Your comment makes no sense. I had no idea who this user was when I blocked. Guy (Help!) 16:47, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

It's not difficult , any admin following due care when blocking should have discovered , it's easy, you hover your mouse over his wikipedia name and you see revealed the details, This is the profile used by the journalist and commentator Peter Hitchens (confirmation). - Govindaharihari (talk) 06:43, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Why would he do that? The objections and second-guessing are sounding stranger and stranger. --Calton | Talk 09:51, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

• Gonna have to agree with Guy on this one. WMF already has plenty of PR nightmares in far-right political circles as well as any fringe-theory-friendly communities. If the RfC that determined that the Mail was generally unreliable (read: WP declaring war on the DM) was a survivable event, this will be, too. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:56, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
• A suggestion to unblock Peter, a topic ban from George Bell and from editing his own biography, he can request edits to his biography on the talkpage. Govindaharihari (talk) 06:48, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

FYI: there is a block review at WP:AN now. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 10:29, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Block review re Barbara_(WVS)

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

---

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

---

I'd like some community eyes on the block at User_talk:Barbara_(WVS)#July_2018, which seems beyond reason to me. EEng 02:07, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

• I agree that this is not a fair block. Barbara created Mycoplasma iguanae, an article about a kind of bacteria found in the spine of the green iguana. SilkTork has blocked her on the grounds that it violates her medical topic ban, which he argues covers all animals, not only humans. I've left a note for him on Barbara's talk. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:21, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

The topic ban was "topic-banned (WP:TBAN) from health and medical topics, including anatomy and sexuality, broadly construed". SarahSV ^(talk) 02:25, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

• Having read the very stubby article, I don't see where a bacteria found in the spine of an iguana has anything to do with either health or medicine, however broadly they are construed, but I'm willing to be persuaded if SilkTork would like to present their reasoning here for review by the community. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:32, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
• This is a very unreasonable block by all means. Blocks should never be punitive, and blocking for 24 hours three days after the alleged topic ban violation simply does not make any sense. I will also echo the comment by SlimVirgin and The Earwig: The block rationale by SilkTork ([11]) was certainly a strong assumption of bad faith by accusing Barbara (WVS) of gaming, and given SilkTork's extensive previous involvement with Barbara and in the relevant AN/I thread ([12]), I personally do not believe they should have been the administrator to carry out unilateral actions even if this was a straight forward case, in which it is not. The only way to justify that Mycoplasma iguanae is covered by the scope of the already-clarified topic ban is to take the "broadly construed" grossly out of context while completely disregarding the entirety of that AN/I discussion, which never once mentioned anything, anywhere, about animal health in the main discussions nor in the clarification section. Like Sarah said, if we would like Barbara's topic ban to include animal health, this needs to be specified in WP:RESTRICT after a discussion, not to be creatively imposed by the discretion of an involved administrator. This block needs to be reversed immediately. Alex Shih (talk) 03:40, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Alex, I was hoping that SilkTork would have responded by now, but he hasn't posted since shortly after the block. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:46, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) this doesn't seem like a good block to me. Even if broadly construed, this doesn't fall under that ban imho. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:17, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
• I don't think that an edit about a bacteria that affects iguanas falls into the topic of "health and medicine." Admins should have substantial discretion to enforce topic bans, but this seems unreasonable to be. The fact that the block was imposed three days after the edit at issue puts this in a still poorer light. SilkTork, will you please explain here? Neutrality^talk 05:31, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
• I have had my disagreements with Barbara but this does not seem like a justified block to me. I would like to hear a more detailed explanation from Silk Tork. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:41, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

I have a better idea. How 'bout if he just skips the explanation and unblocks (with a clear unblock message along the lines of "Unjustified block; what was I thinking?")? As most here know I've been the subject of some pretty stupid blocks, one of which someone characterized as "Hands down the worst block I've ever seen on Wikipedia, and I've seen some whoppers" but (while I hate to give up the distinction) I think this one now takes the all-timer prize. EEng 05:48, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't look like they're online -- only one edit after the notification of the block on the user's talk page, so they have yet to see these requests for explication. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:51, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Sure, but if he doesn't show by noon UTC August 1, someone else should just unblock based on the unanimous comments here and on Barbara's talk page. I'm tired of unjustified blocks going uncommented in the victim's block log because it simply expired while hands were wrung over giving the admin a second chance to justify the unjustifiable. EEng 05:56, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) This block is ridiculous and could easily be seen as bordering on an abuse of the tools. @SilkTork: please remedy this immediately. If SilkTork is not present or unwilling, please some other admin do the necessary. - Nick Thorne ^talk 06:02, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
• It’s a defensible block, the scope question is a reasonable one. Equally I think we should unblock as it plainly was not malicious and there’s no evidence of gaming the system here. I would encourage Barbara to ask before editing if there’s any doubt, but I sincerely doubt she thought this was in scope. Barbara is lovely and I really can’t see her as a malicious actor, notwithstanding the issues that led to a justified TBAN. Guy (Help!) 06:53, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
  • One thing that I find frustrating (generally speaking) is that, while topic banned editors are encouraged to ask and double check before editing a page that could be under their banned topic area in potentially borderline cases, I believe administrators should also engage in a similar good practice and ask before blocking borderline cases. And I don't think this is even close to being borderline; defensible? Perhaps, as I commented above, but only in unreasonable ways. Alex Shih (talk) 07:06, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
• While I tend to assume that 'broadly' can often cover topics that some might consider tangential to the topic from which a user was banned, this is most definitely over the top. I support EEng's proposal that, if SilkTork is not around to unblock Barbara, another admin do so. Icarosaurvus (talk) 07:00, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
• Without piling on here or defending the block, I think a ban from “medicine, broadly construed” would inherently encompass “veterinary medicine”, according to common sense. Swarm ♠ 07:08, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I agree with Swarm; "broadly construed" would obviously cover bacteria that creates abcesses in pets. The user is free to appeal her TBan to allow her to edit on veterinary medical topics, but right now "broadly construed" would of necessity cover veterinary medicine. That's why we have the term "broadly construed" -- so that the ban wording does not have to spell out every single permutation of the subject matter. The user is also free to appeal her block (which she hasn't as of this writing). Softlavender (talk) 07:41, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Let me see if I have this right. The article's about a bacterium, and the last sentence is "It has been recovered from abscesses of the spine of the green iguana, Iguana iguana." So because of that it's a medical article? But if she'd left that sentence out she'd be OK? Is psychology off limits too, because psychology is related to psychiatry, and psychiatry is medical? What about cars? Without even looking I'm sure that talks about safety and road accidents, so I suppose that's medical too? C'mon.

But let's forget that, even. An involved admin makes a punitive block 3 days after a "violation" which is, at worst, equivocal, and throws in an AGF-failing comment while doing so. That's OK with you? EEng 07:54, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Is there actually any doubt that human psychology is covered by a topic ban on "health and medical topics"? I would have thought it's a clear cut case. Nil Einne (talk) 08:03, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

That would need to be assessed on an individual basis. The psychology behind say games theory or psychological warfare are not health or medical topics. Granted most articles I would expect to be related to psychological disorders, which would be covered. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:45, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I was thinking of stuff like Dunning-Kruger effect. EEng 15:46, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

The wording of the TBAN is: "topic-banned (WP:TBAN) from health and medical topics, including anatomy and sexuality, broadly construed", and Barbara was already warned in May to ask first rather than testing the boundaries of the TBAN: [13]. Softlavender (talk) 08:15, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

While I'm normally against people testing their limits, I would have assumed a topic ban on health and medical topics was intended to only cover human health and medical topics. Yes this may be a bit human centric, but it's also reflective of the way things are generally handled in the real world. For example does WP:MEDRS even cover veterinarian medicine? I would say no since it mentions animal models without talking about how this applies to veterinarian medicine. (For example, a study on the effects of drug A in cows is not an animal model if you're talking about the effects of drug A in cows.) Therefore I would suggest at the very least an unblock while clarification is sought on whether the topic ban is intended to cover non human health and medical topics. Also even if the topic ban doesn't cover non human health and medical issues, Barbara WVS should be aware that given the connections made between non-human health and medical issues and human health and medical issues, there is a risk that their edits even though nominally concerning non human health and medical issues could be seen crossing the line. (For example, I wouldn't suggest they touch anything to do with sexuality, even if it concerns dolphins or chimpanzees to give 2 examples.) Nil Einne (talk) 08:07, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

• I think its reasonable to assume vetinary medicine could be covered by a health and medicine topic ban, I think its just as easily assumed it wouldn't be. Certainly there should have been a warning in this case given the time since the alleged infraction, and probably a discussion somewhere to see if it actually does cover it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:45, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
• Not sure if my comment is really all that useful at this point but I have to agree with the above I would've said the topicban was for humans only .... not animals, Regardless of the scope they should've been warned at most not blocked. Glad to see common sense prevailing here for once :). –Davey2010^Talk 11:48, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

I'd say that it was clearly not abuse of admin tools, and could easily be argued as falling within the broad construction of the topic ban, especially since the only references referred to "disease" and "medicine". I also support Boing!'s unblock, per clear consensus above. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:28, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Unblocked

• I read a consensus developing for unblock, here and on the user's talk page. Those who see it as a bad block are pretty unequivocal, very few see it as unequivocally good, and some opine there is room for uncertainty. Given that it's only a 24-hour block, we shouldn't be sitting here arguing about it all day, so I've taken a bold action and have unblocked. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:50, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
• Just by way of context, and in SilkTork's absence, it might be worth noting that SilkTork warned Barbara back in May about editing Violence against women in the United States, which was seen as within the bounds of her TBAN, and advised her to check before making an edit. Girth Summit (talk) 10:14, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

  Yes, that was noted above, and I considered it when I judged the consensus. But I don't see that anyone has suggested she needs to check before every edit, and there seems to be sufficiently strong argument from a number of people here that she could be excused for not seeing this one as controversial. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:25, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Here is the link to the warning to check first: [14]. Also, the TBan says "health and medical topics, including anatomy and sexuality, broadly construed" (emphasis mine), and nothing in the TBan specifies human health and medicine. There are two citations on the article Barbara created: the journal title of one includes the word "medicine", and the title of the other includes the word "disease". Softlavender (talk) 10:31, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I read it, and I read your opinion above and I gave it due weighting. If you disagree with my action, what you need to do is show that I have misjudged the consensus, not just continue with the same argument. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:38, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I don't disagree with your action, it was clearly in-line with the consensus. I thought the earlier warning was notable context, given some of the criticism being directed above towards SilkTork, but I didn't spot that it had already been mentioned. Apologies for the disruption. Girth Summit (talk) 10:58, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Boing! said Zebedee, thanks for unblocking. For future reference, have we established that Barbara's topic ban covers only human health?

The topic ban was proposed on 19 March 2018 by SilkTork as "a formal topic ban on Barbara from editing medical articles". Sandstein closed the discussion on 25 March as "topic-banned from medical articles". After the close, it was felt that more precision was needed to clarify the scope (discussion), so SilkTork proposed new words: "topic-banned (WP:TBAN) from health and medical topics, including anatomy and sexuality, broadly construed". This gained consensus, and Sandstein reclosed the discussion on 27 March as "amended as proposed". Pinging Barbara's mentor, Anthonyhcole. SarahSV ^(talk) 14:16, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

No, I don't see any clarification of that. I've suggested at my talk page that clarification would be a good idea. Maybe we should do that here to save further bureaucracy? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:21, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

That would be a good idea, so that it's in one place. SarahSV ^(talk) 14:40, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, fair enough, I'll start it...

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

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

---

Topic ban scope

To try to minimize further uncertainty, let's see if we can get a consensus on the scope of this topic ban. The original ban discussion is here and the wording was adjusted following a discussion here. Neither explicitly mentions veterinary medicine, and the original dispute seems to have been about human medicine and sexuality, together with clashes with another editor. So, simple question, should the topic ban on User:Barbara (WVS) be taken to include veterinary medicine? Yes it covers veterinary medicine, or No it doesn't. (I'll offer no opinion so I can act solely in an admin capacity.) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:05, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

• No. If there is no evidence of disruption in veterinary medicine, and if they were never discussed, then it should not be included in the scope. Alex Shih (talk) 15:09, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
• No. No evidence has been presented of problems in veterinary-medicine articles. The dispute that led to the ban was about human health and sexuality. SarahSV ^(talk) 15:13, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
• I've been pinged about this issue. This is just to note that my role was limited to establishing that consensus existed for the wording of the topic ban. I have no particular opinion about or authority to determine whether the ban covers or should cover veterinary medicine. Sandstein 15:58, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
• Comment: Like others, I would think that the scope of the topic ban applies to animal health as well. A number of our medical articles, such as Cancer, include an "Other animals" section. And it's common to see an "Other animals" section in our anatomy articles. For reference to this format, see WP:MEDSECTIONS. Barbara likes to create spin-off articles, and she has created a number of unnecessary ones. With regard to medicine, including anatomy, we typically only create spin-off articles for non-human animals when needed. Tom (LT) and Iztwoz can attest to that. I wouldn't want to see Barbara unnecessarily creating spin-off articles for non-human animals. So if she is free to edit veterinary medicine topics, that would be my concern. My concern would also be Barbara showing up to human-dominated medical or anatomy articles and editing the animal content, which would likely have our paths cross, when the interaction ban concerns the two of us. If she is free to edit veterinary medicine articles, as opposed to non-human animal medical and/or anatomical content in general, that's different. As long as the veterinary medicine freedom doesn't give her access to the human-dominated medical and anatomy articles, the freedom might be fine. But I do not see why she would be any better at editing such material than she was at editing the human material. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:00, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

• Flyer22 Reborn, the purpose of this discussion is not to impose a new topic ban on Barbara, but to clarify the scope of the current one; that means looking at the discussion to see what it covered. I can find no mention during that discussion of non-human animal health. Medical topic bans are usually understood to apply to human health. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:17, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Slim, and I'm not trying to impose a new topic ban. I'm trying to ensure that there are no loopholes that will cause problems, like this supposed loophole has the potential to do. Barbara and I extensively disagreed on a non-human animal matter regarding the Vagina article, and I mentioned this in the GA review when it came to noting the lack of research on female genitalia, especially with regard to non-human animals. After all that debating I did with Barbara about lack of research, we can see that this important fact is currently in the lead of that article and sourced lower. I would not want to see an unnecessary article on non-human vaginas. I certainly am not a fan of stub or stub-like articles. I prefer to create (usually build rather than technically create) comprehensive articles, and that includes keeping the "Other animals" section in the article and only creating a spin-off article for other animals when needed. I state "supposed loophole" because it's clear that some editors (me included) feel that the original topic ban does extend to non-human animal health. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:00, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn, the problem is that in the effort to close all loopholes, you're leaving her very little she can edit safely. No human medicine, health, bodies, sexuality or psychology; even certain political articles are off-limits, it seems, given that she's been told not to edit violence against women. That means few women's issues are open to her. Now she has been blocked for creating Mycoplasma iguanae, bacteria found on the green iguana. So no animal medicine, no animal health, no animal bodies, no animal sexuality, no bacteria, no viruses. Is that reasonable? SarahSV ^(talk) 19:29, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Just a suggestion from me on the process here. This isn't intended to close any loopholes, improve the original ban, or decide what we now think should be banned and what should not. It's just to attempt a re-reading of the original ban and decide on what it was actually intended to cover. If there are any loopholes, they should be addressed as and when they become a problem (if they actually do), not here and now. Whether the ban originally was intended to cover veterinary medicine or not, that is all this is about. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:44, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Boing! said Zebedee, if the point, in addition to getting fresh commentary, is to find out if the scope was meant to extend to veterinary medicine articles, then I think the editors who voted in the previous topic ban aspects should be pinged. I already pinged Tom (LT) and Iztwoz above. And Davey2010 has commented below. The others are: Cullen328, Johnuniq, Gandydancer, Rivertorch, Winkelvi, Clayoquot, Natureium, KMF (now Lojbanist), Robert McClenon, Swarm, Bishonen, SandyGeorgia, D4iNa4, and Literaturegeek. Swarm also commented above. And, of course, SilkTork has already been pinged. If I missed pinging any others, then please ping them. Jytdog provided evidence, but he technically didn't vote. Plus, he keeps up with ANI and likely already saw this thread; so I didn't ping him. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:25, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, definitely a good idea to ping those who took part in the original discussion, thanks. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:34, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) SlimVirgin, given how she edited medical articles and my history with her, yes, I find it reasonable. I'm clearly a biased party, with good reason. And "violence against women" is undoubtedly a health topic. Despite my feelings on all of this, I haven't voted "yes" in this section. I have simply noted issues that might come up, given my knowledge of how Barbara edits and her history with me. I know that you support her. I clearly do not. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:43, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

I neither support nor don't support her. I'm commenting because the block was unfair, as is extending the scope after the fact. There was no mention of animals during the topic-ban discussion. That was the time to raise the issues you've mentioned here. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:57, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

That was not the time, since as Softlavender stated more than once above...the topic ban says "health and medical topics, including anatomy and sexuality, broadly construed." If I thought this meant "But, oh, veterinary medicine articles or any non-human animal medical and/or anatomical content is okay," then I would have stated something. And if this exception becomes a problem in the future, I most certainly will be stating something then. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:30, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Like Softlavender noted, this type of lawyering is exactly why we include "broadly construed" in topic bans. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:34, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

I disagree. I don't think "broadly construed" should be given carte blanche to freely interpret whatever that can be remotely connected; broadly within reason, not openly and creatively. Alex Shih (talk) 23:15, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Swarm stated above, "I think a ban from 'medicine, broadly construed' would inherently encompass 'veterinary medicine', according to common sense." Emphasis mine. Again, we state "broadly construed" to keep this type of thing from happening. It's why the ones who are topic-banned are advised to ask if they are unsure. There have been a number of cases of topic-banned editors trying to test the waters and find a loophole in their topic ban. All that stated, as long as "veterinary medicine" is not interpreted by Barbara to mean she can go into the human-dominated medical or anatomy articles and edit the "Other animals" sections or create non-human animal anatomy articles, both of which would put her back in my orbit, I don't have a big issue with giving her some rope to see how she does with veterinary medicine articles. If she is allowed to create non-human animal anatomy articles, then that should be clarified. But I obviously would be worried about her using that freedom to create something like a non-human animal vagina article, when she knows I'm against it (at this point in time) and it would give her somewhat of an excuse to edit the "Other animals" section of the Vagina article or other anatomy articles I'm involved with. After what I stated here about such a thing, and she's seen what I stated, I would view it as her trying to provoke a response out of me if she were to go through with editing in a way that is likely to involve me. Yes, the interaction ban is one-way, but if I want to explain why I reverted, all that will happen (unless others weigh in) is me posting about it on the article's talk page without the other party weighing in. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:59, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

To answer User:SlimVirgin's question "So no animal medicine, no animal health, no animal bodies, no animal sexuality, no bacteria, no viruses. Is that reasonable?" Yes it is, because the consensus was that Barbara is an unreliable editor who inserts errors into medical articles through misreading or misunderstanding the sources. A good number of editors were consulted before the topic ban was proposed in order to clarify that there was widespread concern about her editing. This is not just about a clash between two editors, it is about safeguarding the reliability of some of Wikipedia's most sensitive articles. SilkTork (talk) 18:07, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

If it was the intent of the ANI discussion which resulted in the sanction to have a ban which was as all-encompassing as that, then they would have levied a much broader sanction against her, rather then a topic ban from specific topics, "broadly construed", or they might even have considered a site ban. It seems that you're inclined to interpret the sanction as being intended to be an extremely broad one which was, for some reason, only narrowly defined. I do not believe that such a radical re-interpretation of a sanction falls within the leeway provided to administrators. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:28, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

• No. It seems obvious to me that the original problems and original scope had nothing to do with veterinary medicine. Paul August ☎ 20:07, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

• No - From my understanding the topicban was purely for human health (etc) and doesn't seem to have been intended for vet medicine, They're not disruptive in that area so seems stupid topicbanning them from that area. –Davey2010^Talk 20:54, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
• No. Miniapolis 22:23, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
• No. Let's give Barbara a chance to work in areas in which she might contribute productively. Writing about animals requires a bit of a different skill set from writing about human health. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 22:34, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
• No -Nothwithstanding the problems which resulted in the topic ban -- which I do recall -- "medicine" means "human medicine" and does not include "veterinary medicine" and, in any case, including the article under discussion in "veterinary medicine" is a stretch in and of itself. If Barbara_(WVS) edits within veterinary medicine, and her contributions are problematic in that subject area, an additional topic ban can be levied, but the current ban most certainly does not include that subject, no matter how broadly it is construed. (On the other hand, Violence against women is certainly within the scope of the "sexuality" part of the ban.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:56, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
• No When people talk about "health care" and "health insurance" and "medical coverage", they're not talking about dog health or veterinary insurance or medical coverage for pets. EEng 23:38, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
• Neutral but the question is Irrelevant - In view of Barbara's inability to discuss her edits and inability to accept consensus as consensus, I favor an ultra-broad interpretation. I do not consider Barbara to be an editor who makes positive content contributions. However,the article in question isn't about either medicine or veterinary medicine. It is bacteriology. The article isn't about the iguana. The article is about a species of bacterium that may be commensal to or parasitic on the iguana. Every documented species of bacterium (and of any other kingdom of life) should be in Wikipedia if verifiable. The discussion here is off the point. The article isn't about a liazard. It's about a bacterium. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:02, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

  Commensal – I learned a new word today. EEng 02:29, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

User:EEng - If you have an iguana in a terrarium in your house, it is a commensal. It benefits from you feeding it, and it does you no benefit and no harm. Commensalism is one of the nine types of biological relationships based on benefit/harm, although one of them, which is no interaction, is usually ignored. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:04, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm glad you cleared the bit up about the terrarium, because the second sense of commensal is eating at the same table, and though I love my iguana I really don't want him eating at the same table. EEng 00:38, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, the article's talk page is currently tagged as being within the scope of veterinary medicine. That stated, what is relevant to a WikiProject does not necessarily equate to the topic being about what its talk page is tagged with. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:59, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Flyer: According to SilkTork's comment below, it was Barbara (WVS) herself who added the VM Project tag when she created the talk page, here. I believe she was incorrect in doing this, but it does indicate that she, at least, thought the article was relevant to veterinary medicine. That does not change my mind that a topic ban from "medicine", even "broadly construed" means "human medicine" and does not include medicine for animals. As for the shortcomings of Barbara (WVS)'s editing, I cannot argue against it, but feel that if she edits in the field of veterinary medicine as she did in the field of human medicine, many eyes will be on her, and a further topic ban, or even a site ban, would not be long in coming. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:32, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

But, Beyond My Ken, it is not uncommon for us to include bacteria topics within the scope of medicine. The Bacteria article itself is tagged as within the scope (for obvious reasons). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:28, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Sure, the entire field of bacteriology has an obvious connection to health, because many bacteria impact human (or animal) health, but that doesn't speak to the impact of any specific bacterium, such as the one in the article in question. There are scads of bacteria which do not present health concerns, either positive or negative. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:29, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

• "Broadly construed" would indicate all health and all medicine. If veterinary and/or animal health is not included in the TBan, then the TBan wording should be altered to indicate either specifically "human health and medicine", or the words "broadly construed" should be dropped or changed to "narrowly construed". There's a reason we use the terminology "broadly construed", and it should not be used lightly or as a matter of course, and it should mean what it means. Softlavender (talk) 04:59, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
• No with caveats. I endorse the comments by Beyond My Ken but want to make some additional comments. Barbara needs to be cautious and not stretch the limits. Venturing into topic areas of the sort described by Flyer22 Reborn would be a big mistake at this time. Please be cautious and please be impeccable with your referencing. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:49, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Cullen328, for hearing out my concerns. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:59, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

You are welcome, Flyer22 Reborn. I always take your concerns seriously because I believe that you have earned our concern. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:51, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

• No with a but I think the original ban discussion dropped the ball on this one, and we should perhaps be asking the question whether bans from broad topic-areas are being imposed too lightly based solely on localized disruption in a narrower, related area. It's a bit late/redundant to be endorsing the unblock at this point, but I am wondering if, when the original ban discussion was shallow enough that it did, in effect, ban her from veterinary topics (it is a branch of medicine) when we now have overwhelming consensus that it shouldn't have done so, and Barbara has now suffered a block that she shouldn't have, based on a ban that was ill-considered in its earlier incarnation. I am uncertain regarding whether simply clarifying the wording will adequately address this, and don't think simply unbanning is in order (that would only provide incentive to other users to push the boundaries of their bans so they can be subject to unjust blocks and be unbanned as a result), but I'm wondering if at this point we should maybe have a discussion about forbidding bans from broad topic areas when disruption is localized to a specific, identifiable sub-topic. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:31, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
• Neither. We should keep the topic ban as is. Most anatomy and physiology articles contain parts relevant to animals, so I am doubtful that this proposal will actually help clarify things - I think the problem here was the application of the topic ban, not the topic ban itself. I do not think the block given was warranted. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:48, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

  Question, if you don't mind, as I don't really understand. This discussion is to try to determine what the topic ban currently covers, and you appear to be saying that it neither covers veterinary medicine nor doesn't cover veterinary medicine? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:32, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

  I think what Tom (LT) is saying is that no matter how much we clarify a topic ban, there will always been rooms for discussion (which is the argument for "broadly construed" by several editors above). The actual application of the "broadly construed" topic bans will depend on the discretion of the administrator, which was clearly misinterpreted in this case judging by the emerging consensus. Looking back, this looks to be a problem with "broadly construed" on broad topics, so I do maintain that another clarification would be helpful. Alex Shih (talk) 09:51, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Not misinterpreted. Interpreted differently. Above, the closing admin said he has no opinion on whether the ban should extend to veterinary medicine. And SilkTork, the admin who proposed the ban, clearly felt that it should extend to veterinary medicine. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

• Ah yes, it makes sense as "Don't clarify the wording of the ban either way". Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:25, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Looks like User:SilkTork's got a sudden case of ANI flu. Huh. I've often wondered why the Centers for Disease Control doesn't look into the etiology of that. EEng 17:42, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

• Yes. A significant part of the reason Barbara was topic banned is that she did not understand the health and medicine topic fully, and misread or misunderstood her sources. She could not be trusted to edit in these areas without making errors. While mistakes in the bulk of our articles is understandable and reasonably harmless, mistakes in the areas of health and medicine can be damaging. I would not want to see Barbara entering into editing veterinary medicine articles and inserting errors which lead to readers self-treating their animals and causing them harm. Veterinary medicine is a subset of medicine so is included in the topic ban by default. It covers the same sorts of anatomy, medicines and treatments. SilkTork (talk) 17:50, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

• As has been noted by several people, the article in question really isn't included in the subject area of veterinary medicine at all, so while your argument -- which has also been made by others here -- concerning the scope of "medicine" broadly construed, is certainly a valid one (although I disagree with it), it still doesn't, in my opinion, pertain to that article you blocked Barbara (WVS) for. That makes it an overreach of the "broadly construed" concept. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:21, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Let me give you my thinking here as to why I blocked, and what I feel my mistakes were. I was alerted to Barbara having created the article, and having looked at the article and that Barbara put it into the Category:Veterinary medicine stubs cat, which is a subcat of Category:Medicine, and also tagged it on the talkpage as under the scope of WikiProject Veterinary medicine which sees itself as related to WikiProject Medicine, I felt that she had broken the terms of her Topic Ban as she was editing in a medicine area, and that if she was uncertain if editing in this area was allowed that she should have clarified that before editing. She had tested the boundaries of her Topic Ban previously by editing first rather than clarifying, and had been warned that if she did it again a block was likely. I looked into her editing history, and didn't see her seeking clarification, so issued the block. I am concerned that people feel this was an inappropriate block, and feel that my mistake was in not fully explaining that thinking, and linking to her warning, so that others looking into it could see my reasoning and the earlier warning I gave. I then compounded that error by being offline for the last two days so was unable to answer questions and explain my thinking in a timely manner, which allowed the incident to develop as it has. This has been in relation to personal circumstances, not health related, but family. I apologise to everyone concerned with this incident that I have been unable to answer questions until now. There are other family matters that I have to focus on in the next few days, but I will log in at least once a day to answer any questions or give further clarification as requested. I have previously always responded promptly to queries, and feel rather bad that this incident has happened at a time when I was unavailable to respond. SilkTork (talk) 00:35, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for that explanation, which certainly makes your thinking very clear. It was good to find out the Barbara (WVS) herself put the article into the category of veterinary medicine, and that she tagged it for the VM project. In these actions, I think she was totally wrong (as in, mistaken about the scope of the article), but I can see where her actions in doing so would lead you to consider the articles to be within the "broadly construed" scope of her topic ban, as it certainly would look very much like she was gaming the edges of her sanction. That makes the block much more understandable to me. I still think that the article is not in scope, and that "medicine" conventionally means "human medicine" and not "veterinary medicine"; perhaps the lesson here is for sanctions in this and related areas to be very explicity about what they cover and are not intended to cover. In any case, given past incidents of editors gaming the edges of similar sanctions, your actions are clarified by your statement. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:24, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

But, Beyond My Ken (like I stated above), it is not uncommon for us to include bacteria topics within the scope of medicine. The Bacteria article itself is tagged as within the scope (for obvious reasons). Why do you consider bacterial topics outside the scope of medicine? I've seen you and Robert McClenon argue this, but I'm trying to understand why. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:28, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, there are how many types of bacteria on Earth?, and not all of them present health problems to humans or animals. Those which do, and for which the health issues are part of their articles, cen reasonably be considered as within the penumbra of "health (broadly construed)". Those for which there is no evidence of health concerns -- probably the majority of them -- should not. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:23, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

• No per above. L293D (☎ • ✎) 00:43, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
• Yes. To me, it's clear that "health and medical topics ... broadly construed" includes veterinary medicine. But even if others disagree, I hope Wikipedians will focus on the spirit, and not the letter, of the topic ban. The ban is because Barbara has difficulty accurately summarising technical sources, so she introduces errors that could have harmful real-world consequences. The concerns that led to the ban apply to veterinary medicine. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 02:18, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
• No. The ordinary meaning of "health and medicine" is human health and medicine. I understand that the reason for the ban also dealt with human medicine, and the prior discussion never contemplated that bacteria affecting non-human animals would be covered. Neutrality^talk 02:50, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
• No "Health and medicine" within the context of the original TBAN clearly refers to humans, to try an twist it to include verterinary medicine is an abuse of process, IMHO. In any case, the edit that triggered the block wasn't even about verterinary medicine. It was one about a bactieria, an article that is within the biology field, an edit that does not even mention the subject of the health of the animal concerned. IOW, even calling it a vetinary health issue is a stretch in this case. Lets stop trying too bash the square peg into the round hole here. - Nick Thorne ^talk 06:27, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

I can see that consensus is that people feel the wording does not include animals. However, it's worth pointing out that I was the one who worded the ban, and I did intend it to include animals. I became aware of the problems with Barbara's editing when waiting to review Vagina for Good Article. Like others not familiar with Wikipedia anatomy articles, I thought this would only deal with the human vagina, and raised that as an issue during the GA review. However, it is standard to include discussion of both animal and human in such articles, unless specified otherwise - such as Penis and Human penis. Barbara did insert material on animals into that article, as here: [15] (that edit was later removed as unhelpful), so when looking to Topic Ban her we were not differentiating between human and animal, but were only concerned with her poor understanding, in general, of health, medicine and anatomy. Our (my) mistake was in not clarifying that in the original wording, and this was possibly because we were all too close to it that we couldn't see that people might not be aware that both animal and human are included. As this has now run so far that it is clear that people feel the ban wording does not make it clear that animals are included, I will propose new wording to the Topic Ban to make it clear that animals are covered. SilkTork (talk) 07:56, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

It is also worth pointing out, SilkTork, that your intention in wording the ban is not definitive, it is the intention of those !voting on it that defines it. As for "it is standard to include discussion of both animal and human in such articles", then I'm seeing suggestions from several people here that "broadly construed" should cover such mixed cases even if the ban means "human medicine" etc. if you want to propose new wording for the ban to include veterinary topics, I think you would need to wait and see if the consensus really does support your contention that the ban already does cover them. If this discussion concludes that it does, then such a change of wording will should probably be the result here. And if the consensus is that it does not, then you will have to propose an extension of the ban to cover veterinary topics. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:15, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Just one more comment, because I think you are totally missing the point here. You say "...it is clear that people feel the ban wording does not make it clear that animals are included..." But that is the wording that people !voted on, so if the !vote was made on wording that the consensus decides does not include animals (regardless of your intention, which is not what people !voted on), then animals are not included! It's not that people don't understand that animals are included, they really are not included. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:27, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Nick Thorne, like I stated above, bacteria is within the scope of health and medicine. The reasons why should be obvious from simply reading the Pathogens section of the Bacteria article. And, obviously, humans are not the only ones negatively affected by bacteria. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:45, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn, I beg to differ. This is a slippery slope argument. The article in question does not discuss any health issue whatsoever, only the bare fact that the bacteria is found on a certasin animal. Yet you wish to conflate that with some unidentified and unstated vetinary health issue which itself is arguably not even within the bounds of the TBAN. There are any number of bacteria living on the surface of your eyeball right now that are having no effect on your health. The mere presence of a bacteria is not health related, unless some other factor intervenes. Given that no such factor is stated in the article and Barbara has not made mention of any, continuiing to try and make the facts of Barbara's edit fit the within the boundaries of her TBAN by stretching the context of those edits beyond recognition raises question of the impartiality of those doing thee stretching. Given your past history with the editor I hardly think you can claim to be uninvolved. I am no fan of Barbara's editing in the medical/health article and although I didn't comment on the discussion to impose the TBAN, I supported it at the time. What I find very unappealing however, is the attempt to re-write history to make the TBAN include something that was nowhere included in the discussion that lead to its imposition. If you wish to extend the boundaries of their TBAN then fine, show us the evidence, supported with diffs, that this is nescessary, otherwise it is just hounding the editor. - Nick Thorne ^talk 10:57, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Nick Thorne, a "slippery slope argument" that bacteria is clearly within the scope of health and medicine and is therefore often subject to WP:MEDRS in a number of cases? Then we will have to agree to disagree. There is good and/or harmless bacteria and there is bad bacteria. My point was that bacteria does fall within the scope of health and medicine for a number of reasons. The article in question (Mycoplasma iguanae) deals with the bacteria being "recovered from abscesses of the spine of the green iguana, Iguana iguana," and yet you state this has nothing to do with health and medicine? I could understand if the article was about the bacteria alone and there was no pathological aspect to the topic. But an abscess is a pathological aspect. The article doesn't yet go into detail on what the bacteria has to do with the abscesses, but the abscesses aspect is there. And, like the Abscess article notes, abscesses are usually caused by a bacterial infection. There is no attempt to "rewrite history" just because of an odd interpretation that "health and medicine" excludes "veterinary medicine" and that "broadly construed" would not cover "veterinary medicine." It is also odd that one would trust Barbara to edit veterinary medicine articles, given the issues she demonstrated editing human-centered medical articles. But, clearly, people are willing to give it a try. As for impartiality, I already stated that I am a biased party, and for good reason. Anyone who reviews the topic ban case will understand why. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:31, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn well, at least you recognise your own bias. Please understand that I am not saying that I am in favour of Barbara editing any science related article, given their editing history, but what I am concerned about is that sanctions imposed here need to say what they mean and only mean what they say. It is anything but clear that the TBAN included animals, when it could easily have said so if that was intended. For my money, it would have been better if the TBAN was on any science related article since all science articles depend on correct use and interpretation of reliable sources, but it did not. Perhaps that is a lesson for future instances like this. Now, if we wish to extend the TBAN, we need to show, with diffs, why this is necessary lest it becomes punitive. In no sane universe can Barbara's edit on the bacteria be considered problematic except for the supposed TBAN violation which is highly questionable. It most certainly cannot be used as evidence that the TBAN needs to be extended. If the editor begins to behave in the same manner as before in these general biology article, or any other science related article, then, sure, have at it. We are not there yet. Sometimes we just have to live with the consequences of poorly thought out previous decisions. - Nick Thorne ^talk 12:26, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Boing! said Zebedee. Some good points. I will wait until the end of this discussion before looking into the need to reword the Topic Ban.

And, yes, you're right, it is the group intention then and now which counts. I just wish to make clear that I did not intend it to mean that animals were not included.

I've looked through and noted that some of those involved have commented here and indicated that they did not feel the TB excluded animals (SilkTork, Swarm, Flyer, SarekOfVulcan, and Tom), some have no opinions either way (Sandstein and Robert McClenon), and some feel that animals were not included (Davey2010, Cullen, and Clayoquot). It seems that the intention to either include or exclude animals was not clear and explicit at the time. As such, it is fair to say that you are right, my assertions that animals were included is simply my opinion, but it also follows that assertions that animals were not included is also just an opinion. It is appropriate, as such, whichever way this ivote concludes, to see if there is consensus on should the TB include or exclude animals. And the reality will be, if the consensus is that animals are not included, that Barbara's edits in the area of veterinary medicine (if she decides to pursue that) would need to be monitored. SilkTork (talk) 11:52, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

The article isn't about animals. Bacteria are not animals. (Neither are they plants. They are bacteria.) Lizards are animals, but the article isn't about lizards. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:37, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

• No If veterinary medicine was intended to be part of the TB it should have been spelled out. From the wording that was !voted on, is clear that in that context "broadly construed" refers to human medicine, broadly construed.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:20, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
• No. This particular bacteria has absolutely nothing to do with human health. And of course such topic ban does not prevents anyone from editing pages about bacteria in general or even such as Escherichia coli which is relevant to human health. If it were a specific edit that relates Escherichia coli to human health, that would be a topic ban violation. My very best wishes (talk) 03:14, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
• No. We should allow Wikipedia to be improved. Articles about about animals, veterinary topics, non-human animal anatomy, non-human animal sexuality, and bacteria (excluding anything that lives on a human) should be permitted. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:05, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
• No, unless someone can bring significant evidence for arguing that she's been disruptive with non-humans as well. Clearly the original intent was human, not extending to all organisms. You might as well argue that her ban from sexuality topics means that she could be sanctioned for editing an article about flowers, because a plant's flowers are its sexual organs. Barring evidence of botany disruption, such an argument would be ludicrous. Nyttend (talk) 12:21, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Proposal for close

After a suggestion from SilkTork on my talk page, I intend to evaluate the consensus and close this review of the current topic ban scope in approximately 24 hours, unless there's any significant development before then. That will [probably] result in a [provisional] clarification of the currently perceived meaning of the ban's scope. [and anyone will then be free to propose any changes to that scope if they wish (and the indications suggest that such a proposal will be made). The whole process is perhaps a bit drawn out, but it's clearly something that is dividing people who have a significant commitment to the relevant topic areas, and it's surely better to spend a few days now so that people know exactly where they're working.] Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:16, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

• Be sure to include food and dining in the topic ban, because they're related to medicine and health, and basketball, because it's a form of exercise and that's related to human health, and travel, because people sometimes travel for their health, and insurance because of the health insurance aspect, and Donald Trump because he makes people want to throw up. EEng 00:00, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Boing! said Zebedee, I'm concerned about this. The point of this discussion is to decide what the topic ban meant. If other people want to open a new topic-ban discussion, that's an entirely separate issue that shouldn't be confused with this one. The consensus on the matter at hand seems clear. The longer this is dragged out, the harder it is for the person at the centre of it. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:22, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, you're right, any further proposal which might be made by anyone else after the clarification would be a separate issue. I've struck the relevant part of my comment. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 04:19, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree that the proposal is ready to be closed - couldan uninvolved admin (preferably) do the honors? Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:08, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

I've kept myself uninvolved on the content of the ban itself (remaining neutral on it) and have only acted in an admin/procedural role, specifically so that I could do the close. SilkTork is happy with me closing it, and I intend to do so later today. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:58, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Close rationale/consensus

• There's a strong consensus here that when used alone, the word "medical" should be construed as referring to human medical topics, and so the scope of the topic ban on Barbara (WVS)/Bfpage does not extend to veterinary or other non-human topics. The meaning of the ban is, therefore: "By consensus of the community, Barbara (WVS) (talk · contribs), also editing as Bfpage (talk · contribs), is topic-banned (WP:TBAN) from human health and medical topics, including anatomy and sexuality, broadly construed, and is also banned from interacting with Flyer22 (talk · contribs) (WP:IBAN)."
• Several editors have raised the potential problem of editing human-dominated medical or anatomy articles, and editing only non-human (eg "Other animals") portions, and none has contested that concern. However, the original wording of the ban said "medical articles", and the subsequent amendment was clearly meant to broaden the scope and not narrow it, and so I read the ban as still covering articles which cover human health and medical topics, including anatomy and sexuality, even if editing non-human sections.
• One further concern was to clarify whether Barbara is allowed to create non-human animal anatomy articles. As the consensus is that the ban does not extend to non-human animal topics, then there is no restriction on editing or creating non-human animal anatomy articles.

That's my reading of the consensus, and I will now close the sections above. I'll leave closing of the entire ANI section to someone else. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:06, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Late comment from SilkTork

I have been offline, so unable to respond until now. I apologise for the inconvenience this has caused. I clearly didn't assess that a 24 hour block for someone topic ban and previously warned to check before entering a area they are uncertain was covered was going to be this controversial. At most I thought there would be an unblock appeal which would be considered and either accepted or dismissed. However, now that the eyes of the community have been on the block, we have entered into a discussion to narrow the scope of a broadly construed topic ban of an unreliable user. I'm not seeing the benefit to the community of that. The topic ban covers "health and medical topics, including anatomy and sexuality, broadly construed." It does not narrow it to humans, but allows the "broadly construed" to cover the entire topic of health and medicine (which includes veterinary medicine by default). I would not want to see Barbara entering into editing veterinary medicine articles and inserting errors which lead to readers self-treating their animals and causing them harm. So I will be commenting above on the proposed narrowing of the topic ban and opposing it on those grounds. SilkTork (talk) 17:50, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Firstly, this is an article about biology, not health or medical matters. Secondly, what you personally would want Barbara to be entering into editing of is entirely beside the point. The TBAN was iVoted for on the basis of the words in the proposal, not what thoughts were in your head. It would have been a trivial thing to have included "animal/human" before "health and medical". I note that the topic ban reads as follows: "By consensus of the community, Barbara (WVS) (talk · contribs), also editing as Bfpage (talk · contribs), is topic-banned (WP:TBAN) from health and medical topics, including anatomy and sexuality, broadly construed, and is also banned from interacting with Flyer22 (talk · contribs) (WP:IBAN). " Because the TBAN was modified to include anatomy and sexuality, the TBAN became more specific and less general. So things to be included in the "broadly contrued" need to be more than tangentally related to the health and medical topics, anatomy and sexuality. The more you get specific when writing instructions, the more you restrict the scope of what you are writing. If you really wanted to include animal health, then it should have been specified, otherwise the normal usage of those terms applies. You may not have intended this when you drafted the TBAN and it was subsequenly modified, but that is the effect of the words used. The "letter of the law" is what matters, not what you meant, but failed to actually state. - Nick Thorne ^talk 11:16, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree with your points about the intention behind the Topic Ban not being clear, as I have indicated above in my response to Boing!

While I can't speak for everyone, Biology would have been in the minds of some of us in the Topic Ban discussion as concerns had previously been raised about Barbara editing in that area, as well as areas regarding bacteria - as here: [16]. For clarity, User:Bfpage is also User:Barbara (WVS). The difficulty then as now has been how to encompass the areas of concern, and what is clear is that we did not do it well. So we now need to address that. SilkTork (talk) 12:12, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but.... The article that Barbara created wasn't about veterinary medicine, or about the lizard. It is about a bacterium, which has been identified in an abscess in the lizard. The article isn't about what the germ does to the lizard, only about the bacterium. Every documented species of every form of life should be included in Wikipedia, and she wasn't talking about any illness that the bacterium causes to the lizard. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:33, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Afterthought: ArbCom

On the one hand, I concur with any proposal to get this dispute resolved in a timely manner, first by agreeing on what the scope of the topic-ban is, and then by deciding whether the scope of the topic-ban should be revised. On the other hand, this dispute has demonstrated that it is the sort of dispute that divides the community in a way that the community cannot dispose of it cleanly. That is, unfortunately, this is the sort of case that should, if it recurs, be sent to ArbCom for unhurried fact-finding and conclusions. It involves two editors who have a history of bad blood, and the drama boards do not provide effective resolution as to where the fault lies in such cases. It involves a topic area that is specially sensitive because Wikipedia has an obligation to be as accurate as possible, and in which the editor in question has a history of not editing accurately. While I would like to see this dispute resolved, it is likely to have to be referred to ArbCom. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:32, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. The sanction was a community sanction. How it is to be interpreted is a community matter, and it is quite clear what the community consensus about it is, despite the opposition of some respected and well-known editors, who have every right in the world to be wrong occasionally. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:00, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

The sanction was a community sanction. If the community can agree on how to interpret and enforce it, we don't need ArbCom involvement. I said that if this case comes back here again, it will be because it divides and polarizes the community. If the community can handle it, good. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:27, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Looking up, it seems as if the community handled it OK. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:38, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Late to this

I've been offline for a couple of days and have just caught up with the discussion here and on Barbara's talk page. It is not at all clear that the topic ban extends as far as vet medicine and I'm very disappointed to see this block applied three days after the creation of the article without a word to the target - an obviously good-faith, long term contributor. What exactly did you think the block was achieving, User:SilkTork?

Is seems from a comment on Barbara's talk page that she wasn't able to edit her talk page for 13 hours after the block. Is that so, SilkTotk? Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 03:09, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

The block log indicates whether talkpage access was disabled as part of a block. In this case it was not. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:21, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you NYB. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 03:42, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

To answer your question User:Anthonyhcole. Barbara was topic banned from health and medicine and sexuality articles. After the ban was in place she edited a sexuality article, and I warned her that if she edited within the topic again it was likely she would be blocked, so it was best, if in doubt, to ask first. It was brought to my attention that she had created an article which she herself had tagged as being part of Microbiology and part of Veterinary medicine. I checked if she had discussed this with anyone, and noted that she had not. Given that the topic ban was applied because there were concerns about Barbara's editing in the fields of medicine and biology, I felt that she had edited within the topic ban, and had ignored the advice to consult first if unsure. There is some division of opinion as to if the topic ban applied only to humans or to animals. From my point of view as the main article I had viewed her editing and introducing errors to was Vagina, which is about the vagina in both humans and animals, and she had edited it with information about cows, the topic ban covered animals. Most others disagree, and feel that the wording only applies to humans. As such the block was overturned, and a discussion has arisen as to what to do next. SilkTork (talk) 03:43, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

But what exactly was the puropse of the block? What exactly were you hoping it would achieve, three days after she created the article? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 04:08, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Exactly. The post facto attempts to justify this block are absurd. Silk Tork's original block notice to Barbara [17] was:

I understand you may not have been clear that the health topic covers animals as well as humans, but I see no evidence of you having asked first, so I assume the creation of the Mycoplasma iguanae article was a test to see if it does include animals. It does because animal health and anatomy does merge with human health and anatomy in places, such as in Clitoris where both human and animal anatomy is discussed.

Now, this is quite interesting.

• Clearly Silk Tork did not think that "health and medical topics" includes, per se, animal health, because he felt he had to give this strained justification that animal health "merges" with human health because there are articles that discuss them both.
• Since that's too ridiculous, now we're being told that, of course, "health and medical topics" includes animals, even though clearly most editors – intelligent folks all – don't see that as a natural interpretation.
• And what evidence was there that this was "a test" on Barbara's part?

Especially since Silk Tork recognized that I understand [Barbara] may not have been clear, all this trouble could have been avoided had he, instead of being so hot to lower the "gotcha" boom three days later, simply said to Barbara, "Listen, I really think that this edit of yours [etc etc etc]. Perhaps we better talk a bit to clarify your topic ban." But that would have been too much like common sense.

I think when this is all over I'll create a shortcut WP:IGUANAPUS to point to this discussion, to be used as a shorthand when admins get all high and block-mighty instead of just having a quiet word with the editor in question. EEng 04:48, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Um, how about let’s not do that. The next time someone disputes a block, I don’t want to read that it’s a WP:IGUANAPUS violation. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:23, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Better keep an eye on those blocks, then, especially when talk-page abscess is removed. EEng 06:14, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Eergh. I really don't need that pussy eyeball image, EEng. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:20, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

I’ve removed the image. It was distracting, and inappropriate for the context. Please do not restore it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:01, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Pussy eyeball

-EEng

Oh, for heaven's sake! What's inappropriate about a pussy eyeball? Maybe you'll like this one better. EEng 15:51, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

• Boing! said Zebedee, thank you for closing that section. SilkTork, could you clarify how you see your involvement in this going forward? I was thinking it would be helpful to have fresh admin eyes on future warnings or sanctions. Anthonyhcole, are you happy to continue as Barbara's mentor? It's important that she has someone to speak on her behalf when she's being discussed but feels unable to respond. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:29, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

• Very. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 19:11, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks, Anthony. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:36, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

User:SlimVirgin - I'm not sure how much you have read back into the history of my involvement with Barbara, but I have been a reluctant participant in this. I preferred Barbara to have withdrawn herself from both her problematic editing and her problematic long term engagement with Flyer, and offered to assist Barbara with an alternative solution. However, when faced with Barbara's declining of an alternative solution and the history of both Barbara's accounts, I could not avoid the issue, and supported the topic ban. I am not watching her edits, nor do I regard myself as the lead on this. However, I have responded to concerns raised to me. This is what happens when an admin gets involved in an issue, and we tend not to shrug it off. While it is clear that the consensus is that the wording of the Topic Ban did not cover animals, it is not clear that the consensus is that she should be allowed to edit animal articles. I feel a further discussion would be helpful, though as there is some hostility regarding my blocking of Barbara, I don't feel it is appropriate for me to be taking the lead on looking into such a consensus discussion, so I feel someone else should take the lead on that. I have approached Boing!, as he has remained neutral in this matter, and is handling the matter fine so far. But if someone else feels they can lead such a discussion, I think that would be fine. SilkTork (talk) 10:11, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I've replied on my talk page, but having thought about it some more, I'll expand here. If people think the topic ban should mean something different, well, they're welcome to think so - but I don't see how that would change what it actually does mean, as decided by consensus above. To change what it means would surely require a proposal for a change, wouldn't it? And I'm sure it's obvious why I would not make such a proposal. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:33, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

• SilkTork, I'd appreciate an answer to my above question. What was the block meant to achieve? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 05:51, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I've been waiting for an answer to this same question since the beginning. EEng 05:53, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

To enforce the ban, as part of the blocking policy. If someone is banned from doing something, and then continues to do it, we enforce the ban by blocking them - I gave a short block as I did not think this was an egregious incident, but felt the block was appropriate as she had previously broken the ban and had been advised to seek advise before editing in what might be a grey area or a block would be likely. Consensus is against me in this being a breaking of the topic ban. I'm not sure, had I had a chance to explain the rationale earlier, if people would have agreed that she edited in a grey area and should have consulted first, but as things stand, the consensus is that this was an inappropriate block. I accept that. I hope you will accept that the block was not malicious, but done within what I felt were the terms of the topic ban and the earlier warning. SilkTork (talk) 09:44, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

What I can't see, yet, is the damage or disruption your block prevented. What harm were you expecting Barbara to do to the project in those 24 hours, that your block prevented? I see in the lede of WP:BLOCK, "Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users." Is that statement contradicted or ammended in the body of the policy (which I haven't read)? If, so, would you please point me to it? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:28, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Okay this is getting a little ridiculous. Topic ban violations are the disruption and are flatly allowed to be enforced via blocking, according to both blocking and banning policy. The obviously-inherent preventative aspect of such blocks is to prevent future violations. The policy considerations here are not remotely enigmatic, so I'm not sure where this line of questioning is trying to get to. ST has stated that they were attempting standard enforcement of what they believed was a topic ban violation, which they felt was intentional. This was challenged in the appropriate forum and overturned by the community, and the scope of the ban was clarified to ensure that a similar block doesn't happen again. If we're assuming good faith, nowhere in this chain of events should the blocking admin be grilled for mistakenly making an out-of-scope block. They genuinely thought it was an intentional violation, and they did not have the current clarification of the ban's scope until after the fact, so at face value, they are guilty of making an honest mistake that could happen to anyone. It's not convoluted, it's not complicated, and it shouldn't be hard to understand. So, that begs the question, why are you not simply forgiving a misinterpretation of the TBAN's scope? Do you not believe the simple explanation behind this block? If you have some sort of suspicion of a hidden bad faith motivation, either come out with it or please step away from the equine carcass. If this is just you being defensive over your mentee, I get it, but whinging about a situation five days later is not constructive. Swarm ♠ 17:44, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

SilkTork, thanks for the response. The aim of dispute resolution here is that Flyer and Barbara can both edit in peace, without Flyer feeling she needs to monitor Barbara's contributions, and Barbara feeling she might be blocked for edits that fall outside the ban. To achieve that, I think it would help if admins with no prior involvement were to deal with the issue from now on.

I haven't read much about how the dispute originated. The earliest I can see of your appearance in it is January 2018 when Flyer invited you to do a GA review of Vagina, where she and Barbara were in conflict, because you had reviewed previous GAs for her. You didn't edit the article (except for two minor edits later), and you didn't review it until May, but you were there in an editorial rather than admin capacity. On 13 March you suggested that Barbara not edit the article but instead send you her edits by email and you would propose them. Shortly after this, Flyer complained about Barbara on AN/I, and you proposed a medical topic ban. Flyer requested clarification of the scope, and you suggested an amendment, which was accepted. In May, when Barbara edited Violence against women in the United States, Flyer drew attention to it, and you warned Barbara that "another mistake of this nature will likely result in a block". On 28 July she created Mycoplasma iguanae; you wrote above that someone alerted you to this (I assume it was Flyer), and on 31 July you blocked Barbara without discussion.

Given that chain of events, I suspect that Barbara sees you as an involved admin, and she's likely to be looking over her shoulder waiting for the next block. That nervousness alone will mean she'll make mistakes, which will feed into a negative perception of her. I suggest that we try to break that cycle by having other admins deal with any warnings and sanctions from now on, and Anthony continuing as Barbara's mentor. Is that something you'd be willing to go along with? SarahSV ^(talk) 16:25, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

For the record, I don't keep up with Barbara's edits. And by that, I mean that I usually do not look at her contributions. If I do see her, it's usually because she has edited an article that is on my watchlist, has commented on a talk page (an article, WikiProject, or an editor's talk page) that is on my watchlist, or because my page patrolling has made it so that I've spotted her. I've also been alerted to her edits more than once via email, and not by SilkTork. SilkTork would rather that Barbara's edits to veterinary medicine articles be monitored, if she is to edit them. I do not intend to be the one monitoring them or reporting back to SilkTork or anyone else on the matter if I see an issue there. If I do somehow see a problem, it is easy enough to post about it at WP:VET, but I am likely to leave the matter to someone else to handle (even if they do not see the problem until months or years down the line). I can't state that Barbara and I will not cross paths if she intends to edit and create non-human animal anatomy articles. If I see editing problems in that case, I would first bring it to the attention of WP:Animal anatomy and/or WP:Anatomy. WP:Anatomy is significantly more active than WP:Animal anatomy. And the only reason I'd be more likely to get involved in the case of non-human animal anatomy articles is because they are more likely than veterinary medicine articles to be on my radar and affect a human-related article (for example, an editor wanting to add material from them and/or link to them). But it's not common for me to edit non-human animal anatomy articles; so I don't expect that Barbara and I will cross paths often in that case. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:58, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree that it would be wise for me not to be involved in sanctioning Barbara in future; though I am disappointed that you view me as such an ogre! ;-)

As this matter now appears to be closed, I am signing off. I am away from home, and getting access to Wikipedia to respond to queries is very difficult. I will check in when I am back home next week, and will answer any follow up queries then. SilkTork (talk) 21:17, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

SilkTork, thank you for agreeing to that, and I don't view you as an ogre at all! Flyer, I'm glad to hear you won't be watching Barbara's edits; that'll help to reduce the heat. I intend to leave a note on Barbara's page at some point summing up this discussion. Given that Silk isn't available, that's probably all there is to say for now. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:22, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Repeated personal attacks, disruptive editing, POV pushing and edit warring

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

---

Joan sense nick has recently engaged in a very aggressive editing style on Catalonia-related articles, which included removing some content from Quim Torra, based on an unexplained and unjustified unapplicability of the "monarch" infobox parameter in those (diff). User repeated the same edit in the Carles Puigdemont article with no explanation at all (diff). I tried to explain the situation (diff1 diff2), but got reverted (diff1 diff2). User has been unable to reply with anything other than WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT-based arguments. Sunsequently, the user has engaged in a personal attack behaviour against me throughout several talk pages, including my talk (diff1 diff2), which has continued (diff) even after I warned the user about it (diff). The user has also engaged in a potential edit-warring at History of Catalonia over the addition of WP:OR material and the use of sources which do not seem no meet the condition of reliable (diff1 diff2). User has also been shown to add content to History of Catalonia, Catalonia and Catalan independence movement under a tendentious wording and without any sources (diff1 diff2) and has kept reverting me under new personal attacks whenever I tried to justifiedly undo these edits (diff). This includes a weird edit at Crown of Aragon replacing Valencia by Barcelona as de facto capital of the realm with no explantion either (diff). I have refrained from engaging in further reverts with the user so as to avoid a likely edit war spanning several articles.

The user's contribution history also does show that it is a sleeper account which has been dormant for nine years (link), then suddenly re-activated today and started editing a set of Catalonia-related articles by either adding or removing information indiscriminately, with the aforementioned disruptive behaviour, which also seems very weird. So far it looks like a POV pushing-only account. Impru20^talk 21:51, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

I've seen some of this (cursorily-- I do edit and watch Catalonia pages, but infrequently) and I have to agree that Joan sense nick has to change certain behaviors to be more in line with what a good editor does, which includes especially not posting comments like Boring and stupid behavior, man. A ridiculous spanish nationalist POV on users' talk pages. Having interacted with Impru20 in the past-- including one dispute that I think we were both able to reach a mutually satisfactory agreement on-- I'd have to disagree strongly with Joan's rather unfair characterization: Impru clearly strives for NPOV in the mainspace. Joan seems newish but really, these sorts of behaviors on currently "hot" topics (because of relevance to Catalan separatism) really are not acceptable.--Calthinus (talk) 22:10, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Joan sense nick (talk) 23:13, 2 August 2018 (UTC) said:

Unfortunatelly I'm not very familiar with the WP standards on talk pages, I´m sorry if I type it in the wrong places, or if I've repeated it.

As user:Impru20 says, today is my first day in WP after a long period. And probably, it will also be my last day. I've neither the time nor the mood to discuss with this user that is bullying me. But let me, at least, respond to his demand of my "punition".

I've done some minor edits in Catalonia, my country, since I realised that the History section contents ended in late 2017. I've added some fresh data (note that I do not removed content). I provided some sources. That's all.

When providing links to president Quim Torra article, I noticed that in the box there was a strange line stating "monarch" as a parameter. In my opinion, this parameter make no sense here. I checked out that this was not present in other "Catalan President" boxes, nor in other "spanish Regional President" boxes. So I realised that this should be a vandal addition of a spanish nationalist, in order to make the name of the king visible in front of the catalan president's name. So I cleaned it, and I typed the reason (maybe not in the right place, I assume it).

In a few minutes, this agresive user reverted all my editions (not only this particular one). And the funny thing is that he is now adding this line "monarch" to ALL the spanish regional presidents of the last 40 years! Ridiculous.

It's ok, you can change it all, I give up, I give more value to my time. But it's a pitty that a nice project like the original WP is corrupted by such an unkind behavior. This user usues his position in WP to sweep me out, to expulse me.

Besides it, he removes my editions arguing that are not reliable sources. Take a look and have your own opinion: [18] is an open source, in the spirit of the original WP. It deserves, at least, to be one of the sources in such articles, much of them are just newspaper biased opinions (from both sides).

Best regards. I leave it for, at least, nine yers more... Joan sense nick (talk) 23:13, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Note that Joan sense nick is repeating the exact same behaviour with Asqueladd at Catalonia after trying to add weasel and tendentious content there (diff), again resorting to personal attacks (diff1 diff2). User is pushing POV content at Catalan independence movement and Catalan independence referendum, 2017 as well (diff1 diff2 diff3). Also note that all of this is happening after the user's victim game in this discussion. Impru20^talk 23:56, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm not playing any game. I provide an independent reliable source to add information to these articles. I don't remove other sources (and some are strongly biased, even are fake-news). This is a test on WP plurality: if the vandalisation of that link prevails, biased POV and censure prevails. Just check out the link I add, there are no opinions on it, just videos and facts: [19] But some people don't want information to be shared, they are afraid of truth. Joan sense nick (talk) 00:18, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Also add WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS to the list. Impru20^talk 00:24, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Further POV pushing at Catalonia (diff), this time reverting Crystallizedcarbon, who also pointed out the NPOV and RS issues of the added content. Impru20^talk 11:23, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Also note that this last revert means a violation of WP:3RR, as more than three reverts have been conducted within less than 24 hours (diff1 diff2 diff3 diff4). I have proceeded to revert the fourth revert (though I will be unable to conduct further reverts in the Catalonia article without violating 3RR myself) and warn the user appropriately (diff1 diff2). Impru20^talk 12:56, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

I've blocked Joan sense nick for 31 hours. [20] But Impru20 and others, edit summaries are not a substitute for talk page discussion. There was nothing stopping you from opening a conversation on any of the affected articles' talk pages. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:20, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: Well, I tried it at first in the first contested edits in Talk:Quim Torra#monarch ??, but not only did I receive no response other than further reverts and personal attacks elsewhere (diffs above), but the same POV pushing was attempted in other articles without discussion and dubbing others' edits as "vandalism", so any attempt at discussion seemed moot at that point. Impru20^talk 13:28, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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:HenrikStyle

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

---

HS has been contacted by me and other editors about creating unreferenced articles. I have sent them seven messages about this - in between all the messages, HS was editing, but didn't answer or add sources. I pointed that this it is mandatory to respond when other editors raise concerns epr WP:DISPUTE and WP:CONDUCT, pointed them towards Help:Referencing for beginners and the WP:TEAHOUSE, offered to work together with them etc., but no response. They have beThey have been editing for 10 months and do know how to add references accurately, but often don't do so. After trying for a few weeks, I'm opening the discussion here in the hope they engage. Boleyn (talk) 15:24, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Yet another WP:RADAR user. They don’t appear to have been around since this discussion was started, but if they return without addressing any of this a block is in order. Refusing to communicate is essentaially a rejection of the idea that this is a collaborative project. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:17, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Re-opening; was auto-archived. HenrikStyle stopped editing briefly when I opened the ANI but has returned and still not responded to the messages or added references. They have continued to add pieces of unsourced information like [21] to articles. Boleyn (talk) 15:09, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

An indef would help here to prevent further disruption until they respond on their talk page explaining their position. Lourdes 16:39, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

 Done I've indeffed them until they explain. I've watchlisted their talk but if you need me more urgently, ping me. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:16, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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:46.49.81.19's disruptive editing

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

---

Hello, everyone. I'm asking you for assistance in taking action against User:46.49.81.19. This user constantly removes rows from "Airlines and destinations" tables in Minsk National Airport and Tbilisi International Airport articles, while never leaving edit summaries. All of his ~40 edits has already been reverted, and here is this user's contributions history. Also, 3 comments have been left on the user's talk page in May, July, and August, but there is no single reply and, as I understand it, the user hasn't taken into consideration neither of this comments. I'm not sure if the user's actions represent vandalism or disruptive editing because of my relatively little experience in Wikipedia, so I hope you'll take the necessary decision. Thanks! Flexovich (talk) 09:17, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

I have left them a warning. If the behaviour continues, a long term block on that IP might be more effective since they do not seem to be willing to engage. -- Luk ^talk 10:58, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Philip Cross violations of topic 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.

---

On 26 July 2018, ArbCom indefinitely topic banned User:Philip Cross from edits relating to post-1978 British politics, broadly construed.

On 3 August 2018, Cross made a series of five consecutive edits to the BLP of British journalist Decca Aitkenhead.

According to our BLP, Aitkenhead in 2009 won Interviewer of the Year at the British Press Awards, having "particularly impressed the judges with her remarkable encounter" with Alistair Darling, a Labour Party politician who served as Chancellor of the Exchequer from 2007–2010. Before moving this month to The Sunday Times, Decca Aitkenhead wrote for The Guardian, where she most recently (27 Jul 2018) interviewed Salisbury MP John Glen, an incumbent British Conservative Party politician. Such professional activity puts Aitkenhead squarely within the scope of Philip Cross's topic ban relating to post-1978 British politics.

On 5 August 2018, Cross made a series of fifteen consecutive edits to the BLP of British actor and politician Andrew Faulds. According to our BLP, Faulds entered British politics in 1963. His obituary in The Telegraph, cited in our BLP, reports that as a Labour MP, Faulds twice served as front-bench arts spokesman in the British House of Commons. He held that post until sacked in May 1982. Such professional activity puts Faulds squarely within the scope of Philip Cross's topic ban relating to post-1978 British politics.

This ANI discussion is not about the content of Cross's edits but solely about his flouting of ArbCom's indefinite topic ban just nine days after it was imposed. KalHolmann (talk) 21:53, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

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

We really need semi prot at The X Factor (UK series 15)

The following discussion is closed. 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 X Factor (UK series 15) - The vandals have taken over, and it's getting really hard to find a revision to revert to. Could we please get a semi protection? byteflush _Talk 22:51, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and semiprotected for 2 weeks. SQL^{Query me!} 22:53, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for protecting the article. [22], [23], [24], [25] were created minutes after each other, and were doing the same thing, unsourced changes/vandalism acts. This is a patent sock puppetry case and maybe the accounts should be blocked. Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:00, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Three of them blocked. Thanks. Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:09, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

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

IP user WP:NOTHERE to contribute

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

---

95.145.233.193 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is clearly WP:NOTHERE, as they are only attempting to police their talk page. They continuously added {{Edit semi-protected}} templates to their talk and warned anyone who removed them that they "could be blocked from this page for 24 hours or 72 hours." I removed the template, after which I recieved this message saying that I was banned from their talk page for 72 hours. They later followed up at User talk:104.129.196.175#104.129.196.175, August 2018 by saying "I am sorry to say this but we are closing down your talk page for not obeying the Wikipedia rules." I warned them to start editing the articlespace to prevent a WP:NOTHERE block to no avail. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:36, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

• Looks like a WP:CIR issue as well.198.58.175.190 (talk) 04:44, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Possible Implicit Threat??

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

---

I apologize for bringing this here, as I am not quite sure where to bring this. Over the past day or so I've been working off site on assisting in the current political situation in Bangladesh (primarily with telling individuals how to protect their anonymity as the government has arrested individuals for speaking out, as well as how to circumnavigate government blocks on websites and in setting up a quantifiable system for classifying criminal acts so actual metrics on how much damage the government has done can better be calculated). But anyway, as of today I logged into this account (of a similar name to the one I used in that political group) see I had received a greeting from the Bengali Wikipedia website, despite having never made any editing on it whatsoever. I'm not sure if this is coincidental, or intended as an implicit threat from someone but regardless I'd like to bring it up here to your attention. Jyggalypuff (talk) 14:36, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Many Wikipedias send welcomes to any new accounts, including those automatically created because one visits the wikipedia (see bn:বিশেষ:লগ/Jyggalypuff). Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:46, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Ah, thanks, sorry for the confusion. Jyggalypuff (talk) 14:48, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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:Julio Puentes

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

---

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

JP has been creating unreferenced articles or articles with no clear references or just imdb. They have been creating articles for 9 years, most of which (from those I've seen) are tagged as unref, refimprove or notability concerns. After 18 messages I have got nowhere. I have offered help, directed to advice, explained the policies on sourcing and communication etc. but after eight months of this I've run out of other options. Their previous block in 2016 appears to be for edit warring. Some had imdb listed as their source and removed, there have also needed to be re-writing of some of the articles because they were copyvios of imdb. I think imdb has been their only source for most of their articles, but they won't clarify.

For full details of the discussion, please see User talk:Julio Puentes#Warning. They have replied twice but neither message has been reassuring:

• Hello, sorry for being a bit lazy, it's just that the whole bureaucracy of Wikipedia can honestly be too much of a hassle at times.
• Excuse me, but what is it exactly that you want? I've put the necessary references and tried to include as much information as possible on the articles. I really don't know what else to do.

The second message indicated they were unsure with referencing, despite my explanations and almost a decade of creating articles, so I tried to explain further. 5 more messages later, I don't think they're reading them. Hopefully they'll engage here. Boleyn (talk) 06:44, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

(Fixed the username spelling in section title and OP's complaint. Will leave it to other admins to rveiew the evidence itself. Abecedare (talk) 08:04, 16 July 2018 (UTC))

(Non-administrator comment) This user is clearly not wanting to learn the ropes regarding use of reliable sources. There are also some WP:POV issues in their editing history. I am confused why there is no attempt, after many repeated warnings, to try to use reliable sources. They are not listening or perhaps this is a CIR issue.–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:00, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

• I've commented on their talk page, linking WP:Communication is required, and explaining their options: either stop, communicate, or get blocked. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:06, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

If there is a problem with articles, they go through the process of proposed deletion. A block is unnecessary. Another alternative suggestion is to move these articles back into the user's draft space for improvement. A block is the last resort. Best Regards, Barbara ✐  ✉ 16:11, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, and this sure looks like last resort territory if they don't try to communicate effectively about the issues.–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:25, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Reopening as this was auto-archived without resolution. The articles shouldn't necessarily be prodded, many are on notable topics, and draftifying them brings other issues - many of those who work on drafts are not happy so many on notable topics are moved there. I think an indefinite block would force them to communicate. Boleyn (talk) 17:56, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

• Blocks are to prevent disruption. I don't see this as rising to that level. DGG ( talk ) 14:06, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

I would say it's caused me a lot of disruption and others at NPP trying to sort these articles out, and the continued creation of these articles. Julio Puentes, you have continued to edit since this was opened, please comment here so we can get this resolved. Will you add references to these articles? Will you add references and respond to messages in future? Boleyn (talk) 08:07, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Julio Puentes, can you please comment here? Boleyn (talk) 18:55, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Julio Puentes is continuing to edit but not to comment here, despite several requests to by different editors. Boleyn (talk) 06:22, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Julio Puentes, you've edited again today - it's not acceptable to keep ignoring this discussion. You are taking up a lot of other editors' time by not communicating here. Boleyn (talk) 14:27, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I support taking some sort of disciplinary action against User:Julio Puentes, per WP:RADAR. I had the same experience with him one time on a different article. --1990'sguy (talk) 17:30, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Support taking disciplinary action. Still making edits and refusal to communicate. I did not look to see how long these 13 messages (and a warning) have been ongoing but now ignoring other requests after a warning seems a pretty clear indication of clearly not being here to build an encyclopedia. The needed "push" to create unreferenced, or especially IMDb only sourced articles (basically unsourced) is a serious problem. It seems to me that blatantly ignoring the community should be considered egregious resulting in more than a hand slap. Otr500 (talk) 02:01, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

My messages have been over the last two months, but he has been warned about creating unref blps by many editors, going back to 2010. Boleyn (talk) 06:55, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Respectfully, why hasn't an admin taken action on this yet? Consensus seems in favor of taking some action, and WP:RADAR encourages disciplinary action when editors refuse to communicate when necessary. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:01, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Yep, this was opened three weeks ago and I think we need to make a decision. Julio has been regularly editing during this time, and repeatedly pinged or messaged to contribute here, there isn't going to be anything to add. Boleyn (talk) 17:09, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Warning - potentially compromised account (mine!)

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

---

Long story short - if any editor sees unusual activity on this account such as completely deleting a new section as per [26], please undo immediately & apologise on my behalf. I have a years long edit history & demonstrates I'd never delete sections/comments on Talk Pages (other than another similar, mysterious, delete in the last fortnight). I've changed email/Wiki passwords but if the security issue is at my end that may not be enough. Asking at Helpdesk as to how to obtain IP & device data [27] but if my account is 'RAT'ted that may not help. Have updated User Page as 'potentially compromised account'. Thanks AnonNep (talk) 15:51, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

I've blocked the account as compromised. Based on my check, the likely scenario is someone used AnonHep's computer while they were logged in, or someone has access to AH's computer and knows the password. Changing passwords may not resolve the situation. Also, the recentness of the example AH gives above makes it clear that the account should not be unblocked without very convincing evidence that the account is no longer vulnerable. Assuming that's not forthcoming, AH should create a new account with a declaration on their userpage of the connection with their old account.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:12, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Agree. Perhaps they should also format their device as it may also be likely that someone's placed a keylogger on their device (one reason why, despite changing passwords, they weren't able to avoid the account getting compromised repeatedly). Maybe they should change their device altogether... (or the obsessive girlfriend :D I've done it to my beau, so can imagine). Lourdes 16:36, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Are you saying you've put a keylogger on your significant other's device? Natureium (talk) 16:39, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Doesn't everyone? EEng 21:43, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, perhaps not on the "significant other's device" :D Lourdes 00:54, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Then there was that time I put a keylogger on the significant other... —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 05:56, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

• The edit was a rollback. You have edited the page many times in the last month so I guess it's on your watchlist. At the help desk you said "I was online but elsewhere with only watchlist open." The watchlist for users with the rollback right has a [rollback] link which only requires one click with no confirmation. I and many others have made accidental rollbacks. That seems more likely than a compromised account. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:54, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Which is why I installed User:MusikAnimal/confirmationRollback.js in my preferences. - Donald Albury 17:46, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Primehunter is probably right and in all probability, that's what may have actually happened. The problem is, one can't be too(less?) careful about such an incident. Lourdes 00:49, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Does anyone object if I unblock? I've just tweaked the block, since even if AnonNep's account has been compromised, there's no reason to autoblock her IP or to restrict her ability to create new accounts. Nyttend (talk) 12:39, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

@Nyttend: Based on the post by the account on their Talk page, I don't think an unblock is a good idea.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:35, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Aha, I'd missed that. Thank you for the pointer. Nyttend (talk) 16:26, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Given the truly exceptional situation explained in that post, I've restored autoblock and re-prevented account creation. Obviously we don't want to prevent account creation if a random person has merely guessed your account's password, but when it's a matter of gaining access to your network to cause harassment, WP:IAR. My reblock summary has a reminder that an unblock can be requested via email if desired and a note that it should be accepted readily. Nyttend (talk) 16:34, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

<Redacted> Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:01, 5 August 2018 (UTC) --Tarage (talk) 22:57, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Tarage!!! Absolutely uncalled for and ridiculous comment! I am sorry but I should suggest you strike it immediately. Lourdes 04:57, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Tarage, post anything like that again and you get blocked. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:01, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm off out for a few hours now, but can I just offer a thought before I go? We often have immediate reactions when we examine a situation, but before offering our thoughts in public (particularly on one of the most widely read of Wikipedia's noticeboards, which already has a reputation for toxicity) we should really exercise a little judgment on the way. We should ask ourselves is it a fair way to treat someone who, while having problems of their own, has cared enough to put Wikipedia's security first? Is it something that will actually help the situation in any way? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:07, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Wasn't saying it as an insult. Was saying it as "<redacted>" But I guess trying to explain irrational behavior is ban worthy... --Tarage (talk) 23:50, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

You have just done it AGAIN! Come on, Tarage, THINK before you open your mouth! Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:41, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

@Boing! said Zebedee and Lourdes: You two are seriously overreacting to Tarage's clearly innocuous comment. The block threats are way out of line as well. Nihlus 19:13, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

See my closing comment, and please feel welcome at my talk page or email. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:51, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Legal threat at Nicolas Senzemba

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

---

An IP user, 86.218.37.209 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), issued a legal threat at Nicolas Senzemba writing "si vous changez à nouveau le texte, vous ferez l'objet de poursuites judiciaires. cordialement !" in their edit summary which translates to "if you change the text again, you will be prosecuted. cordially !". Robby.is.on (talk) 12:54, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

I've blocked the user. 331dot (talk) 12:56, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Robby.is.on (talk) 13:03, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

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

John of Kronstadt‎

The following discussion is closed. 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 ask to return the consensus version of article John of Kronstadt‎. It was written on the propagandistic Soviet sources by user Wlbw68, who has been unlimited blocked in Russion Wikipedia. Aleksei m (talk) 14:54, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

I left edit warring notices on both editors' user talk pages a few hours ago... as of the time of this writing, neither of these two users have made an edit to the article. I sincerely hope that it stays this way and that the dispute is worked out between the two of them... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:23, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

The discussion must begin at the consensus version. Now the version is not consensus. Aleksei m (talk) 15:32, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Where was this consensus established? I can't see any discussion on the article talk page. 86.147.197.31 (talk) 15:45, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

The consensus version is the version before the war of edits. Aleksei m (talk) 15:47, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

There is nothing in English-language Wikipedia policy that says that a single contributor can unilaterally assert that his preferred version of an article is 'consensus'. If you have specific policy-based objections to edits made to the article, raise them on the article talk page.

And by the way, you are obliged to notify people when you start threads about them on WP:ANI. You have not done so. 86.147.197.31 (talk) 16:00, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

See WP:CONS. User Oshwah, can I return the consensus version from 15 Jule 2018? Aleksei m (talk) 15:47, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

From WP:CONS "Editors usually reach consensus as a natural process. After one changes a page, others who read it can choose whether or not to further edit. When editors do not reach agreement by editing, discussion on the associated talk pages continues the process toward consensus." I can see no evidence whatsoever that you have discussed this article on any talk page. 86.147.197.31 (talk) 16:18, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Aleksei m - Can you provide the URL to the location of the discussion where this "consensus version" of the article was discussed and closed with consensus to use? This will help us by verifying that such a discussion and consensus exists, as well as give us information that we can use to figure out the best thing to do here is... Thanks :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:21, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

And what is the consensus version now? Aleksei m (talk) 16:26, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

I do not see where any consensus has been established as to what version should be in place. You are the one asserting there is a consensus version but don't tell us where this consensus comes from. The best course of action at this point is don't edit the article, edit the talk page in stead and discuss the points under contention. ~ GB fan 16:36, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

WP:CONS: Consensus is a normal and usually implicit and invisible process across Wikipedia. Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus. Should that edit later be revised by another editor without dispute, it can be assumed that a new consensus has been reached. Now a new consensus has not been reached. The current version is not consensus. I reverted the edit, because there are no sources that John of Kronstadt‎ escaped from Kronstadt‎, the text is written not in English. Aleksei m (talk) 17:32, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Repeated nationalistic disruptive editing

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

---

I sometimes run into editors that make me wonder why on earth they have been allowed to continue editing, and Ke31 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is one of them. The account was created on 19th May, immediately starting to push Turkish propaganda on articles related to Turkish activities in Syria, edits that led to them being blocked for 24h on 20th May, for 72h on 22 May and again, now for a month, on 31 May, that is getting blocked three times in less than two weeks. They then stayed quiet until a week ago, when they again started to make nationalistic edits, and edit war on List of main battle tanks by generation and List of equipment of the Turkish Land Forces over the national origin of the Altay-tank, removing mention of South Korea and claiming the tank is 100% Turkish, in spite of there being plenty of sources saying it's not only based on the technology of the South Korean K2-tank, but that large parts of it are built under license in Turkey. In an obviously never ending slow-motion edit-war that doesn't reach 3RR-levels, but is nevertheless very disruptive. So would someone with the bits please look at it? - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 15:05, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

• ... and they're still going at it, including posting crap on other users' talk pages. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 18:35, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Rangeblock request for 2601:246:CA00:9FF2::/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.

---

• 2601:246:CA00:9FF2::/64 range contribs

This range has been adding hoax info to cartoon pages for a bit now (e.g., [28] [29] [30]). This user has received multiple warnings though various IPs, but never accumulated enough on a single IPv6 address to get reported to AIV. I see no collateral damage with this rangeblock. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:23, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

While it's technically a range, in reality, it's just one Comcast subscriber's internet connection. Blocked. —DoRD (talk)​ 21:42, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

@DoRD: Thank you. In the future, should I just go to AIV with there IPv6 /64 ranges? EvergreenFir (talk) 21:48, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, if it's a major (non wireless) ISP, I'd try AIV first. —DoRD (talk)​ 21:53, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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 for Julian Williams vandal

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

---

We discussed this earlier with no real action taken, but the guy is still inserting the name "Julian Williams" into music articles (five years of disruption.) I filed a report at WP:EFR but they haven't yet folded this name into their catch-all "name-dropper" filter.

Earlier today, Special:Contributions/2605:6001:EA8E:9400:3C36:F062:685D:B2B was blocked. Now Special:Contributions/2605:6001:EA8E:9400:C43D:6E10:AC2E:9262 has popped up. Can we rangeblock Special:Contributions/2605:6001:EA8E:9400:0:0:0:0/64? The disruption in that range goes back a full year. Thanks in advance. Binksternet (talk) 00:16, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

• Si se puede. Drmies (talk) 00:18, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Joan Freeman (Irish psychologist)

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

---

Joan Freeman (Irish psychologist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There has been a discussion started about BLP in relation to the article on Joan Freeman, a candidate for the upcoming Irish Presidential election. I saw it at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Joan Freeman (Irish psychologist). The questionable content has been added and removed several times in an ongoing edit war. When I looked at the content, I noted that it is lifted nearly verbatim from a newspaper article in The Times. I posted this on the talk page and another user removed what I believe is a COPYVIO before I had the chance. I have also edited the article to include the reference in a way that I see as BLP compliant as well as not including a COPYVIO. Bastun (talk · contribs) has reverted my changes and restored what I believe is a COPYVIO with the edit summary "Restore. There is an RfC ongoing, You CANNOT remove material during an RfC."

I ask that an uninvolved administrator have a look at the situation and take whatever action is appropriate and necessary. If I am incorrect about the COPYVIO, I am happy to be told so and to understand my error. If I am correct, however, it is my understanding that a COPYVIO should be removed on sight irrespective of whatever discussions are in progress. If the consensus on the BLP issue is that the information be restored, I can accept that, but I believe it would need to be rewritten so as to comply with policy.

I will post to Bastun's user talk page momentarily. EdChem (talk) 22:25, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Background: The article in question has attracted a suspicious number of "new" and WP:SPA accounts (something noticed by Spleodrach also), who seem intent on removing the section in question. Several editors oppose that removal. A thread was opened on the BLP noticeboard by one of the new accounts, and an RfC was subsequently opened today on the article's talk page. A user involved in the dispute removed the content again while the RfC was ongoing. I restored it as there's an RfC underway (my previous experience of RfCs about content is on the likes of the Donald Trump articles, where no changes can are made while the RfC is ongoing). The alleged copyvio (which I would dispute, but hey) has 'already been substantially changed. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:36, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

I find it rather strange that a RFC is used to protect negative, irrelevant information that is clearly at odds with WP:BLP. The Banner talk 01:56, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

I've cleaned up the copyvio aspect, as a result of a request on my talk page. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:38, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

So if the copyvio issue is solved what about the BLP issue? Both of these issues are serious especially from the foundations point-of-view. Otr500 (talk) 19:32, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

I thank Diannaa for acting on the COPYVIO issue, and I hope that Bastun takes note that an uninvolved administrator with substantial experience in COPYVIO issues found that (a) there was a COPYVIO issue and (b) the close paraphrasing repair that s/he made was insufficient. As for the BLP issue, Otr500, I hope that a consensus can be reached and thus that it can be resolved through discussion at the article talk page. Addressing the COPYVIO has reduced the BLP issue, in my view, as has including direct statements from Freeman. There is a connection between Freeman's family's views and their ability to muster support for her campaign, as has been recognised in some sources, so I see the remaining issue as more one of NPOV and DUE. I intend to propose a new form of words for discussion at the talk page when I get the time – I had hoped to do that over the weekend but that didn't work out – and I hope that it or a consensus-tweaked version will be suitable for the article and clearly policy-compliant. I do wonder whether the RfC should be hatted, though, given that it is presenting a form of words that cannot be implemented no matter the local consensus (as Diannaa as already noted)... but equally I don't want to create hostility by acting on that without a concrete proposal to offer. EdChem (talk) 00:08, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Where are you seeing "(b)", EdChem? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:33, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Diannaa revision deleted your version that was an inadequate paraphrase and those after it up to where she had further paraphrased. Then, she stated directly on the talk page that your repair (where you lol'd at my observation of COPYVIO) was inadequate, Bastun. I suggested above that you take note that your view was not supported by an uninvolved administrator with experience with COPYVIO issues, and I hope that you will look at WP policy in this area and reflect on what has happened. EdChem (talk) 17:16, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

And can I come back in to the room after I've sat on the bold step for a sufficiently penitent length of time? Maybe don't put words in Diannaa's mouth. As she said above - the copyvio aspect is cleaned up. There is an ongoing RfC. Still nothing to see here... Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 19:49, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

The wording at the top of the RFC cannot be reinserted into the article, because it's a copyright violation. If the participants agree, my copyright-compliant wording could be used in its stead. Or the participants may decide to use a different wording. Or the RFC participants might decide the material should not be included at all. Regardless, it's no longer a matter for this board, as no further administrator action is needed at this point. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:59, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Irrational actions

The following discussion is closed. 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 do not have a large beef but experience shows that it might be a good idea to throw a little light on the edits of User:JC7V7DC5768.

They have been following me around today complaining that three references I removed (two that failed verification and were tagged as such five years ago, and a third that was a Huffpost source used with four others to support a single claim-- removed per WP:OVERICTE) should have been discussed first on the talk page. Now they have reverted the Huffpost removal again, and removed three Google books references that I had just added. Anyway, small potatoes/potatos. The main point of concern here, whee some light is required is their last message on my talk page: "I believe and know that your edits are not the right format and should not stand, but I am too new to change Wikipedia policy on that. Your edits may technically meet policies of this site, but those policies that allow your edits to stand are wrong." Meanwhile I am manually restoring the good refs s/he deleted.96.127.244.201 (talk) 05:43, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I've just added 3 new references to the article and added new info. The IP went to my talk page after I dropped the stick to continue to feud with me. I told the IP to discuss his/her ref removal on the talk page per guidelines on WP:Overcite, even if they added new stuff between edits. They didn't listen. I was going to put back the things they added once they went to the talk page but they didn't. I eventually allowed them to add the things they wanted and i expanded the article just now in my last 3 edits.JC7V-constructive zone 05:47, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

To clarify, i meant the ambiguity in talk page of article discussions. Removing refs is a big deal and i wish this would get clarity. That's what i want change. All the ips edits are still in the article i just added more sourced stuff. JC7V-constructive zone 05:53, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

as seen here :

e from preceding version, m = minor edit, → = section edit, ← = automatic edit summary (newest | oldest) View (newer 50 | older 50) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500) (cur | prev) 05:51, 5 August 2018‎ JC7V7DC5768 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (9,974 bytes) (-4,687)‎ . . (undo) (cur | prev) 05:45, 5 August 2018‎ JC7V7DC5768 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (14,661 bytes) (+4,803)‎ . . (→‎1900s) (undo) (cur | prev) 05:39, 5 August 2018‎ JC7V7DC5768 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (9,858 bytes) (+322)‎ . . (undo) (cur | prev) 05:34, 5 August 2018‎ JC7V7DC5768 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (9,536 bytes) (+325)‎ . . (→‎Recent history: source and update) (undo) (cur | prev) 05:28, 5 August 2018‎ 96.127.244.201 (talk)‎ . . (9,211 bytes) (+142)‎ . . (replace source removed by other editor) (undo) (cur | prev) 05:21, 5 August 2018‎ 96.127.244.201 (talk)‎ . . (9,069 bytes) (+149)‎ . . (→‎1900s: ce) (undo) (cur | prev) 05:19, 5 August 2018‎ 96.127.244.201 (talk)‎ . . (8,920 bytes) (+149)‎ . . (→‎1900s: source) (undo)

I didn't revert any change Mr ip made after his last edit to the article, i added new stuff and sourced it 3 times. I ended the feud but they continued it EVEN AFTER I LET THEIR EDITS STAND. JC7V-constructive zone 05:55, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Honestly your comment above does not make a lot of sense, nor does the one on my talk page about you not liking that I am following policy, nor does the your recent 5,000 byte addition to the article. If you are new here, why not pull back a bit until you learn more about how it works, rather than leaving pointless warnings, removing excellent sources and bickering? Just leave me to edit the article, don't start a fight. You want to edit it, come back tomorrow and it's all yours. It's a common courtesy not to follow other editors around.96.127.244.201 (talk) 05:58, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I didn't follow you around, your edits come up in the recent changes list. You removed refs and cited WP:Overcite; But WP:Overcite states that you have to discuss certain removals on the article's talk page. I was going to readdd the stuff my reverts took out that you added but you reverted me too quick for you to see that. You came to my talk page after I let it go remember?? And yes I just sourced 1 citation needed thing in the article and added some more recent sourced info to the article. WP Policy on overcite needs to be changed so editors don't use it as an excuse to remove references.JC7V-constructive zone 06:08, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

It sounds like we're using Wikipedia as a battleground. JC7V7DC5768: When you remove sources added by another and then state, "your edits may technically meet policies of this site, but those policies that allow your edits to stand are wrong" - this definitely tells me that you're not making these changes to follow policy and with the project in-mind, but to enforce your own agenda and your vision of what you think should be allowed and what shouldn't. That's completely disruptive and needs to stop.

Stop reverting one another, stop this bickering, and leave each other alone. JC7V7DC5768, stop reverting the IP user's changes to the article. 96.127.244.201, please don't continue dragging on issues on JC7V7DC5768's user talk page if things appear to be simmering down or that everyone has moved on. If you two have a dispute, follow proper dispute resolution protocol and discuss the dispute on the article's talk page and work things out. My main concern is the article... if any edit warring continues or if disruptive editing occurs as the result of this battleground, blocks are going to be handed out, which is something I really don't want to have to be the bad guy and do... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:18, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I've left edit warring notices for the both of you - if any kind of battlegrounds, bickering, edit wars, and tit-for-tat continue to spill over into the mainspace, edit warring blocks will be applied and without any further warnings beforehand. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:21, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello. Please take a look at this. Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 08:13, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I apologize for edit warring. I should not have reverted the IP ever. The ip is right i am wrong. WP:Overcite is confusing to me .I am not furthering an agenda, my agenda is helping other editors not to make the mistake i made and to do that, i want WP:Overcite to be made clear to newbies like me and others. to Biwom, yes that's how us people from Tottenville talk, it's a joke 'kill' means baptizing ourselves in the polluted waters of Staten Island when we are angry. But you are not from Staten Island so you won't know. I left that message on the ip's talk page to lighten the mood for him/her after i saw they were upset about Sarah Dejong being protected and them not being able to edit it. I am a Christian who was saved by the lord Jesus in 2005. I've given my life to the lord and he knows how good I am. I've had stage 3 cancer for a year ,so i can't always be mourning. I never edit warred before today either. WP:CITE is very confusing and i do feel that some people can use that as an excuse to wrongly remove references (the ip in this case was right). . JC7V-constructive zone 08:22, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

JC7V7DC5768 - I completely understand that you're new here and that you're still learning how things work, what all of "the rules" are, and what the right decisions are given situations. We were all new here once, and I'm not going to hold mistakes against you so long as you take the feedback well and you work to let us help you if you get stuck, have questions, or feel frustrated. I don't want you to get the wring impression: reverting an edit made to an article is a normal part of the process and is certainly okay to do. However, we need to be doing so for the right reasons, with the project's best interest in mind, and in situations where an edit war isn't in progress or will become the result. It's a sign of very good decency to apologize and commit to doing what you can to learn and improve. It's okay to have questions or to not fully understand policy - just make sure that you ask someone so that we can help you. The behaviors you don't want to demonstrate are those of someone who makes changes without making sure that they fully understand the relevant policies and guidelines first, or someone who tenaciously edits article content and then gets into edit wars, disputes, and battlegrounds with other editors and over policies or procedures that they don't understand. Please know that we're here to help you, and that we'll be more than happy to do so. All you need to do is ask :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:35, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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, OWNership, bullying

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

---

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

BrillLyle and I have intersecting interests in music and politics. When I first came across her edits I noticed that there was text unsupported by the sources attached to the text in an article and took it to the Talk page.[31] Since then, I went to a few pages she'd edited and was up front about having done so.[32] Since then, I've tried to avoid her except when necessary but have still come across pages she'd worked on, most recently The Hideout. She alleges that I'm following her but I'm not. I'd deleted the Discography section[33] and taken it to the talk page,[34] and later tried to find some kind of compromise with her.[35] She reacted... badly.[36][37] I later made some changes to the article[38] which she reverted without a content-based reason (I think because it was me who made the changes).[39] After some back and forth on the Talk page where she tried to bully my off the page and reiterated her statements that I need help and I'm sick and I'm the problem[40], I offered to go through the content I'd changed with the hopes we could work together.[41] Her response was to say that she refuses to discuss content with me and to attempt to OUT me (since suppressed).[42] I attempted to focus on changes I thought were necessary and again she's reacted by calling my edits toxic and refusing to work with me.[43]

We obviously have different approaches to content but I've tried and tried and tried in good faith to work with her when I do run into her because I don't want to be bullied off of a page. I do try to avoid her but the reaction I'm getting from her is totally disproportionate to my edits. After the attempted OUTING, I'm at my wit's end. Ca2james (talk) 17:41, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

BrillLyle, you're within a hair's breadth of being blocked for not only the behavior I'm observing on Talk:The Hideout Inn today, but for the outing of Ca2james' personal information... What is going on here? .... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:48, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

The level of article ownership, intimidation, incivility, and battleground conduct is ridiculous. Given the outing of personal information that occurred as well, a block is absolutely justified here... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:56, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

BrillLyle is blocked for 72 hours. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:00, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely warranted. I was repulsed by the very first diff from January where she suddenly, and for no apparent reason, became hostile and combative after two replies. That alone looks like straightforward bullying. The rest of the diffs leave me in disbelief that she's maintained a clean block log for this long. This is the level of conduct that people (who aren't established) get indeffed for without a second thought. Outrageous. Swarm ♠ 18:03, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Good block. This sort of behavior is absolutely unacceptable. SQL^{Query me!} 18:04, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Oshwah. I'll continue to try to avoid her in the future. If we cross paths (honestly, I hope that doesn't happen) and it gets bad again I guess I'll come back here. Ca2james (talk) 18:22, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Ca2james - Yup, that's exactly what you should do if anything continues and without any kind of provocation on your end. I'm sorry that the outing happened to you. If you want to talk about anything, or if you have questions or personal concerns - please know that my email is always open to you and you're welcome to contact me any time you need to :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:28, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

• Outing sufficient to trigger oversight is very often met with an indefinite block or siteban. If BrillLyle is not a model Wikipedian henceforth, I for one will fully support the award of the Order of the Boot. Guy (Help!) 18:44, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

BrillLyle was brought to ani in April for battleground conduct. At that time she agreed to stop harassing a couple of people and to assume good faith of other editors so wasn't blocked. Ca2james (talk) 18:58, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Monitoring this.→StaniStani 02:40, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Would a one-way iban perhaps be useful in this instance? Icarosaurvus (talk) 12:20, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't think so, because the problematic interactions are not confined to those with any one editor. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:16, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't think that were at that point yet. This is the first administrative action that's been taken upon BrillLyle. Should repeated reports to ANI and subsequent repeated blocks prove to not be resolving the matter, this may perhaps be something to consider... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:26, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Not at that point yet???? Did you read the April ANI thread? Perhaps you missed this gem [44]. And in the current bizarro encounter, search [45] for strings like You have problems. Please get help and Maybe you are on the Mayor's payroll (and plenty more, and don't forget the outing discussed above). So just when do we get to "that point"? EEng 23:14, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

EEng - Finally had some more time to go through the previous ANI fully; life has unfortunately been keeping me busy but I'm doing my best to read through everything. I've striked the response I made above; I definitely feel that making a proposal for further sanctions would have a fair case and merit for community discussion and support. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:10, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Unnecessary redirects, improper page moves

The following discussion is closed. 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 a sysop please review the contributions of Brandon5015 (talk · contribs). This user has created what appear to be multiple unnecessary redirects (Ashboro, NC (even spelled incorrectly), Greenville, TN, and others), has blanked talk pages, and is making copy>paste page moves. The overall editing pattern is disruptive and some cleanup needs to be performed. Thanks. Home Lander (talk) 00:47, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

• Ima leave the indef block to someone else, but I stopped the disruption. Drmies (talk) 01:07, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Here is the list of page creations from this user. Some redirects may be useful, but others are quite unnecessary. Home Lander (talk) 01:23, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

(ec) For what it's worth, the redirects look like plausible search terms for the most part, in my opinion (the user's other issues aside). The only ones I'd consider obviously unhelpful are "Dirty Words (Rock band)" and "Dirty Words Rock band", because they refer to an album rather than a band. —{{u|Goldenshimmer}}｜✝️｜they/their｜😹｜T/C｜☮️｜John 15:12｜🍂 04:52, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

User was blocked for 36 hours for their disruptive behavior, but they began to abuse their talk page afterward, I changed the duration of the block to be indefinite. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:57, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Editor canvassing at Reddit to recruit editors for the Jordan Peterson 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.

---

FreedomGonzo (talk · contribs) admits to canvassing at Reddit because " A few far-left political activists are trying to change that page to fit their narrative. "[46] Please read their entire post there for for context and to be fair to the editor. The discussion about this is at Talk:Jordan Peterson#Canvassing on this page. Doug Weller talk 14:07, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

• Comment. Wikipedia:Expert help#Public requests on external websites. wumbolo ^^^ 14:23, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

You've got to be joking. A user cites a political motive as justification to violate WP:MEAT, and you're going to cite a how-to guide as if they're not just asking for a flood to edit-war? They're clearly not asking for good-faith reasoned discussion of sources. Maybe if you didn't have such a bad habit of completely misreading things to suit your your obvious POV (such as interpreting almost everyone here calling a source "not RS," "partisan," as somehow being "judged reliable"), this would be clearer to you. And now you're defending meatpuppetry. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:52, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

@Ian.thomson: I have neither the time nor the interest to go through your contribution history, but I'm just going to tell you to stop casting WP:ASPERSIONs at me that I was "defending meatpuppetry" when I neutrally linked to the relevant how-to guide, which explains exactly what is appropriate, and what is not. If you actually read the how-to guide I linked, you would realize I wasn't "defending meatpuppetry" but rather providing an argument against it based on what's established on Wikipedia (but you did accuse me of POV when I attempted to adhere to WP:PAGs). wumbolo ^^^ 15:13, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

If you meant that Expert Help is what FreedomGonzo should have done instead of posting what he did, then sorry, however you did not make that clear at all that you were saying "this is how he should have done it instead." The diffs and links I provided are cases where you'd be the only person to think you're adhering to P&Gs. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:32, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Per their own words, they "invited Peterson fans, that are Wikipedia editors and happen to be on reddit page to join the conversation." Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:58, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Expert help#Public requests on external websites is explicitly about getting subject-matter experts to assist with the Wikipedia project. He's not doing that - he's explicitly canvassing for people who have a particular political to weigh in on the page. He is not only asking for people who are already Wikipedia editors - he asks anyone who 'wants to help' to learn the policies first so they can use the rules to maintain the articles current POV. From WP:MEAT: recruiting new editors to influence decisions on Wikipedia is prohibited. Girth Summit (talk) 15:11, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Exactly. wumbolo ^^^ 15:14, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

sorry, but that's BS, guideline states: "Before posting such a request please make sure...that it won't result in canvassing." He failed in his endeavour the minute he politicised it, the action constitutes partisan and biased canvassing, with a view to creating a battleground, it's indefensible, Acousmana (talk) 17:06, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

• Of course that's canvassing--it is not a neutral conversation starter. Drmies (talk) 20:29, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

• Recommendation A minimum of a one month topic ban as a warning to others would seem to be appropriate. Whilst the article is currently fully protected (until the 8th of August) - there does seem to be people on the talk page who do not believe Wikipedia's policies are enforceable. Thus there is evidence that an example should be made of this individual who has clearly been caught red-handed violating policy. It's either that or admit to Wikipedia's policies being optional and inconsequential. --Jobrot (talk) 00:43, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I admit my mistake, I didn't follow the policy correctly (didn't actually read it before it was pointed out that this is canvassing). If it was my first edit, I could be forgiven, by I have been editing wikipedia for half a year now and there is no excuse. As was mentioned in one of the comments on the talkpage it was wrongheaded. Agreed with 1 month ban of my account. FreedomGonzo (talk) 04:57, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

• Closing. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:28, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Editor forcing edits through

The following discussion is closed. 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 Jonatalizio (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is trying to force through some excessively long additions on the Hot Wheels: AcceleRacers article, despite being linked to the guidelines that they're violating -- WP:INDISCRIMINATE primarily. Eik Corell (talk) 17:26, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Worse than that, it's a direct copy/paste from another website: http://hotwheels.wikia.com/wiki/AcceleRacers_(Video_Series) --Tarage (talk) 17:48, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

The text to the revisions have been redacted under RD1. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:25, 6 August 2018 (UTC) Determined not to be a COPYVIO, so I've removed the redaction I applied.

@Tarage and Oshwah: I've asked about this before: since Wikia has the same license as Wikipedia, it isn't a blatant copyvio; all that's needed is attribution. Either way, though, it doesn't belong in the article. ansh666 18:36, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Ansh666 - Thanks for mentioning this here. I'm admittedly not an expert on copyrights, so that's actually very good to know ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:45, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Was not aware we could directly copy/paste entire articles from fan wikis "with attribution". --Tarage (talk) 18:50, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, we can't, unless it would otherwise be okay. The removal in this case is appropriate. It's just not a blatant revdel-able copyvio. ansh666 20:35, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

I've left Jonatalizio an edit warring notice on their user talk page earlier today. At the time of this writing, no further edits have been made to the Hot Wheels: AcceleRacers article. I'm hoping that this won't change, but if it does - a block is the next step to take in order to stop the disruptive editing. However, since no edits have been made since the warning, I'm inclined to hold off on taking any action until this is no longer the case and disruption continues despite the warning left. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:45, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Blocked 31 hours for this. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 07:03, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

CambridgeBayWeather - Thank you for keeping an eye on the article, for taking the actions needed, and for updating us here :-). ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:42, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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:Exukvera

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

---

I have been messaging Exukvera about adding unsourced content and lack of communication and have got the same response as the many other editors who have contacted them on this point going back to at least 2012 - silence. They have been editing since 2007, but from what I can see they have only edited their talk page to delete messages from other editors and has replied to one message in 11 years: User talk:Exukvera#Saint Seiya Omega (season 2), where they commented that the message had been sent to the wrong person. For full details, please see User talk:Exukvera. They clearly know how to edit their talk page and are reading at least some of the messages, but choosing not to change their editing behaviour or directly address the issues or respond.

I have sent 11 messages over the last 7 months, but no response. I moved some of the unref articles to draftspace, and they do not seem to have edited them there. They have, since my messages and moves to draftspace, continued to add unsourced content to articles. They rarely add edit summaries, so it is hard to know their thinking. After 7 months, repeatedly explaining policies, offering advice/help etc., I have run out of ideas. Hopefully they will engage here. Boleyn (talk) 19:44, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked. Any admin is free to unblock once Exukvera begins to communicate in a constructive way and indicate a willingness to respond to concerns. Bishonen | talk 02:11, 7 August 2018 (UTC).

Bishonen - Perfect; thank you for taking care of this. I agree with the decision to impose an indefinite block and would have applied the same block had you not already done so. This will require the user to request an unblock, communicate with the evaluating admin, and discuss and explain how these issues won't continue should they be unblocked, and how they plan make sure that it doesn't. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:51, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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:Nixela

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

---

Nixela has been editing most days for the last 5 months. I have left 11 messages for them over several months, and other editors have left messages making the same point - please communicate and please don't add unsourced content. They have continued to disregard both.

They were given a final warning for this in an ANI in May: [47] but no change.

They may have had difficulty working out how to communicate judging by User talk:Nixela#How to answer for an administrator's question?, I assume it is me they are refering to, although I'm not an admin. They then left me a message but it wasn't positive:

• Dear Boleyn, I didn't answer for your questions. I'm sorry but I don't want see any messages and I see Wikipedia don't for me. [48]

They have continued to edit and ignore messages from myself and others, although Nixela now clearly knows how to communicate. Boleyn (talk) 09:04, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

• I've blocked indef. I sympathize with non-native English speakers, and I believe we should be welcoming and accommodating even with those who seriously struggle with the language. The threshold for a CIR block due to a language barrier should be very high. Most of your above quote can be dismissed as "lost in translation". However, if someone learns only the most basic and fundamental words of a language, "I want/I don't want" is day one material, so I find it impossible to believe that the phrase "I don't want see any messages" was not intended to hold the meaning it does. If that phrase was written in error, it's a CIR issue as there's no way they'll possibly be able to communicate at even the most basic level. Swarm ♠ 09:24, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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: Francis roi

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

---

Francis roi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This use has been editing Far Eastern University since June 18.

On August 1 copyrighted material they had added was removed and a warning added to their talk page.

On August 3 copyrighted material they had added August 2 was removed and another warning placed on their talk page.

On Augst 7 copyrighted material they had added August 6-7 beginning with [[49]] was removed and has rev-del pending.

The user has not responded to previous warning and continues to add content copied word for word from copyrighted web pages. Gab4gab (talk) 17:31, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I have blocked the user. Thank you for reporting this. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:57, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

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

obvious block evasion

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

---

This looks like obvious block evasion to me. The only other edits have been to go around an OTRS ban and request unblocking and a straightforward unblocking request. Toddst1 (talk) 02:26, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Blocked. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:40, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Lepidoptera~plwiki

• lepidoptera.eu: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

In a nutshell: Lepidoptera~plwiki has confirmed being the owner of the website he is repeatedly adding into the External Links section of articles. They have already been warned by an administrator, responded to the warning and are now sadly continuing in the same fashion.

Please have a look at User talk:Lepidoptera~plwiki and the recent contributions from August here: Special:Contributions/Lepidoptera~plwiki. Diffs: 1 2 3 4

Oshwah tried and failed. I tried and failed. They appear to be continuing to make promotional edits for their own website, marked incorrectly as "minor edits", flying under the radar of most editors because they're extendedconfirmed.

I think that there is a strong conflict of interest involving link additions to this type of articles. A topic ban might be appropriate. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:52, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

This does seem to be someone who's spamming his website. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:10, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

They are still saying we're "wrong". I'm copying this new message from the talk page of SWL36 (diff): ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:35, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

I think you are wrong removing all my last updates. From the end user perspective I've added really valuable data, it's not a fake, spam etc. I really wonder if any of you just tried to verify at least one of those links... The website "involved" in this problem has the new name and new link structure. I know that but 95% of the existing links (created BTW by different users) are wrong, part is even marked as a "dead links". I was trying to update all data like that but it seems that I shouldn't do that...
OK, noted but I think the way you've selected is wrong. It's take me some time to update data but it seems it's not worth of my time. Thank you for all warnings :-(

(Lepidoptera~plwiki (talk) 04:14, 2 August 2018 (UTC))

Emphasis on the date by me. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:35, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

I would take the time to undo all these external link additions, with an appropriate edit summary, linking to this discussion, also taking the time to fix edits that are not the "current" version of the pages anymore. I just need a confirmation here that doing so is okay. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:37, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard would be place to get consensus for that, really. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:27, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Oh, thank you -- I had only considered the COI noticeboard, and then saw that it is meant for one specific article only. I have now created the following section on the external links noticeboard: Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard#Mass_addition_of_lepidoptera.eu_links_by_website_owner. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:45, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Oooooh! COIbot has revealed something interesting. I think we need some further explanation regarding this: Special:Contributions/Chris_lepidoptera User_talk:Chris_lepidoptera
The user had enough warnings over the course of multiple years now. Could we please get a topic ban? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:26, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Clarification, to avoid a misunderstanding: I am not requesting a ban about the general article topic, butterflies and moths. I have something like this in mind instead:
(This is a proposal, not an actual ban!) "Lepidoptera~plwiki, as a person, is prohibited from adding external links to any website they are affiliated with, to main namespace articles of the English Wikipedia. This includes using such a site as a reference."
Proposed ban duration: indefinitely, until explicitly unbanned by the community.
Reason for duration: There is no reason to allow them to do it again after a specific amount of time.
Alternatively, the site could be added to the local spam blacklist. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:11, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

It's clear that this is an ongoing problem, and I'm definitely concerned given the discovery of the account Chris lepidopter, which has also made similar edits to Lepidoptera~plwiki by adding lepidoptera.eu as a reference to numerous articles. This behavior (as I said on Lepidoptera~plwiki's user talk page) represents original research and a conflict of interest, and it's not okay that it continues despite the numerous warnings and conversations with Lepidoptera~plwiki. My thought is: either this behavior stops, or Lepidoptera~plwiki receives an indefinite block until they agree to stop. Minus the edits adding this domain to articles, what other significant edits have these accounts made? Is this all that these accounts have been doing? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:35, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) A timeline and summary of the link removal has been added at Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard#Mass_addition_of_lepidoptera.eu_links_by_website_owner (permalink).
A sockpuppet investigation to formally acknowledge the connection between Lepidoptera~plwiki, Chris lepidoptera and 62.121.64.89 has been opened at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Chris_lepidoptera.
My very specific topic ban proposal appears to be good to me, even if Lepidoptera~plwiki has allegedly stopped editing for now. The history of 30 abusefilter warnings, 9 talk page warnings, and 2 mass reverts before the ANI even started, over a duration of more than 8 years, should justify telling the user to never do this ever again or be blocked. This is especially true because they have still disagreed with our viewpoint and complained about our treatment of the issue in their "last" message. There was no sign of acknowledging their guilt, there have only been bad excuses and strange protests.
Because of their autoconfirmed status and "minor" edits, it took the community more than 2 years to notice this editor. They did not even receive a welcome message until 2018. And how did we notice them in the end? Because they forgot to mark their edits as "minor" one day.
I fear that they might come back with a new username in a few years, this time completely denying any affiliation with the website, and even more stealthily, having "learnt" from their errors in a very unwanted way.
Enough is enough. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 04:37, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I just added the lepidoptera.eu domain to the spam blacklist. This is a problem that needs to stop, and it's clear given the numerous attempts to talk to the user that it won't. Should the use of the domain be approved by some process, removing it from the blacklist is a simple process. This will not only stop the issue right now, but will resolve the concerns expressed that this issue will continue with more accounts. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:50, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much, this appears to be a good long-term solution. Maybe they'll move to another domain one day, but the entry can simply be updated then. I hope we will not need two years to notice them again. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 05:06, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

@Lepidoptera~plwiki: please note that I will not hesitate to blacklist this domain globally if you were to decide to move to other wikis to perform similar edits. As far as I can see, you are the ONLY editor across hundreds of wikis using this link. Please be careful with how you proceed to edit. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:37, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Repeated violation of BLP

FkpCascais repeatedly violates WP:BLP.

I noticed this kind of their behavior at Phillip J Cohen, and tried to explain to them that this kind of behavior is not acceptable. Their reply was blatant and deliberate violation of WP:CIVIL (link to discussion) but I hoped that it will be the end of their problematic behavior.

I was obviously wrong. In this discussion (link to discussion on their talkpage) FkpCascais used wikipedia to write offensive comments about living people on Serbian language.

To avoid posting negative comments anybody can open my comment in edit mode and see the problematic comments in edit line below this sentence and take it to google translate from Serbian to English:

I am afraid that this kind of behavior will continue untill somebody with appropriate tools stops it.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:26, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I wouldn't trust google translate for this, google says it is Bosnian, not Serbian, and the translations are too incoherent for me to tell what anyone is saying. Tornado chaser (talk) 20:41, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Footballinbelgium

Previous ANI was here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive983#User:Footballinbelgium. It was for repeatedly creating unreferenced/unclearly referenced articles (including blps) and refusing to communicate. It was closed because they had been given a warning by a different editor. I have sent 11 messages over the last 4 months but haven't got anywhere and since the ANI they have not addressed the referencing issues in the identified articles and have continued to add unsourced content to existing articles (see User talk:Footballinbelgium for full details).

They responded once, to say: 'I put sources like FootballDatabase.eu or Soccerway' but didn't respond to the further messages trying to clarify their sourcing. I'm hoping that this time they will engage here. Boleyn (talk) 06:57, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018

Despite numerous requests to get User:Qexigator to discuss his edits in relation to WP:UNDUE he has refused to do so. I took the matter to DRN (Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Talk:European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018#"Connected legislation: world and cross-border trade" section - WP:UNDUE) whose conclusion included:

• Qexigator's uncivil remarks in a passive aggressive manner discuss the contributor and not the contribution and amount to little more than saying the other editor is being disruptive however, there is no evidence of disruption.

and

• it's an uncivil and passive aggressive tactic to use your own words against you in this particular manner and is deflecting away from the actual argument...that it's undue weight to section off this small amount of almost unrelated content.

As a result I politely repeated my original questions and specifically reminded him to discuss the contribution and not myself diff. I also pinged other major contributors to the article to gather additional viewpoints.

In response User:Qexigator has now posted this:

• Given AGF, I am unable to see what is TVF's problem here. Contributors pinged by TVF, and others interested in npov editing of the content and arrangement of the article for the better information of its visitors, are invited to note reply above (in versions before and after TVF's invocation of "dispute" resolution) as sufficient for the purposes of improving the article. diff

again discussing me rather than his contribution and implying that I am not interested in NPOV, and in removing a thread (which he opened) on his talk page diff his edit summary says, rmv previous (TVF incursion). - definition of incursion.

Please note this matter was previously subject to a 3RR report: 3RRArchive372#User:Qexigator reported by User:The Vintage Feminist (Result: Stale).

Additional info: These threads may also be informative Talk:European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018#Avoid POV promoting campaign for a second vote and Template talk:United Kingdom in the European Union#Genesis and branding of the Brexit and, as background to both of those, Template talk:United Kingdom in the European Union#Creation of "Calls for a second vote" section. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 10:45, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Updated: And now User:Qexigator is insulting me behind my back - an unduly uptight or humourless person (unlike the equable undersigned) might take offence, as if it were a "Personal attack" and persist with pointlessly vendetta-like conduct diff. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 09:44, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Just spotted this as well: Edit summary comment, in reference to me undue iteration diff. Definition of iteration --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 15:42, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Heads up: Zhu Ming biography with name variations

To note that I have recently semi-protected Zhu Ming, which was/is currently a redirect. The contributor in that history has been repeatedly creating xwiki biographies at enWQ, enWQ, and other wikis of this "philosopher", "thinker", and other variations of name and contents of parentheses (examples: Ming Zhu, Zhe Zhe, Zhu Zhe). It is my hearty recommendation that any attempts to create a biography are thoroughly considered prior to letting them remain in the main namespace. The user generally edits as IP address, and has yet to communicate (well, that is except with abuse, for anyone with undelete rights at enWQ see this edit summary)

• enWQ deletion log search for Zhu, from early July about 100 hits!
• enWS deletion log search for Zhu, 10 hits

If anyone gets these, please ping me, as they like to reuse references and we can get COIBot to watch for us. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:31, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

typical biography, states born 1967 in China; and history — billinghurst sDrewth 12:35, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

These are some of the variations that were deleted at enwikiquote:

• Zhu Ming
• Zhu Ming (thinker)
• Zhu Ming(thinker)
• Zhu Ming （Chinese philosopher）
• Zhu Ming （Zhu Zhe）
• Zhu Ming (ZhuZhe)
• Zhu Ming (Zhu Zhe)
• Zhu Ming(Zhu Zhe)
• Zhu Ming（ZhuZhe）
• ZhuMing (Zhu Zhe)
• Zhu Zhe
• Zhu Zhe (thinker)
• Ming Zhu
• Ming Zhu（thinker）
• 朱明
• 朱哲

See also enwiki SPI: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wirterss. -★- PlyrStar93 _{→Message me. ←} 21:56, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

This is going to be difficult to regex salt. [50] is a start. MER-C 08:22, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

MER-C shouldn't you want it to be .*zhu\s*ming.* to catch things like ZhuMing too? Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:38, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Done. I added another one to catch the Zhu Zhe variants. I expect there to be false positives and negatives, so feel free to tweak as necessary. MER-C 09:17, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Shouldn't you be talking about this out of sight of the guy you're trying to block with the filter? EEng 10:34, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Proposing ban/indefinite block for already twice-blocked (once indefinite) User:*Treker

The following discussion is closed. 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 has a rich disciplinary history, but was recently unblocked after agreeing to cease the appalling personal attacks and non-collaborative behaviour that were his modus operandi. Straight off the bat, I fail to see how calling users "dumbfuck"[51] and "liar",[52] and assuring another that "no one cares about you",[53] is indicative of rehabilitation. In this edit summary, he tells a collaborator "you're utterly fucking wrong", attacking this individual and regular Marvel Cinematic Universe editors in general for supposedly "forcing" their agendas (*Treker himself being the one who is known for such behaviour). Also, the typical demoralising assaults on less seasoned editors have returned ("stop trying to edit",[54] "you don't understand it"[55]). Disciplinary action is a no-brainer, but since previous blocks haven't led to any introspection, something more substantial would seem to be relevant. 5.68.210.206 (talk) 23:56, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

I've notified *Treker of this post, which you should have done, and are in fact required to do. Also pinging administrators involved in the previous block, @Dlohcierekim, NeilN, and BrownHairedGirl: Someguy1221 (talk) 00:05, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

I cannot speak for other areas, but within Professional Wrestling I have been happy to see Trekker back. He has been a very constructive and welcome return, and have not seen any of these type of edits that there were before. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 00:16, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

I have blocked the IP as a sock of a banned user and long term troll. They tried to pull the same stunt back in May of this year (Special:Contributions/31.14.75.44). Sro23 (talk) 00:16, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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 on The Gateway Pundit and Fox News

I have reason to believe that Snooganssnoogans is targeting my edits and reverting them out of personal malice. Please see their most recent reversion of the Fox News page to my edit, with the only justification as "yes, and?". Also see their Talk page for numerous conflicts with other Wikipedians. -Noto-Ichinose (talk 14:29, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Targeting your edits? Absolutely not. I'm one of the most active editors on both pages, and frequently revert edits that I consider bad. Your edits on both pages were bad, and thus were reverted. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:35, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Diffs, please.--WaltCip (talk) 14:38, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Actually, it is you that has been edit-warring at Racism to the point the page has just been protected. And, your recent edits have violated WP:BLP by calling a woman a racist while leaving out the fact that her “racist” tweets appear to have been mocking racists. I suggest you read WP:PETARD. O3000 (talk) 14:41, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Sock puppetry much? -Noto-Ichinose (talk 14:43, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

See Psychological projection. --Calton | Talk 14:51, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

You seem to be the one that keeps adding mentions of Sarah Jeong to articles. I'm not sure if a news site covers the whole Sarah Jeong thing is so notable that it needs its own section on its article. Abequinn14 (talk) 14:49, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Here are some diffs from from fresh new 253-edit user Noto-Ichinose (talk · contribs)

• for Racism - [56], [57], [58]

• For The Gateway Pundit - [59], [60], [61]

You might be noticing how a certain name and obsession keep cropping up. --Calton | Talk 14:48, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Also, immediately after someone reverts the user's edit, the user warns the person for edit warring. Abequinn14 (talk) 14:58, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Yep, I got two! (1, 2--seemed to have some difficulty getting them to populate). Had me wondering if I had wikipediaed in my sleep! But nothing that exciting; I made one deletion; they've added their text three times, each time judged as unwarranted and removed by a different editor, and now the page is protected. I see the latest disruption has drawn a block in the time it's taken me to pull the diffs, but I'll post all the same for the record. I do have WP:NOTHERE concerns. Innisfree987 (talk) 16:48, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

I've come across Noto-Ichinose several times recently in an entirely different set of articles. He/she seems fond of adding/expanding "controversies" to BLPs and then edit warring to reinstate them when removed (and nearly all of them have been removed in the articles I saw). Below are just the ones that I saw — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:10, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

At Trevor Noah: 1 2 3 4

At Michael Ian Black: 1 2

At Dan Harmon: 1 2 (and related material added, tangentially, to Adult Swim: 1 2

And while this very thread was ongoing, edit warring at Incel. I haven't looked closely at what's happening in the original articles, but it seems a boomerang is likely in order. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:35, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Just saw this thread was open -- this person is edit warring at Incel, gave me an edit warring warning for one revert, and for some reason reverted a null edit I made to correct a mistake in one of my edit summaries. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:38, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

• I've blocked for the ongoing disruption; I urge other editors to look into an AE topic or other ban, or possibly a NOTHERE indef block. Drmies (talk) 16:40, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm somewhat INVOLVED because of our interactions at Incel, but this editor's behavior there combined with all of the above issues make me think they are NOTHERE. If nothing else, they are clearly unable to edit productively in controversial subject areas like these. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:50, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Topic banned from BLP edits for 3 months. Doug Weller talk 18:32, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Doug Weller - Good call; thanks for imposing that sanction. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:39, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Doug Weller - Don't forget to log the sanction here. ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:43, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

@Oshwah: thanks. Logged it in the wrong year, fixed now. Doug Weller talk 18:48, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Ahhh... I've done that at least a few times, so I understand. No problem ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:54, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

"Back to the Future". Abequinn14 (talk) 19:04, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Anyone else smell used footware? The odor is not distinct enough to pinpoint, but a month-old account able to cite and use wiki syntax and cause this much disruption? EvergreenFir (talk) 20:19, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

This looks like a WP:ARBAPDS. It takes two to tango, and while it appears that an attempt to discuss edits on the talk page rather than going through edit/reversion cycles, that means that more than the editor was involved, and ARBAPDS should be equally carried out. Having not significantly edited the articles, it concerns me that in Wikipedia voice assertions from left-of-center reliable sources are advanced as factual in regards to right-of-center publishers/journalistic sources. I don't believe that right-of-center reliable sourced claims would be as readily stated in Wikipedia voice as factual to advance claims about left of center publishers/journalistic sources.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:15, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

• I can't figure out the grammar of your second sentence, but somehow it seems to end up in "good people on both sides". As the blocking editor, I disagree. If you don't believe the editor was guilty of "POV editing, edit warring, unwarranted warnings, and finally an ANI boomerang", as I put it in the log, then bring the case to AN. As for socks, EvergreenFir, I understand CU was run, but I am not aware it led to anything. Drmies (talk) 01:21, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Fate was sealed as was that of King Claudius with his petard. But, I fear that with the apparent influx of new, kindred editors in the last few days, better CU tools may be required. Hoping I‘m wrong. O3000 (talk) 01:48, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Shhhhhhh... don't let them know... Abequinn14 (talk) 03:54, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

EDIT: Noto was blocked as a sock. Well, well, well. Abequinn14 (talk) 05:05, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Misuse of TFD, ignorance of consensus, and mass reverts by Sportsfan 1234

Sportsfan 1234 opposes the implementation of the {{Olympic events sidebar}} sidebar series on articles pertaining to Olympic events, which replaces outdated sidebar templates made years prior. To my knowledge, they have not once stated why they disagree with them, other than that there was no consensus for these templates to be updated. Two years ago, he made a comment that "I do not agree with the change. However, there needs to be a discussion on this." See Figure 1. Two years later, Sportsfan 1234 had indeed started a discussion on TFD on 17 July 2018, but instead of having a good faith discussion on the purpose of the templates, they instead attempted to mislead TFD by removing all uses of the templates and then simply claiming that the templates were "unused", not mentioning that they were the one that put them out of use. See Figure 2, Figure 3, and Figure 4 from 17 July, hours and minutes before the discussion began. The discussion resulted in a keep on 25 July, with a consensus that the templates would be useful, especially with some accessibility fixes. Primefac, who closed the discussion, stated that "Bad faith removals in order to claim it is "unused" will result in administrative sanctions", and that "If there is a genuine concern about using these templates as a replacement for the existing template(s), then a discussion should be held at a centralized location". However, Sportsfan 1234 has ignored both the consensus of this discussion and Primefac's advice, opting instead to once again make mass reverts without raising a second discussion at WikiProject Olympics. Not only this, but they have seemed to have blindly made reverts to all my recent contributions to Olympic event articles, and not just contributions that added the new sidebars. In Figure 5, we see that they have reverted by fixes to the syntax of {{Infobox Olympic event}}, including new images, and updates to the formatting of dates, venue names, event names, ect. according to today's standards by WikiProject Olympics, and additions of {{Use dmy dates}}. Similar things can be seen in Figure 6 and Figure 7.

In addition, these actions have caused collateral damage to other users' updates to articles that don't necessarily have anything to do with me or {{Olympic events sidebar}}. In Figure 8 we see that Sportsfan 1234 has reverted a completely reasonable update to a wikitable in Archery at the 1996 Summer Olympics – Men's team by Jonel as part of his revert spree. Some of these edits have been reconciled, as we can see in Figure 9, but none of my contributions have been reconciled, leading me to believe that this was not a user simply trying to remove uses of {{Infobox Olympic event}} and cleaning up after to save face, but a directed attack at my contributions regardless of whether or not they involved {{Olympic events sidebar}}, removing all updated {{Infobox Olympic event}} templates and additions of {{Use dmy dates}} without explanation or reason. This behaviour is malicious and is a massive, unnecessary roadblock in my ability to update articles to modern standards. I'd want to see some disciplinary action be made against Sportsfan 1234, if anything, so that the consensus from a discussion that they started can be upheld and that otherwise uncontroversial updates that I and other users make to aging articles can also be upheld. Jonel has started a discussion on WikiProject Olympics in lieu of Sportsfan 1234 not doing so, but given he's already ignored one consensus, who's to say he won't ignore the consensus of this one too if it also ends up reaffirming support for the new templates? – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 03:07, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Its completely disruptive to edit against consensus as per [62]. Such a huge change requires a discussion at WP:OLYMPICS. Bringing them to TFD was an obvious mistake, I admit. It wasn't done with mallicouness, but rather ignorance. I genuinely thought the discussion from two years ago was against the use of these templates. I left you a message (twice, once at TFD, and at your talk page) to start a discussion at WP:OLYMPICS. I am not familiar with the templates, which is why I never started the discussion. All I know is that they were not "approved" per consensus at WP:OLYMPICS. "But given he's already ignored one consensus", can you please point out where I ignored consensus?? I am not sure and would like to know, because a) had I known there was a consensus would not have violated it at all. That's why talk page discussions are helpful!! Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:00, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

As for figures 5/6/7, pictograms of the respective sport is used in infoboxes, as per standard. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:08, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

As detailed above, the TFD discussion you started resulted in a keep. Primefac stated that "If there is a genuine concern about using these templates as a replacement for the existing template(s), then a discussion should be held". You ignored both Primefac and the consensus reached at TFD and started reverting edits once more, without raising a second discussion to properly challenge the consensus reached at TFD. The burden is on you to challenge the consensus. You can't logically expect somebody to start a discussion to challenge against a consensus in favour of a change they support. Jonel had to bring up a discussion because you wouldn't. You keep bringing up your comments on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Olympics from two years ago, but that was a four-line dialogue that essentially agreed on holding a discussion. In your words, "However, there needs to be a discussion on this." There was no discussion, however. Not until you raised one at TFD two years later which resulted in a keep. Your excuse that "I am not familiar with the templates, which is why I never started the discussion" is bizarre, especially considering the fact that you eventually did start a discussion which, need I remind you once more, resulted in a keep. Also, edit summaries like this one don't help your case. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 04:35, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

To be quite honest, I did not follow the tfd discussion till the end. In any case, per WP:BRD, you were bold, I reverted, and its up to you to discuss, "the contribution, and the reasons for the contribution, on the article's talk page". You created the template, and have reasons for implementing it. I do not have any inclination of why it was created nor its benefits/drawbacks, which is why I never started the discussion. There is no way I would be able to summarize a template I have no knowledge of why it was created. I find it odd you can start a discussion here but could not start a discussion at WP:OLYMPICS. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 05:08, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

This isn't a case of WP:BRD because a consensus to keep the template and replace the old ones was reached. Just because you didn't pay attention to the outcome of the discussion you started doesn't mean you can ignore it completely. If you really wanted to know what a template does, you could've either inquired about it or read the documentation, and definitely not making disruptive edits against consensus and administrator advice. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 05:34, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I would absolutely not call that TFD a consensus to replace the old templates. Precisely three people supported that explicitly, on a template that will be transcluded on what, thousands of pages? Someguy1221 (talk) 05:42, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

So you're saying Sportsfan's actions were justified simply because a consensus was reached, but by only an average amount of people? Also for the record, it was five people, not three. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 12:40, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

• @Sportsfan 1234: "Editing without consensus" is encouraged as a matter of policy. The lack of a formal consensus is not itself a reason to revert edits. Unless there are specific objections (the lack of which is considered a consensus), reverting edits without a reason is disruptive. I'm still not seeing any specific reason you're reverting this editor beyond the very shaky argument that preliminary approval is needed from WP:OLYMPICS. If there's a specific dispute, WP:OLYMPICS would be an ideal location for an RfC, but perhaps you'd like to explain what your problem with the edits exactly is, for starters? Swarm ♠ 05:48, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

My concern is a template is being mass replaced across thousands of articles without any sense of consensus from the Wikiproject. Besides the concerns raised at the TFD about the template, I don't have any concerns at all. In fact, I think consensus for such a big change should be required. Is that too much to ask for ? I don't think a discussion at rfc is required, but a discussion at WP:OLYMPICS, which has already been started. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:30, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

It baffles me why you’re so insistent on having the discussion be held at WikiProject Olympics as when you brought up a discussion, it was at TFD and not WikiProject Olympics. You constantly repeat time and time again your wish to have a discussion at WikiProject Olympics... but you never did that, and went instead to another place to hold the discussion. Why is that, exactly? – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 23:08, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm partly with Swarm here. I think there is a difference between being bold and being reckless. If someone is going to mass replace a template across thousands of pages, they should have some discussion first otherwise their editing tends to be disruptive. And I don't think the TFD nor the 2 years old discussions is really sufficient.

However at the same time, reversion should often not be used just because an editor didn't seek consensus. Especially if it involves a lot of pages. If someone has specific concerns and the change wasn't really discussed, it may be acceptable to carry out mass reversion. But not simply because the other editor didn't engage in sufficient discussion. Instead they can ask the other editor to stop and discuss the proposed change. If the editor does then the immediate problem is solved. (If they don't then this is when it's probably okay to bring the discussion to ANI.)

Since no one is aware of any specific problems with the edit, there is no urgent problem needing to be fixed so no reversion. The discussion should be held in good faith with the hope that consensus will be reached. (If consensus really can't be reached, it may be then reasonable to say that the template should be reverted to the former stable one but this is not something to worry about before hand, at most it can be noted at the beginning you think this should happen.) If significant problems are mentioned during the discussion, it may be acceptable to suggest and carry out a mass reversion while the discussion is ongoing but again this needs to be in response to an actual problem, not simply 'it wasn't discussed'. (Remembering also that in the actual discussion, if the editor proposing the change gives reason and the other side simply says 'it wasn't discussed' consensus is in favour of the change.)

Note that this also gets to the heart of another issue. I often say BRD disputes where each side is waiting for the other to initiate discussion are dumb and reflect poorly on both sides. I stick by this here. It's true that Sportsfan 1234 can't explain the advantages etc of the template but they should be able explain the problems and therefore they should be able to initiate discussion. The fact they can't is indication they should not have reverted.

Nil Einne (talk) 04:35, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: May I get an idea of what a 'sufficient' discussion looks like? The way it's going, the current discussion on WikiProject Olympics will likely end with even less participation than the TFD discussion, so who's to say that'll someone won't dismiss that discussion as 'insufficent' either? – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 07:47, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

• @Sportsfan 1234: So, you're admitting that you have no policy-based or practical objections to the implementation of the new template (I read the TfD, there are none). You simply feel that "Such a large change requires consensus from the Wikiproject that governs the articles." Sportsfan, Wikiprojects don't govern articles. Wikiprojects do not have any sort of authority over any articles. A non-RfC discussion at a Wikiproject carries no more weight to approve mass changes than any other local consensus formed on an article talk page. I'm stunned that an editor with your experience doesn't understand this already. Demanding community approval for a large-scale edit because you have concerns is perfectly reasonable. Demanding community approval for a large-scale edit, in spite of the fact that you have no concerns, is getting into the grey area of what is reasonable. But demanding a Wikiproject approves a large-scale edit, in spite of the fact that you have no concerns, for no other reason than you think Wikiprojects "govern" articles, while simultaneously rejecting the idea of community-wide input, is getting into disruptive territory. Now, I'm assuming you're not being malicious here, but this is the sort of thing that would be considered harassment if done with ill intent. You really should know better, because it's resulted in a pointless time sink. I hope the Wikiproject discussion provides insight, but at the end of the day, it does not have the authority to approve mass changes across thousands of articles and thus you will still be relying on the community's silent consensus to keep the change. A local Wikiproject consensus might help ensure this, but if someone who wasn't aware of the Wikiproject discussion objects, we're literally back at square one anyways and an RfC will still be needed. This debacle is forgivable, but you seriously need to learn from this and do not ever revert or obstruct good faith editors without having a reason, because it will not be forgivable a second time. Swarm ♠ 07:58, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Henrypenn1 (low key, long-running) vandalism

Henrypenn1 has been removing templates on Trans woman without explanation. Looking at their edit history, this account has existed since 2010, but appears to be more or less exclusively dedicated to low-key sporadic vandalism. They've never left an edit summary, cited a source, or participated in a talk page discussion, they just do stuff like remove templates or write unsourced nonsense. They've received several warnings, but I guess they've edited sporadically enough that they've flown under the radar, except for a one week block for sockpuppetry that expired in 2015. Regardless of socking, it seems like WP:NOTHERE behavior.

Examples of disruptive edits:

• 1
• 2
• 3

Nblund ^talk 17:15, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

It is unclear why he is focusing so much on this particular edit, but this is clearly edit warring, over integral Wikipedia article space guidelines, without any signs of engaging with other editors. prokaryotes (talk) 00:46, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, the editor made their 4th revert after the ANI notice was posted on their talk page (1, 2, 3). The article has been controversial, but considering that they've never even left an edit summary, it seems more like troll behavior than a content based edit war.Nblund ^talk 16:25, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Nblund - The user has definitely engaged in edit warring with the repeated reverting of the article and same content each time. The user was given an edit warring and 3RR notice after their last edit (at the time of this writing at least). Since the user is not active right now, hasn't edited in over a day, and haven't made any additional disruptive edits since they were given that edit warring notice - blocking the user at this time is not justifiable. If the user makes another disruptive edit to the article, they will be blocked from editing. If this happens and this ANI discussion is still open, add an update here and ping me so I can take a look and handle the issue. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:21, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Apparent legal threat in edit summary at Gavin McInnes

The following discussion is closed. 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 edit is one example. Looks like more and edit warring as well. Jusdafax (talk) 00:32, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

• Update: The editor has been reported to the edit warring board by another editor. I’ve submitted his username as disruptive at WP:UAA. Jusdafax (talk) 00:46, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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 climate topics

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

---

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

It seems like this user has adopted a WP:RADAR strategy. The continue to make similar edits to climate descriptions, notably at Fairbanks, Alaska, while not engaging in discussion of those very edits on the talk page. Their only noticeable reaction to the most recent message not heir talk page was to blank the message and redo their reverted edit. They were already blocked once for edit warring. This seems pretty clear to me but as I did particpate int he talk page discussion I am probably involved so asking other admins to have a look. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:05, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

They also responded by deleting this very ANI thread. Not the sign of an editor we want here. I see all they are doing is deleting references and adding their same material over and over again. Same pattern each time. I think an extremely stern warning this time not to add unsourced material, not to delete referenced material and not to edit war. If they do it again even once, block per WP:NOTHERE. Canterbury Tail talk 23:19, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I tend to think the fact that they were already blocked once and just carried on, coupled with the recent behavior you mention[63], suggests that an indef block is in order. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:41, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked this editor. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:59, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:00, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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:Footballinbelgium

Previous ANI was here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive983#User:Footballinbelgium. It was for repeatedly creating unreferenced/unclearly referenced articles (including blps) and refusing to communicate. It was closed because they had been given a warning by a different editor. I have sent 11 messages over the last 4 months but haven't got anywhere and since the ANI they have not addressed the referencing issues in the identified articles and have continued to add unsourced content to existing articles (see User talk:Footballinbelgium for full details).

They responded once, to say: 'I put sources like FootballDatabase.eu or Soccerway' but didn't respond to the further messages trying to clarify their sourcing. I'm hoping that this time they will engage here. Boleyn (talk) 06:57, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Possible political POV pushing onto the Main Page using DYK

OK, this is a bit long, so I'm going to bullet point it

• 1. Recently a request appeared at the Did You Know talkpage here, asking for someone neutral to look at a DYK nomination which you can see here - Template:Did you know nominations/Inspector General Report on FBI and DOJ's Actions in the 2016 Election. So, I looked at it.
• 2. This is an article about the investigation into Hillary Clinton's email by the FBI/DOJ, and the nominator (User:Jerry the Bellybutton Elf - henceforth JerryTBE - with a total of 142 edits, but that's a separate issue), suggested the hook - which would appear on the Main Page - ":... that the Inspector General Report on FBI and DOJ's Actions in the 2016 Election is the result of the review of over 1.2 million documents and interviews of over 100 witnesses?".
• 3. At this point, the nomination stated that the article was created by Jerry and User:Lionelt.
• 4. However, Lionelt then edited the nomination to say he really didn't have much to do with it, and he was going to review it.
• 5. JerryTBE then edited the nomination to the seriously problematic "... that the Inspector General Report on FBI and DOJ's Actions in the 2016 Election prompted President Trump to refer to FBI director James Comey as the "ringleader" of a "den of thieves""
• 6. Lionel then approved the new hook, with the comment "The hook is bigly winning!"
• 7. Since then a number of editors have objected to this hook, and the discussion continued until the request from (1) above appeared, at which point I commented on it.
• 8. Since then, I have found this, from Lionelt;
  • 8A. The creation of Wikipedia:WikiProject Conservatism/DYK For Newbies. I won't comment on that one, you can read it and make your own minds up.
  • 8B. The creation of stub articles criticising non-conservatives. The best example is this - Torchbearer (documentary), where at the AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Torchbearer (documentary)) Lionelt suggests that "The raison d'être for DYK is promotion. Whether you call it showcasing, highlighting or even advertising, it's just semanics (sic)."
  • 8C. Other "stubs for expansion to 1,500 characters" can be seen at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Hope and the Change and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle For America.

I think it's quite clear that Lionelt appears to believe that DYK can be subverted for political use. However, I'm unsure what to suggest; a topic-ban from DYK would be reasonable, but that's not going to stop such articles being created and nominated by someone else. Discussion welcome ... Black Kite (talk) 13:14, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

• Is there evidence of long-term approval of problematic hooks like mentioned in point 6? If so, the easiest way to deal with it would be using DS (and if there isn't, a logged DS warning might suffice to not do it again.) TonyBallioni (talk) 13:19, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Lionelt consistently exhibits a very strong POV. As do many of us, of course, but he seems less self-aware than some. Guy (Help!) 13:23, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

If it was just this one, Tony, I'd have left it where it was (I removed his approvals of the hooks). It is the issues in point 8 that lead me to think this may become an ongoing issue that needs to be nipped in the bud before it becomes an serious problem. Black Kite (talk) 13:27, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Yep, point 8 is certainly problematic.A logged warning might suffice and any further disruption will result in a topic ban from APOL32 per ACDS.∯WBG^converse 13:31, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

There does rather seem to be a promotialism thing going on here. He seems to ber both saying, and encouraging, the Use of DYK to promote causes and products (all but ones of a political nature). It might be best to to issue a warning for now, and see if that does any good.Slatersteven (talk) 13:31, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

I think the essay is certinly more problematic than the hook (which garners enough attention to ensure it will never go anywhere in that form); but the essay has the appearance of an official page. Specifically, it would (probably) be fine in userspace but I'm not sure it should be giving the impression that it's endorsed by a Wikiproject. (Is it, btw?) —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 13:35, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree that the essay would likely be fine in userspace. I think there are reasonable arguments for why you might want to promote figures on the right to DYK (en.wiki has a reputation for leaning slightly left, so showing that we do have neutral coverage of conservatives/things criticizing liberals and leftists is a good thing). The larger concern that both the essay and the hook in point 6 raise is that this is a systemic problem of trying to promote problematic hooks. If that is going on, then we have an issue that needs to be addressed very quickly. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:52, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

• Comment-And, he's into this stuff as an autopatrolled editor, which means the complete absence of a second pair of eyes to vet it.I guess, a revocation might be in order.∯WBG^converse 13:41, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

What does autopatrolled have to do with POV DYKs? Now that you've suggested a DS topic ban and revoking autopatrol, it looks like you're just trying to punish him. Natureium (talk) 13:55, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

The articles which they created and which has now been AfDed would be best looked at by a new page patroller, though I am not sure any patroller would decide to go for AfD.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:03, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

@Natureium:What? You need to read the entirety of the proposal.And if I've seen the articles, I would have sent all 3 to AFD, on grounds of failing to adhere to the notability guidelines. These are all stuff that shall be screened at NPP, (if reviewers are diligent enough).These coupled with his questionable motives make a fine case for revoking the flag, IMO. Also, kindly point out the exact phrase which led to you to think you've suggested a DS topic ban.∯WBG^converse 15:31, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

• I just want to point out that Lionelt's DYK essay would be considered just another editor's guide to crafting DYK hooks if the examples they use were changed and it was in a different page space. The actual contents are pretty unremarkable. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:21, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

• Yes - but when you consider where it is, and then add "The raison d'être for DYK is promotion.", and then create a number of not-exactly-neutral political stubs "ready for expansion", it all looks very suspicious. Black Kite (talk) 16:05, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

I can certainly understand that. I'm just pointing out that the page is not problematic per se, except for the reliably (and in context, understandable) right-wing slant to the examples. And while suspicious is something I'd agree with, "slam dunk case for POV pushing" is not. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:32, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

• FYI: the user Jerry the Bellybutton Elf is editing from the US State Department, as seen in this sequence – [64][65][66] – in which a spelling error is corrected in the draft version of the article by State Department IP 169.253.194.1, before the draft was moved to mainspace by Lionelt. Binksternet (talk) 15:20, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

• That IP looks like an independent editor to me. ~Awilley (talk) 15:29, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

• It's very suspect, because a backwater DYK nomination page is the last place you'd expect a random IP to turn up, but I don't really want the identity of JerryTBE to derail this particular discussion, to be honest. Black Kite (talk) 16:09, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

• I just wanted to make sure we are considering Jerry the Bellybutton Elf as a separate person from Lionelt, who, aside from his large number of right-wing POV changes to articles about politics, religion and abortion, has edited a fair number of articles local to Southern California. If Lionelt is in SoCal, then he's not Jerry the Bellybutton Elf in Washington DC. And Awilley, the State Dept IP is obviously used by a number of people, which is probably why you concluded it to be an independent editor. The linked sequence, though, proves my point, as the time between edits is so small, and the draft version of the article would have been virtually impossible for someone to find on their own. Binksternet (talk) 16:32, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

• That doesn't make sense. If he were the IP, why would he log out, make an IP edit, and then log back in? Natureium (talk) 17:32, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

• A couple things here. First, I would never live in DC. Too hot in the summer and freezing in the winter. No thanks. I've been to visit, but didn't make it to Foggy Bottom. This Binkster person should remove his conspiracy theory that I am illegally logging out to fix spelling errors from an anonymous IP, since that's an aspersion and I wouldn't to see him get blocked, per policy. You cant just go around making accusations of people using multiple accounts to edit without any evidence. Binkster should have the chance to convince the mods that he understands this before a block is placed on his account. Calton should also have the chance to show he understands that ANI is not a forum to be used to make complaints of unrelated editing, like Lionel helping users write DYK submissions. Calton should be made aware of the proper forum to file formal complaints, and this is not the place to air miscellaneous grievances about people not sharing his extreme left-wing worldview. I propose a warning for Black Kite to take content disputes to the editor in question, not try to get that editor punished by the mods for being a conservative by shopping for a mod to do the deed. After the above is complete, this posting should be deleted and everyone should go back to building the encyclopedia and working together in a friendly environment, rather than turning this into some liberal vs conservative battleground. Jerry the Bellybutton Elf (talk) 18:45, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

• Actually (1) this posting isn't about you, really (as I said above) (2) I am an administrator, and I brought the issue here for further discussion, and (3) threatening other editors will not end well for you. Black Kite (talk) 18:49, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
• Calton should be made aware... And you should be made aware that I've filed no complaints, just provided information, that your mind-reading skills and/or political orientation detection skills need work, and that Jimbo Wales did not die and leave you in charge. Also, please note that making stuff up about other editors to attack them can get you blocked. --Calton | Talk 01:51, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

• It's not necessarily wrong for a Wikiproject to focus on producing DYKs for topics within their area of interest, but this does have the appearance of a self-dealing attempt to shepherd new articles and DYKs through the process with little outside input. The part of "DYK for Newbies" that concerns me is the "When your reviewer is a meanie" section which directs users to the Wikiproject Conservatism talk page if the DYK is rejected. (on a similar note Lionelt also created a Discretionary sanctions FAQ to be used alongside DS alerts, which also directs any DS questions to the WP Conservatism page.) –dlthewave ☎ 16:23, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Lionelt doesn't even hide his attempts to use Wikipedia as a propaganda vehicle very well, to go by this message he left on the User Talk page of a fellow axe-grinder* "The best part is if you get an article to 1500 chars you can get the article advertised on the Main page and in front of 17 million eyeballs" --Calton | Talk 16:36, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Quite a few people, I'm sure, want to promote their pet causes through DYK. It's not necessarily a problem, so long as their submissions conform with NPOV. I have vetted a few of Lionelt's nominations on the way to the main page and didn't detect any overt bias, although I wasn't necessarily looking hard for it. As long as they meet all the criteria, they are still eligible. Whether Lionelt or other users need a rap over the knuckles for other actions they have taken, I'll leave others to judge. Gatoclass (talk) 16:53, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

I have vetted a few of Lionelt's nominations on the way to the main page and didn't detect any overt bias And would that include the one that opened this section?

Quite a few people, I'm sure, want to promote their pet causes through DYK And you don't think that using Wikipedia as a promotional/propaganda vehicle is a problem? As for myself, I've come to the opposite conclusion, going by his actual article creations, edits, and talk page contributions. --Calton | Talk 01:43, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

If somebody has a political view I abhor, but whose contributions generally conform to all the relevant policies, why should I care about their politics? My point is simply that so far as DYK is concerned, the yardstick is the nomination, not the person's motivation for writing it. Gatoclass (talk) 12:17, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

That's nice. It's not an answer to the question I asked, though. Once again: And you don't think that using Wikipedia as a promotional/propaganda vehicle is a problem? --Calton | Talk 22:16, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

I would say that depends on what they are trying to promote and how they are going about it. For example, we have projects dedicated to the promotion of more biographies of women, is that a bad thing? The bottom line, I think, has to be the quality of the end product. If the articles conform appropriately to all the relevant policies including NPOV, why should I worry about somebody's motives in creating them? If on the other hand the output is biased or otherwise substandard - if somebody is trying to promote a cause at the expense of NPOV or other policies - then that would clearly be a problem. Gatoclass (talk) 09:43, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

I just went back through my page creation history, and see that I started a number of biographies (of people who were no longer living) that I submitted to DYK. Of the ones who were alive in the 20th century, and were involved in politics or public opinion, all were known for political opinions that I agree with. I wasn't (consciously) pursuing a liberal agenda, but I was writing about people I admired. I do hope that all those articles were properly sourced with a neutral viewpoint. So, I can't get excited about what Lionelt did. - Donald Albury 18:25, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi Donald, I don't think we're talking about the same thing at all there, if you look at points 5, 6 and 8 in the original post, you'll see that this is a completely different issue. Black Kite (talk) 18:45, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

For some historical context, this isn't the first time that the activities of Lionelt and Wikiproject Conservatism have raised concerns of NPOV and WP:PUSHing an agenda – see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Conservatism/Archive 8#NPOV edit requests and the concerns raised by DGG, User:Worm That Turned, User:MastCell, and User:Dennis Brown among others. Quoting Dennis: When a project goes from coordinating efforts to improve articles that have a common theme (an accepted use), to the point of promoting a philosophy (an unacceptable use), then the community has no choice but to step in and correct the problem. It isn't good practice for a Project to promote or endorse editing in a manner that is biased, no matter how subtle the endorsement. I think DGG's edits here have been mild (too mild in fact) and I'm concerned that if the members (particularly the founder User:Lionelt, who has been off wiki for several days) understand the concerns, or if a formal review by the entire community is required. While Project are given considerable leeway in determining their scope and purpose, they are not immune from policy. Like editors, they are accountable to and operate at the pleasure of the greater community. The matter died when those "several days" off wiki for Lionelt stretched into a disappearance from Wikipedia of 5+ years until returning this year (with only a handful of edits in the interim). Mojoworker (talk) 19:17, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

I think the speculation about my motives is off-base. Regarding the hook in question, ""ringleader" of a "den of thieves"", there was no POV pushing, that was not politically motivated. It was in response to a boring ALT0 hook. My original suggestion to Jerry was:

"The hook needs to be exciting. E.g. you could use Clinton's "But my emails" quote. Or Trump's "den of thieves.""

By suggesting Clinton's quip I was not showing any political preference. Granted, once BLP concerns about the Trump quote were raised I pushed too hard on the quote. I realized that the Trump quote was outrageous, but to be honest there isn't much "hooky" material to work with at the IG report. Additionally, I reasoned in the Trump-era we are all sensitized to outrageous. I guess we're all not sensitized... When consensus formed against the Trump hook I moved on.– Lionel^(talk) 20:28, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the three stubs, they are all 1 sentence long, they have multiple reliable sources present, and they are written neutrally. For example, "The Hope and the Change is a 2012 documentary film produced by Citizens United which is critical of the Obama administration." One of the sources is Politico. I was always under the impression that these stubs would be expanded neutrally. And if they went to DYK that some future reviewer would ensure that the hook was neutral.– Lionel^(talk) 20:49, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

There is a difference between (1) using Wikipedia for political purposes (WP:PROMOTION) and (2) showcasing (advertising) political articles at DYK (WP:DYKAIM #1). If political articles or any articles are written in a biased way, then a case can be made for POV pushing. However our policies fully endorse neutrally-written political articles. The stubs I wrote need 1500 chars to qualify for DYK. I contributed one sentence to that. It is a stretch to suggest that I am POV pushing articles onto the Main page which for all intents and purposes haven't been written yet.– Lionel^(talk) 21:09, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

I'd wondered why you couldn't be bothered to pad those non-notable IMDB listings yourself, and given the events outlined in points 1 through 6 above, I can see why: I'd say it's now the OPPOSITE of a stretch. --Calton | Talk 03:07, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Wonderful, is this devolving into a delete WP:RIGHT discussion again?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:10, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

• Adding to the historical context, Facto created the WP:Conservative notice board in June 2006, at the same time sending out a bunch of invitations like this, drawing in editors with a demonstrated conservative slant. Facto's notice board was soon recognized as a method for vote-stacking to promote American right-wing viewpoints, and it was deleted. At the MfD discussion, Nandesuka said, "It's a transparent attempt to organize and mobilize groups to edit articles based on a specific point of view."

Facto stopped editing soon after the notice board was deleted, and was indeffed three years later when a sock account, Favortie, was discovered. Five months before that, Lionelt registered his username, in January 2009. In February 2011, he created the WP:WikiProject Conservatism, which had been suggested, coincidentally enough, as a redlink at the MfD for Facto's noticeboard. Lionelt used the new platform to attack another editor who had opposed his conservative slant and his one-sided invitations to membership. Other editors at the talk page raised concerns about the project scope and its "mission creep", calling out the Amero-centric bias there and at "This should be Project Conservatism not Project Modern American Conservatism". I raised the concern about invitations sent out in a skewed manner, sent only to fellow travelers, at "Establishing a guideline for inviting members". Nothing significant was done by Lionelt to correct these foundational problems, so I nominated his WikiProject for deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Conservatism. Among the most convincing arguments voiced there was MastCell's "this WikiProject has acted less to improve the quality of encyclopedic coverage, and more as a coordinating point for people whose edits advocate a conservative political and social agenda," in the same manner as the previous Conservative notice board. Despite this, the MfD resulted was "keep". I was disappointed, and I blame myself for not spending the proper amount of time to gather diffs and make a stronger case.

Now we are again faced with the question of Lionelt's bias skewing the encyclopedia. It's a lot larger than one DYK, and larger than the WikiProject instructions regarding conservative DYKs. I think it's a problem of bias and activism inherent in Lionelt, a bias he built into the fabric of the WikiProject. I would still like to see the WikiProject shut down, and it would help protect the encyclopedia if Lionelt was topic banned with regard to politics. Binksternet (talk) 21:56, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

The mission of WPConservatism is to improve conservatism-related articles. Period. WPConservatism has a diverse membership of editors including several editors who could be described as left-leaning. The thing I am most proud of at WPConservatism is the new A-Class Review Program. This ambitious initiative helps with the backlog at Good Article (GAN) and gets promising articles right to the doorstep of Featured Article (FAC). WPConservatism is in good company, there is only one other Wikiproject with A-Class Review, MILHIST. The first article promoted to A-Class is Margaret Thatcher. The next candidate for A-Class Review is likely List of American conservatives. A-Class Review proves that the purpose of WPConservatism--which is also my purpose--that purpose being article improvement. – Lionel^(talk) 22:55, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

• The observations by Black Kite, Binksternet, and others above are consistent with my own. Lionelt has picked up where he left off five years ago, by using Wikiproject conservatism as a platform for advocacy and recruiting. Five years ago when LGBT rights were at the forefront of current events, Lionelt made a a habit of placing Chick-fil-A "sammies" on the talk pages of users he perceived as friendly to his cause:[67][68][69] and more recently:[70][71]. It appears this is intended to induce Pavlovian responses from the recipients. For example, this rather pointed one immediately followed the recipient being blocked for edit warring on the Chick-fil-A article and calling someone a pedophile! Here's an example of him inviting an edit warring editor (who is now topic banned) to join Wikiproject conservatism [72] and then awarding a "sammie" to editor who helped with recruitment[73]. And again, rewarding the defense against liberal POV. Rocking Wikipedia to its foundations with this gem. My favorite though is his declaration that Donald Trump is good for "the Blacks". And don't worry, that awkward anachronism is OK because he is black!- MrX 🖋 22:56, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Not good to cherry-pick fragments of quotes. The last quote that you cite was something that Trump said---not me. And I repeated it in reference to the record low Black unemployment numbers since Trump took office. We don't sanction editors for being politically incorrect. – Lionel^(talk) 23:07, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Uh huh.- MrX 🖋 23:21, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

"Rocking Wikipedia to its foundations" is related to Trump topic area quantitative data analysis. If in fact irregularities are discovered at Arbitration Enforcement don't you think that would have far-reaching consequences? A research study was recently completed--ironically about AN/I--which found numerous issues. Is it that far fetched to try to determine if there are issues at AE?– Lionel^(talk) 23:24, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

What's far fetched is calling that a quantitative data analysis. The only thing that you have discovered is the correlation between editors who blatantly violate our policies and the sanctions they receive.- MrX 🖋 23:45, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

• From what I'm seeing here, the problem isn't so much Lionel as it is Wikiproject Conservatism. And that makes sense to me: I can't imagine how we could have a Wikiproject Conservatism, or Wikiproject Liberalism, or Wikiproject Libertarianism without it predominantly being used to push a POV, even by well-meaning editors. How does one post a notification to one without canvassing? How does one request help editing an article with POV problems without canvassing and POV pushing themself? It just can't be done. So... See below. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:30, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
• Comment The DYK section has far less contributors and reviewers than during its heyday. Every once in a while I look at the main page and think there are some awful DYK hooks. But this case is just silly: a neutral hook was already presented there, the real issue seems to be whether the topic is wanted on the main page or not at all for political reasons. It's like downvoting or upvoting in Reddit, and there aren't enough DYK regulars to actually process the nom fairly. A broken process, but not something that can be fixed with complaining about one POV comment at ANI. --Pudeo (talk) 08:43, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, you might think this case is silly if you didn't read more than just the headline and formed an opinion without looking at the evidence provided. This is not about how DYK works. It's about an editor inappropriately using Wikipedia for advocacy. Here's another example: [74] related to [75]. - MrX 🖋 12:37, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

If we're going to explicitly permit wikiprojects that promote a well-defined political POV (as per the below subsection), then I fail to see how efforts to grow and maintain that project can be demonized here.

Don't get me wrong: I do see the diffs you posted here (and above) as evincing a certain level of political POV pushing. But I just don't see how we can say "it's okay to have these sorts of wikiprojects, it's just not okay to use them, maintain them or grow them." ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:02, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

"It's about an editor inappropriately using Wikipedia for advocacy."...where is my emoji for spitting my coffee out?!--MONGO (talk) 19:42, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

• (Late to the party) Point #8, Wikipedia:WikiProject Conservatism/DYK For Newbies is exactly the kind of activity that got me involved last time, and in a quandary about what to do. Of course, he disappeared for 5 years, so I didn't have to think about it again until now. Having a Wikiproject that focuses on Conservative topics isn't the problem. If anything, there is a lot of balance to be had by doing so, as I would argue that the editor pool here is skewed in the other direction. The problem is when you go from offering sources and information to balance articles to simply advocating a position as if the other side doesn't exist. This is combative in nature, even if done politely. Lionelt has a long history of doing just this, which again, is why I got involved. I don't think the failed ban of the project (below) was the right approach, as the problem is Lionelt and his lack of self-awareness regarding his own bias. As someone pointed out above, all of us have some kind of bias and that isn't a problem. The problem is when we think we don't and act as if we are the torchbearer for the Truth®, which is what Lionelt was doing before he left. The essay indicates a severe lack of clue, in spite of the fact that he is not dumb. I would propose a topic ban instead, for everything 1932+ American Politics, which would include Wikiproject Conservatism. If he has been warned via the Arb notice, an admin can just unilaterally impose it, but I would suggest a community ban instead, so it must be reviewed by the community to lift. This type of subtle (yet not subtle) bias is best left to the community as a whole rather than a handful of admin to decide. Again, the problem is Lionelt, not the project. Let him edit other things and earn back the right to edit politics, no different than we would do anyone in any other topic area. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:22, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Please see formal proposal below the archive box below.... Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:06, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Proposal: Ban Wikiproject conservatism, as well as any existing or future politically-aligned wikiprojects

The following discussion is closed. 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 wouldn't ban newsletters such as Lionel's The Right Stuff, or punish editors who have participated in them, but such wikiprojects are inherently incapable of being neutral, and cannot help but encourage POV pushing. Therefore Support as nom. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:30, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

• Such a proposal would need to go through Wikipedia:WikiProject Council. This talk page is not the appropriate place to propose WP Project bans. Please take this issue to WikiProject Council. — Maile (talk) 00:17, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Show me the policy that states that the WikiProject Council is the only way to ban a wikiproject. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:49, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

• MPants at work maybe you might want to narrow it to WikiProject Conservatism. You would be setting a precedence, but taking them all on at once, (Category:Politics WikiProjects) would probably be unfair, and a large effort to pull off. — Maile (talk) 23:46, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
• Probably - Wikiproject conservatism is part of the problem because it's like a petri dish for cultivating bad behavior. The real problem though is a handful of editors using it to canvass, or to try to recruit a conservative cabal to fight teh libruhl POV. - MrX 🖋 23:55, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

• I am sorry, but are you contemplating "banning" all political wikiprojects in the list given? Irondome (talk) 23:54, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

No. Not even close. I'm talking about banning only projects that state a political alignment. Look at the list by K.e.Coffman, below. That's pretty much it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:38, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

• Sounds like a reasonable point, there are no clean hands. PackMecEng (talk) 23:58, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

*Deeply sinister. The most massive oppose possible Oh and why pick on Project Conservatism? Should we set up a safe space FFS??!! Irondome (talk) 00:00, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

What the ever loving fuck are you on about? I explicitly called out any liberal wikiprojects as well. Maybe you should start reading before you !vote, FFS. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:38, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

• Irondome, why do some people think it cute to sneer with "safe spaces"? Are you seriously trying to trigger the liberal snowflakes that you think can't handle debate? Will you combine this with clamoring for #civility at the same time you're trying to insult your opponent, whoever that may be? That you are a valued longtime contributor does not give you a license to troll. Drmies (talk) 04:19, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose I am very uncomfortable with this. - Donald Albury 00:05, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

• Leaning oppose We should likely address the issues one project at a time when they arise rather than prevent them. Some could also argue that WP:SKEPTIC may be politically motivated, even if we know that there can be different standards... —PaleoNeonate – 00:10, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

• Moral support, as such projects are most likely used as non-neutral canvassing boards. The other projects from the Category:Politics WikiProjects that would fit the same mould would be
  • Wikipedia:WikiProject Socialism;
  • Wikipedia:WikiProject Libertarianism‎;
  • Wikipedia:WikiProject Capitalism and
  • Wikipedia:WikiProject Anti-war‎

-- that seems about it. There aren't that many of them; raze them all to the ground. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:18, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose: Wikipedia is already infamous for its political articles promoting liberalism and silencing anyone who strays from the herd. You can see it here, with editors and even mods citing a bunch of shit that Lionel has said that has nothing to do with the DYK nomination, trying to get rid of him so they don't have to worry about dissent anymore. I even got threatened by a mod for daring to say that Calton and Binkers should be given a chance to retract their aspersions and sloppy accusations of logging out to edit, lest they get blocked for openly flaunting the rules. Banning a project dedicated to help build articles related to conservatism does nothing to help Wikipedia rehabilitate its image. The mere suggestion is chilling. Jerry the Bellybutton Elf (talk) 00:34, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

*Comment Very Swiftian of you K.E! Kill them all and let God sort them out springs to mind also..Irondome (talk) 00:31, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose Let's be realistic, if we are going to open the door to starting banning wikiprojects for trying to push agenda's that we dont agree with - thats going to kill every minority/special interest wikiproject out there. Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:41, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
• Comment. I'm only in favor of shutting down WikiProject Conservatism because of its demonstrated bias. I'm not in favor of doing the same thing to unproblematic WikiProjects. Binksternet (talk) 00:45, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. Much better to enable/support admins working in the relevant AE areas to deal with individual editors, and that would include editors whose POV seems obvious when they say bullshit like this, "Wikipedia is already infamous for its political articles promoting liberalism and silencing anyone who strays from the herd" (infamous? not in reliable sources; stop reading the things you read). Things like the DYK here can be handled in the usual way if indeed they are POV pushing/BLP violations etc. I am bothered by the trickery advertised on that DYK page--but surely a few experienced DYK editors can act on that. That leaves the matter of the editor who is center stage here, an editor who thinks it's acceptable to throw around coded barnstars, which one might well argue are a kind of harassment; arbitration is the most likely place to address that. Thank you Black Kite for bringing this to our attention. Drmies (talk) 00:48, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

• I'm happy you voted against this ridiculous proposal but just so you know I read the far-left stuff also. TonyBallioni admitted that Wikipedia is advocating for liberalism and campaigns for Democrats, and I think he's even a mod. It's not bullshit. Don't believe me? I can go to the Donald Trump article, ping 50 editors from the talk page, and tell you exactly who agrees with you that Wikipedia is fair and balanced, and tell you who agrees with me and TonyBallioni. The vote will be along party lines. This is an editor driven project, and if most editors are liberal, of course the articles will slant liberal. Jerry the Bellybutton Elf (talk) 01:08, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

My friend Drmies knows me well enough to know that I do not believe Wikipedia is promoting "liberalism" and "campaigns for Democrats", Jerry the Bellybutton Elf, but for those who do not know me as well as the good doctor, what I actually said was en.wiki has a reputation for leaning slightly left, so showing that we do have neutral coverage of conservatives/things criticizing liberals and leftists is a good thing (emphasis added). You'll notice multiple layers of nuance there. I really don't like being cited for saying something I did not say. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:08, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

OK, you go from one false claim to the next, "TonyBallioni admitted that Wikipedia is advocating for liberalism and campaigns for Democrats". Moreover, you repeat these post-truth kinds of things about editors' politics determining content, as if neutrality and reliable sources mean nothing. I'm thinking of a few things here. One is an alphabet soup containing FORUM, NPA, CIR, POV, and other such combinations. The second is, really, NOTHERE, and if you voluntarily go to the Trump talk page you're either a masochist or you need a hobby. The third is--well, I can't help but wonder who you are and who you were. Drmies (talk) 04:26, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

The Sammies were intended to be another type of Wikilove. Noone to my knowledge has ever complained. I never imagined it could be viewed as a form of harassment by my fellow editors. Now that this has been brought to my attention I will of course stop doing this.– Lionel^(talk) 01:49, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

I have no doubt they were a kind of Wikilove; it's just that Wikipedia should be inclusive of all kinds of love, and you know as well as I do what mention of that restaurant in this kind of context means. Thank you for not doing that anymore. Drmies (talk) 04:21, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

• Good idea. Wikiprojects that primarily exist as an avenue for politically like-minded editors to coordinate action ought not be a thing. Wikiproject Conservatism ought definitely be removed. It's worthwhile to examine whether the WikiProjects listed by K.e.coffman are similar, and if they are then they ought be removed too. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:53, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
• Moral support, practical (mild) oppose Politically oriented wikiprojects are the source of much debate and strife (not to mention bad content). But they have a use in helping us to identify bad actors and providing diffs to support imposition of sanctions. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:57, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose the general case, per Drmies, but also along the lines of SBHB above. There's no reason that the Conservatism project couldn't be a project that does what it is supposed to be doing, which is neutrally improving articles about conservative-related subjects, instead of being a political advocacy site within Wikipedia. If this has become the case, then the editors who have made it into that need to be dealt with by administrators with the tools available to them. Just as MILHIST is not a bad thing, despite the recent behavior of some of its coordinators, CONSERVATISM can be a useful part of Wikipedia, despite the editors who are using it as a power base -- but action needs to be taken against them whenever it is appropriate. The nuclear option is too radical at this point. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:00, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

• I will also say that we need a better mechanism for monitoring what the numerous WikiProjects are doing. At this time it seems as if they are founded, and then no one from the outside pays any attention to them after that. The Wiki Project Council? Does it actually do anything? Does it even exist? Who's on it? What's its function? Does it have a co-ordinator, or officers of any kind? Even the puniest WikiProject has a list of people who has signed up for it, WPC doesn't seem to have anything like that. It doesn't seem to have any authority of any kind over anything. Where was the WPC when Kumioko was trying to usurp all state WikiProjects and fold them into WikiProject United States? There have been a number of ArbCom cases which have touched on the question of what WikiProjects can and can't do - why have I never seen a representative of the Wiki Project Council comment on those cases?
  If the Wiki Project Council is in that state of non-being, we should either get rid of it, or revitalize it into a vehicle for assuring that WikiProjects are doing what they're intended to do, and not turning into power centers for various ideological viewpoints. If conservative-leaning, or liberal-leaning, or socialist-leaning Wikipedia editors want to hang out with their ideological brethren, they can do so off-Wiki. Any on-wiki organization should be focused entirely on improving Wikipedia, not on political or ideological advocacy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:03, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose I understand why political wikiprojects may be a problem, but without them will POV pushers not just organize off wiki? POV pushers need to be dealt with by admins on an individual basis, I feel like the limited benefit of banning political wikiprojects will be outweighed by the can of worms that this could open (who decides which projects are political? I just see this creating a massive and unnecessary controversy). If we only ban certain political wikiprojects, but allow others, POV pushers (or just people with subtle biases) will try to ban the ones they disagree with, damaging the neutrality and credibility of the encyclopedia. Tornado chaser (talk) 02:39, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose I think shutting down the wikiproject would actually result in the opposite of the desired outcome. Right-leaning editors who already feel they are under attack could easily interpret this as proof that Wikipedia is systemically biased against them, and I don't think that would improve the BATTLEGROUND feeling that has become normal at many political articles. On the other hand I could see myself supporting a topic ban of some form for LionelT specifically. They stated above that the purpose of the Wikiproject is to improve articles about conservatism, period; but that's not what I'm seeing. Looking at the latest two issues of The Right Stuff, in the June issue I see scorekeeping on which editors from either side got sanctioned recently under the story about the rouge admin who accused right-leaning editors of being Russian agents. In the July issue there is a story about Wikiproject Conservatism coming "under fire" at AN/I side by side with a story of how only 27% of editors are happy with the way disputes are resolved at AN/I, saying the dissatisfaction was due in part to "'defensive cliques' and biased administrators". I don't think fear mongering, score keeping, and one-sided cheer leading fits into our goal of collaborative editing to improve the encyclopedia. ~Awilley (talk) 02:36, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose (non-admin editor) Everything is political. Wikipedia:WikiProject Feminism is political. Wikipedia:Systemic bias is political. Wikipedia:WikiProject Socialism is political. What is needed is enforcement of Wikipedia:Canvassing, and if that happens to depopulate a particular Wikiproject that's incidental. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:42, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose: per above statements by Beyond My Ken and SBHB. They have stated the case far better than I could. —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 03:09, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose: Political bias is one of the strongest biases there is. Rather than have people try and pretend that they don't have it, letting people be open about it can contribute to the WP:POLE process. If all sides of the political spectrum push then we can get something that approaches being balanced. AlphabeticThing9 (talk) 03:15, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
• Moral support - I understand the reason behind it, but I do not believe you will achieve the desired affects. If WikiProjects like the Conservatism Project are indeed being used for canvassing and POV-pushing, we need better mechanisms to effectively address them. We need to focus on specific editors and break up the little cliques they form.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:01, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
• Comment Ideological categories don't exactly lend themselves to cohesive stylistic or assessment standards, which are major components of a Wikiproject. This type of project can cover anything from biographies to political parties to books to legislation, and it just doesn't make sense to write a style guide that would apply to all of these areas. If your goal is to improve biographies about conservative politicians, for example, it would make sense to work within the Biographies project which already has well-established practices and editors with relevant experience. This would also mean contributing your perspective to a diverse group of editors which is the stated goal of most of these political Wikiprojects.

If we're going to ban any project, it should be part of a larger conversation about the purpose of Wikiprojects and what sort of behavior is acceptable. I would prefer to first address the problematic editors and only consider sanctioning the project if the canvassing, POV pushing, etc. continues. WikiProject Firearms would be an example of a project that has made numerous positive contributions to weaponry topics while also using its style guide to impose a certain POV across a large number of articles. After community consensus was clarified and a few problematic editors were sanctioned, the POV pushing has largely died down and the remaining flareups don't have the pseudo-official support of the project. –dlthewave ☎ 04:19, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose per Drmies and Awilley and others. However, all WikiProjects need to be informed that their purpose must be to improve the quality of articles under their area of interest, in full compliance with our policies and guidelines, especially the neutral point of view. It is entirely legitimate for feminists (and others) to gather together to improve NPOV articles about notable women, and for conservatives (and others) to gather together to improve NPOV articles about notable conservatives. The same is true of monarchists, Marxists and liberals, if improving neutral policy-compliant content is the goal of their joint efforts. Using the main page to promote a political ideology is wrong. Scorekeeping on the basis of an editor's perceived or stated political ideology is wrong. That behavior must stop. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:46, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Just having a certain politic focus is not a reason to block a project as that same logic could apply to any other ideologically driven project. We can judge if a project broadly is engaging in inappropirate activies and close it, but that should be based on evidenced behavior. --Masem (t) 04:54, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose for a variety of reasons above. You don't think that Wiki Project Liberalism has POV issues? Why not work to make it more neutral instead of ditching it and stripping the members of the project of their hard work. JC7V7DC5768 (talk) 05:13, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose WikiProjects at their best attempt to improve articles, according to NPOV and all other policies and guidelines. There's no inherent reason to me a politically oriented WikiProject couldn't do that and in looking at the Talk Page and A Class review at WikiProject Conservative I don't see any subtext suggesting otherwise. If the DYK article has the support of the project members the advice there strikes me as aggressive but not out of line and in keeping with a project's hope to coordinate improvement to articles in its scope. The other WikiProjects named by Ke mostly seem dormant or inactive with Liberterian being the only one to raise eyebrows for me. But that alone doesn't just a ban on projects in this area. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 06:30, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose I think this is a serious over-reaction. What this needs is admins policing the poor behaviour, not banning of WikiProjects. In any case, I think it would have to go to the WikiProject Council. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:13, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. I haven't seen him too much around but for the little I saw he looked really constructive. There's no reason we would ban an established editor for making too many DYKs about republican topics. I'ts the whole point of DYK. L293D (☎ • ✎) 12:20, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Proposal: Community topic ban on post-1932 politics

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

---

I think Dennis Brown's points above are good, that it's the blind spot that's the problem, rather than Lionel's editing in general. Therefore, I support his suggestion of a topic ban on post-1932 politics, and suggest that it be indefinite, with 6-month appeals allowed. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:37, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose I've come across Lionelt's editing in politics previously and never found anything objectionable about it. Well, except for the general "I object to your POV". I'm unaware of any cases of Lionelt editing against policy (except for the catch-22 of promoting their wikiproject) or editing disruptively while keeping to the letter of policy. Such a TBAN would not solve any problem worth solving. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:46, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support Lionelt has some skills, worthwhile skills, but he has a blind spot to politics and the only reason it didn't cause problems for 5 years is that he wasn't here. As soon as he returned, the problems returned. He needs to contribute in other areas, which I'm convinced he can do without a problem. If he just disappears for 6 months and appeals, then that won't solve anything, so just taking a break won't help. I hate to get to this point, but there is some serious soul searching that has to be done, and currently, his participation in politics is causing problems with bias for the whole site. If he never learns to edit politics without injecting bias, then he can still continue to contribute in other areas. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:01, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose mostly as per MPants at Work, I think this is the wrong way to go and it might even be a slippery slope. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:10, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose this appears to be searching for a solution to something that isn't the problem. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:05, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
• Strong oppose as Lionelt doesn't deserve this nor is his editing what I see as problematic. He does have some blind spots, but I've never felt it was intentional or with any malice attached. As a side note: I'm really getting tired of seeing only editors who are suspected or assumed to be politically/ideologically Conservative getting taken to AE repeatedly and/or nominated for political article topic bans while those who have an obvious and flaunted Liberal/Progressive/Left-leaning bias in their editing are protected and coddled. Ironically(?), it's usually the editors with an obvious and flaunted Liberal/Progressive/Left-leaning bias who are filing these reports and doing it only against those they see as their political enemy. Which is, of course, just more bias. Yes, I'm certain this comment will really piss some editors and admins off and I will likely now be further targeted for more insults and assumptions about my own political beliefs. What really needs to happen is a fair-handed and neutral approach by administrators at the political articles and DS applied to everyone who crosses the bright line. With the exception of one administrator, that's not been happening. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 19:05, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Lionelt's editing has not stood out for bias, as some would imply. Those who seek improvements should do so at a much broader level, as some have indicated above. Jzsj (talk) 21:13, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose their overall editing doesn't justify a TBAN. I might support a TBAN specifically on WP:DYK pages about post-1932 American Politics; there do seem to be some POV-pushing issues there, but they may simply be a symptom of larger problems with a lack of independent review/insufficient participation at DYK. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:32, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose, The editor in question has not violated any policies or guidelines, and has contributed positively to by editing within their area of interest by improving content, or to have others improve content in area where they share similar interest. What is next, a proposal to ban anyone who edits within the sphere of American politics post-1932? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:25, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
• Comment Dennis, I don't doubt your intentions are good but you should withdraw this. A community ban of a partisan editor isn't in the cards because their fellow partisans will show up to defend them. There's really no point in such an exercise. (Before anyone gets in a lather please note that I am making a general point and not speaking to the merits or lack thereof in the present case.) Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:35, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Just noting that if I am a partisan, then I'm across the political isle from Lionel. That being said... This. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:12, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

• Strong oppose per User:RightCowLeftCoast's and User:Winkelvi's reasoning. Lionelt is a clear positive to Wikipedia, and he has been very helpful in improving articles related to conservatism. The hypocrisy here is astounding, since I could name several editors who exhibit a clear left-of-center bias while editing wthout needing to fear any community action for their POV and incivility issues. --1990'sguy (talk) 11:23, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose If it's that bad take it to AE and provide proof of their disruption. It not surprising to me how this thread devolved from one to discussion to another and culiminates in this hypocrisy.--MONGO (talk) 16:51, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
• Comment Will those editors whining about "hypocrisy" please knock it off? All you're doing is building up the battleground mentality of this topic. Plenty of left-wing editors have been dragged to AE and ANI over their editing. The difference is that they tend to not be sanctioned, because there is insufficient evidence at AE and insufficient support at ANI. If you want to address this imbalance, then working with your fellow conservative editors to reduce the POV pushing, use of unreliable sources and overall frustration and impatience would be far more productive than just whining about how it's not fair that your side gets sanctioned more. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:59, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. L293D (☎ • ✎) 17:13, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - If an admin judges that someone should be topic banned from American Politics, they can simply impose it as a discretionary sanction. If Dennis, or another admin were to do so, I believe it would be upheld if appealed. That said, I don't believe that Lionelt's conduct yet rises to the level that would merit such a harsh sanction. However, if he continues to encourage bad behavior in order to gain allies, or uses Wikiproject conservatism as recruiting ground, or uses the front page as a billboard, then I have no doubt that a trip to AE will result in a topic ban. Lionelt no doubt has contributed positively to Wikipedia, but he needs to remember that we're building a free encyclopedia for all people, not just for conservatives. - MrX 🖋 23:01, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Getting back to the original question

If we are done with Project Conservatism and similar issues, can we get back to the the issue Black Kite raised in the first place - that DYK discussion? I offered a hook in that discussion so I am WP:INVOLVED. Eventually I was one of the people who asked for help at the DYK talk page, because I felt the discussion had frankly become a train wreck. The problem was LionelT’s behavior - in particular, his refusal to step back from approving the item despite being asked multiple times by multiple people, and his repeated arguing/wikilawyering to insist that his approval should stand. The response I would hope to see in a case like that is “Oh, OK, I’ll let someone else do the final approval then, but I still support such-and-such version.” He actually did switch his approval to a less inflammatory, neutral hook, but he dug in his heels and insisted that he should be the one to approve the item for DYK. I’m not proposing any particular course of action, I just want people to evaluate this situation and see what they think. --MelanieN (talk) 19:59, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

As far as that question goes, I agree that Lionelt was in the wrong. They should have stepped back and let someone else approve the hook, instead of wasting editors' time arguing about it only for it to end up here, wasting even more editors' time. But since sanctions aren't punitive, the only thing we can really ask for is for Lionelt to apologize and admit wrongdoing. We can't compel that, but we can certainly remember it the next time, whether Lionelt chooses to acknowledge wrongdoing or not. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:23, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

This goes to consensus building. If one editor believes a hook is OK, but another does not, then there is not consensus. Why was LionelT's approval seen as any more of a concern than any other random editors approval? What is this DYK discussion? Did the DYK nominations violate any of the DYK Rules?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:48, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

OK I have read the DYK discussion, linked above. Does this mean that anything controversial should not be a DYK, even if there is a consensus that the article that the DYK is written neutrally (one of the things that an article must accomplish to pass DYK), and that the hook(s) are neutral as well?

It is OK for one editor to approve a hook, and another editor disapprove it. That has happened, even for non-controversial DYKNs. So what makes LionelT's editing so bad? If the editor wants to improve content in an area which they have an interest in, great. As long as that improvement in the main space is well referenced, written neutrally, and complies with our other policies and guidelines.

Is it civil to cast dispersions against the actions of LionelT, and then consider it against our guidelines about editor behavior when the accused attempts to defend their actions (even if it means pointing towards the policies and guidelines that they claim to not have broken). Should the editor only remain silent, and allow other editors disparage them and their actions? To what end?

LionelT may be the tall grass when it comes to wanting to improve content to subjects of interest with those who political persuasion is not left of the center in the United States, but that doesn't mean that cause the individual has interest in that part of the political spectrum that they can't contribute content to this project of WMF. If as a more active member of that editor community, they are silenced, what chilling effect will that have to others who may want to contribute well referenced neutrally written content improvement with that same, or similar, political persuasion? Does it reinforce the view by those who have gone to those alternative wikis, that our editing community is not actually inclusive, not actually diverse, and ultimately supportive of harassment of those who are not of a political persuasion that is in middle, or left of center in the United States?

Count me concerned.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:40, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

WP:CASTINGDISPERSIONS. EEng 04:50, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

From the discussions at both the DYK nomination and here, from what I can tell, the issue has less to do with his political beliefs but more with his actions in recent times. As it can be seen above, the proposals to shut down WP:CONSERVATISM and/or give him a topic ban were shot down precisely because implementing either on the basis of his beliefs was a slippery slope and would do more harm than good (and of course, discriminating against users simply because they're conservative, even if users personally don't agree with their beliefs, is just silly). On the other hand, it did appear that his repeated attempts to approve the hook, despite several users giving advice to the contrary, ended up being at the very least unconstructive. I think I have to agree here with MjolnirPants in that what is probably needed here is at least an acknowledgement of how the DYK nomination transpired and that Lionelt has to take it in mind lest he be brought to ANI again. At the very least, it is hoped that Lionelt can learn from this experience and can become more productive because of it. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:46, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

For the record, the proposal was to shut down ideologically-driven political wikiprojects (conservatism, libertarianism, anti-war, capitalism & communism, plus blocking liberalism before it gets started) though no-one who commented except K.e.coffman seemed to get that. Everyone else seemed to think I was proposing either banning only conservatism, or all political wikiprojects, and neither was the case. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:43, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

I wasn't able to participate in that proposal, but I would be opposed to it. There's nothing wrong with starting WikiProjects about Conservatism, Communism, Liberalism, Capitalism, Anarchism, etc., but promoting them of course would be another story. In which case the solution would not be shutting down the projects (that would only be at most a last resort) but to deal with unconstructive editors. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 15:15, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

There is no Wikiproject:Liberalism (it redirects to Wikiproject Politics). So how would an editor -for example- use Wikiproject:Conservatism to notify other editors of a discussion at Talk:Donald Trump without being guilty of WP:CANVASSING conservative editors? It would probably be best to answer at my talk if you want to, to avoid sidetracking this discussion. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:04, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

See the appropriate canvassing section, one can notify individuals in related wikiprojects as long as it is follows the appropriate canvassing portion of the guideline. Also if promoting is against policy or guidelines for user activity, than we also need to shut down WP:GEONOTICE as that is a form of promotion.

We should want editors to promote their positive contributions on Wikipedia, that is part of what DYK is all about. An article there has to be written neutrally, and follow all the other policies and guidelines which apply to things in main space. It is part of the rules of DYK that hooks need to also be written neutrally as well. Controversial topics can be given a hook, see Template:Did you know nominations/Russian-Syrian hospital bombing campaign. Otherwise if WP:NOTPROMOTE applys to actions of users, than it can be argued that DYK needs to be shut down as well.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:59, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

That doesn't answer my question. By definition, any such notification posted to WP Conservatism is targeting conservative editors, who will predictably all take one side of the issue, an obvious outcome which your response completely ignores. Your comment about WP:GEONOTICE completely misses the point, not only of my question but of the geonotice itself. It's not used for notifying editors of discussions, but of real world events relating to WP that editors in a specific location may have interest in. Hell, even if it were being used to notify editors of discussions, there's no inescapable correlation between living in a certain locale and having a certain opinion. Finally, DYK promotes articles. Not viewpoints, nor discussions. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:20, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

There are members of WP:RIGHT that specifically are not politically right of center and or conservative (on the American/United States political scale). Therefore, to say that it is targeting conservatives is an incorrect statement. That would be like saying only people who live in X join Wikiproject Y (which focuses on content improvement about region X). It's not like Wikiprojects are limited to only editors of B political persuasion or C regional affiliation. All of them are free to join.

Again see the appropriate canvass section, placing a neutrally worded notice, such as using Template:Please see, on a Wikiproject talk page is well within what is allowed.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:53, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

There are members of WP:RIGHT that specifically are not politically right of center and or conservative (on the American/United States political scale). There might be one or two, but it doesn't matter whether it's 100% conservative editors or 50% conservative editors: the editors called to action from such a notification will absolutely tend to !vote along conservative lines. Your implicit assumption that even one exception invalidates my point is pretty ignorant. Hell, you're a member, and right there next to your name is your own statement that you're using the project to counter a "liberal bias". Which means you're using the project for right-wing POV pushing. So... Yeah, I call bullshit. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:54, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Note to anyone reading: there is a WikiProject Socialism. L293D (☎ • ✎) 23:06, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Which, as far as I can tell, is interested in doing what WikiProjects are supposed to do, which is to help improve articles in their subject area. I see no indication that the members of WP:WikiProject Socialism are attempting to use their project to advocate for socialism. The claim -- which certainly has some truth to it -- is that WP:WikiProject Conservatism is not properly focused on improving articles about conservatism, but has staked out a political position, i.e. that Wikipedia has a "liberal bias" and that their project needs to take steps to counter that bias; in other words, they are using the project as a base of operations for political advocacy within Wikipedia. That's not proper, and any indications that they are indeed doing that should result in sanctions for the editors involved. I have seen signs of that happening with certain editors, but not to the extent that I agreed that shutting down the project was justified. Still, to compare the Socialism Project to the Conservatism Project is not apt. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:45, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Socialism (and capitalism and communism) are more complex subjects than just politics. I may have erred by including them in my "ban" list. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:54, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

• Small point of information: my recollection is that there used to be a WikiProject Liberalism, but it was shut down due to lack of participation. Maybe I'm misremembering, but I remember it had a yellow flag for the logo and am thus pretty sure I'm right. I'm a member of both the Conservatism and Socialism work groups. The latter is pretty much a shell with no focused effort of which I am aware. The conservatism group does a pretty good job keeping track of their subject but does have a fairly apparent "political" flavor, an "us against them" vibe. It needs to be closely watched so that it doesn't devolve into a political organizing tool. Carrite (talk) 06:01, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

• Which is pretty much the point Imade in one of the sections above: there needs to be a mechanism whereby WikiProject Conservatism is kept on track to improve articles, and not be used for political action. The same goes for any other WikiProject, since biases are not limited to political subjects. As of now, there is absolutely no such mechanism, as the Wiki Project Council appears to be basically non-existent. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:12, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

I think there's mostly agreement that WikiProject Conservatism itself isn't the problem, and that leaves the behavior of Lionelt (and the interaction of the two), and his behavior at DYK. As Dennis Brown says above of Lionelt, I would propose a topic ban instead, for everything 1932+ American Politics, which would include Wikiproject Conservatism. If he has been warned via the Arb notice, an admin can just unilaterally impose it, but I would suggest a community ban instead, so it must be reviewed by the community to lift. Right or wrong, It doesn't look like the community has the will to do so, breaking generally along "party lines". Lionelt has been given the DS warning, so is aware of WP:ARBAPDS (and if there were any question, see his WikiProject Conservatism Discretionary sanctions FAQ). So, in the absence of anything else happening here, the only outcome, perhaps, is ongoing additional scrutiny of WikiProject Conservatism and Lionelt, and the possibility that a random enforcing administrator will unilaterally impose a topic ban for everything 1932+ American Politics (or an editor file a WP:AE action) at some point – for Lionelt or any other editor contravening WP:ARBAPDS at WikiProject Conservatism or elsewhere. Is there anything left to do here, and can anything else be accomplished (such as a mechanism to police Wikiprojects), or are we done here? Mojoworker (talk) 16:51, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

As long as ABRAPDS is enforced without regard of whether someone edits from the left right or center, that not only those who are active at WikiProject Conservatism are targeted with discretionary bans. People can have their own political affiliations, and own political opinions, and still edit towards reliably sourced neutral content in the article spaces.

I have not seen anyone above claim that Lionelt has violated policy; and those who have made the claim have I believe been sufficiently shown that policy was not violated. Sure, there were some disagreements in the attempt to reach consensus, but that is expected. Lionelt did not appear to be uncivil in the discussions at DYKN. But sure lets keep the guillotine blade over WP:RIGHT and have egg shells on the floors in front of all editors who have made the choice to be members of it; that is so how Wikipedia should continue /sarcasm.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:34, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

• (Two points to add; I'll post separately.) As to the advice in the DYK essay suggesting Project Conservatism nominators invite a project member to review your nomination (for clarity: as this appear in the instructions after the nominator has submitted, it seems clear "review" refers to seeking DYK approval, not seeking help formulating a nom in the first place.) This caught my eye as recently I dealt with a college course in which students were approving one another others' DYKs ​. Then as now, seeking review from a select group seems like straight-forward canvassing; in the case of the college students, it would have promoted material with serious issues (on MEDREF, no less). I think a big step in the right direction would be formal caution against seeking specific reviewers for a DYK or advising anyone else to do so (i.e. that needs to be deleted from the essay). Innisfree987 (talk) 00:27, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I see the point raised, about the canvassing concern of the DYK essay, a please see or appropriate canvass should be written neutrally, such as using template please see. Therefore, to ask for a specific other editor to review with a pass would be inappropriate. At the same time a please see template so that others may look at the review, and come to their own conclusions as to whether the DYKN passes DYKRULES would pass appropriate canvassing. As WP:RIGHT has gained a specific portion of membership which are watchdogs and are not there to advance content improvement of articles that fall under its scope, posting an appropriate canvass to WT:RIGHT may have the opposite effect and may increase critical eyes upon a tpoc.

The question then is whether non-involved editors who share affiliation in wikiprojects should be allowed to review a DYKN, regardless of whether they are a member of WP:RIGHT or some other wikiproject. Therefore, in the future editors who are both in WP:MILHIST wouldn't be able to review one anothers DYKNs or who are both part of WP:CAL, etc. etc.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:59, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I think automatically barring anyone from reviewing a certain kind of DYK because of project affiliation would just incentivize folks to do the same activities without formally affiliating themselves. And yes, that means members of a given project (any project) may deliberately go looking for entries where they can put a thumb on the scale for their preferred type of content, and that will have to be dealt with the (informal) clerks and admins who work there if/when they notice issues--as is being discussed here. But I still find it inappropriate to solicit reviews--it's not only a matter of getting a favorable review, it's also means getting your DYK advanced in the queue faster and promoting content that way. It's a thumb on the scale and I think refraining from it would go a ways to dealing with DYK POV pushing. Innisfree987 (talk) 03:54, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Please look into Semitic neopaganism request

We absolutely need editorial and ArbCom help in this article. Thank you. RK (talk) 00:39, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I think the correct article may be Semitic neopaganism. --24.76.103.169 (talk) 00:54, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Fixed. Softlavender (talk) 03:54, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

RK, ArbCom does not settle content disputes. And neither for that matter does WP:ANI. They may however get involved if contributors insist on edit-warring, rather than discussing disputes on the article talk page, and on falsely labelling edits as 'vandalism'. 86.147.197.31 (talk) 02:27, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

See also this recent ANI thread. [76] 86.147.197.31 (talk) 02:39, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Subject of article campaigning in social media to save article from deletion

Not sure if this is the right noticeboard for this and if anything can or should be done. The article for Mike Galsworthy is up for deletion and following a surge in keep votes I checked his facebook profile [77] where he has asked his followers for help to keep his page on wikipedia. At least two of the keep votes have commented that they have done so Lyndaship (talk) 18:05, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

• Yes, this is fine, thanks. I assume the closing admin will take these things into account. BTW that entire AfD looks like a shouting match. Thanks for posting the link there as well. Drmies (talk) 18:17, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

• The "not a vote" template was added to the top of the AfD, but no one has tagged the newbies, SPAs, and the canvassed people. That should be done (by checking each participant's edit history). Softlavender (talk) 03:52, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

• Maybe I missed something, but I only found one editor who could be labelled with the "spa" template, although there were a few other suspicious ones, like "Drmies" and "Beyond my Ken". Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:22, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Washington DC area IPs inserting biased political analysis

Someone using IPs from Arlington, Virginia, has been slyly emphasizing Republican Party voting results in articles about American places and people. The additions are either unreferenced,[78][79][80][81] or a purely statistical reference does not support the political analysis provided in prose.[82] Note that the removal of this person's unreferenced prose analysis often leaves a bare chart of voting statistics, which goes against WP:NOTSTATS. Involved IPs listed below. Any suggestions as to what we can do about this person? Binksternet (talk) 04:37, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

• January–July 2018: 64.132.42.50 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) (blocked once in May)
• January–May 2018: Special:Contributions/2601:141:0:5FD0:0:0:0:0/64 (One IP blocked[83])
• May–August 2018: Special:Contributions/2601:140:8B00:1300:0:0:0:0/43 (One IP blocked[84])
• September 2017 – August 2018: Special:Contributions/2601:644:8501:4BA:0:0:0:0/64

This has turned into an edit war between 64.132.42.50 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 2601:644:8501:4ba:adf1:2b7c:4ddc:eb69 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - suggest a cooling off period - Arjayay (talk) 13:20, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

The one adding unreferenced analysis is the worse offender. Binksternet (talk) 14:32, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

By which I mean IP 64.132.42.50 which is registered to Hanover Research, a marketing research firm in Arlington. This Wikipedia editing is apparently one of their projects. Binksternet (talk) 15:03, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

It appears that WP:PROVEIT needs to be applied, with appropriate user warning messages for continued addition of non verified content addition. If engaged in edit warning, and violating WP:3RR action should be taken, with appropriate warnings prior, but we should also assume good faith in regards to their editing, and inform them about WP:VER & WP:NEU.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:52, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, no. This is an IP address of a marketing firm being used to whitewash various articles related to a political party. Frankly, I do not care who they are supporting; It seems a WP:Duck situation likely related to paid editing. Good faith is important, but this is beyond the pale. Icarosaurvus (talk) 04:59, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

This person is deep into 3RR territory tonight, using Special:Contributions/2601:140:8B00:1300:4810:2ECC:F080:DF41 which is also from Arlington. Binksternet (talk) 04:59, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

A ton of RfCs at Talk:Israel

It's raining RfCs on the Talk:Israel page. Sockpuppets are involved, and it's becoming impossible to have a meaningful discussion. Can some uninvolved admin take a look? Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 07:04, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I closed and archived the last one as obviously doomed and equally obviously not a good faith effort. The others have significant participation and are not really easy cases IMO, but someone else may disagree. Guy (Help!) 07:14, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, it's at least something. Another one was started by a sock, and I think it's fairly pointless anyway, but you're right that it has significant participation -- though I don't envy the poor guy who tries to assess consensus. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 07:20, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

To be fair, that is pretty much a constant in anything related to Israel... Guy (Help!) 09:51, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Halwoll

I have sent 11 messages over the last 2 months about adding unsourced content to Wikipedia, but they continue to do so and not communicate. They have received several similar messages from other editors; all ignored. They have been editing since Sept 2016, but have never responded to a message on their talk page and many concerns have been raised about disruptive editing, copyright issues and lack of sources. Please see User talk:Halwoll for details.

I have no idea if they are reading their messages, and as they use no edit summaries, communication is zero. Hopefully they will now engage here or on their talk page. Boleyn (talk) 09:23, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

In my opinion neither of the two substantive questions you posted on the user's talk page absolutely needed response. You dealt with the matter 8 hours later by moving the user's decent but unreferenced article to draftspace: [85]. Your other messages to him lack specifics. So unless you can provide diffs demonstrating that the user is being continuously disruptive I think this ANI thread may be a non-starter. Softlavender (talk) 12:43, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

My first two messages - 'Please add your sources' and 'Can you please respond?' were simple and clear and did need a response, either the addition of sources or a message in response. I would not have been too worried though if that was the end of it. My other messages were specific: asking for a response to previous messages, explaining and linking to the policies on communication and sourcing and giving a diff example of where they have continued to add unsourced content despite messages.

Ignoring other editors when they raise concerns is disruptive in itself, and communication is mandatory in these circumstances. Adding unsourced content is also disruptive. Ignoring 11 messages is a huge amount but they have also ignored the many other concerns raised on their talk page over the last 2 years, and we need to know if they have read and understand the many serious concerns raised about their editing. Boleyn (talk) 13:31, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

As I mentioned, you handled the lack of sources 8 hours later by draftification; at that point, there was no urgency or real need for communication as the article was out of mainspace, so repeatedly demanding a response was unnecessary in terms of the encyclopedia. Posting a bunch of WP:ABCs on their talkpage is generally not helpful either. We have very very occasionally blocked editors who have ignored dozens and dozens of usertalk messages, but that isn't the case here. Unless there is a serious, longterm, ongoing problem with this editor, and you provide a sufficient number of diffs to substantiate that, it is possible that no action will be taken here. One reason is that (even temporarily) blocking a new (less than 2,000 edits) good-faith editor is likely to drive them off of Wikipedia permanently. Softlavender (talk) 13:56, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

It was a month later, not just 8 hours; they haven't edited much recently, or at all after the last message a few days ago, unless there are edits to pages that have been deleted. Peter James (talk) 19:55, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

You're right, I misread "July" as being "June". Softlavender (talk) 11:26, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

• My personal recommendation for dealing with newish editors who may be making blunders is to treat them with kindness. Post The Wikipedia Adventure on their talkpage (excellent and very fun learning device!); post a Welcome template; post a Teahouse invitation; post a wikilove message (cookie, etc). We have already seen that this editor responds to kindness: when someone posted an invitation to WP:Women in Red ([86]), they joined up the following day: [87]. -- Softlavender (talk) 14:29, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I respect your viewpoint, but as this editor has been around since Sept 2016, I think they should be able to reply to a message or stop adding unsourced content when asked. Are they going to continue to do this? We don't know if they won't communicate. Boleyn (talk) 16:53, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

So what is your request here? Softlavender (talk) 16:54, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I guess my request is that they agree to add sources in future and respond to messages in future. They do appear to be reading their messages, just ignoring them if they are raising a concern, and this has been going on for a long time involving many concerns. If they don't join the discussion, then I'm open to ideas on how to solve the issue. Boleyn (talk) 20:31, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

No, what is your request to ANI? You brought this report to ANI, which is for situations requiring action by administrators or experienced editors. What action do you want administrators or experienced editors to take? Softlavender (talk) 03:07, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

As above, I'm open to ideas on how to address the issue. However, my long experience of editors who keep creating unref articles and won't communicate is that they only respond to indef blocks, which can then be swiftly lifted. They tend to view their talk pge as a place spam mail goes and not register it. After two years' editing and many, many messages about problematic editing, I think it's unlikely anything else will grab their attention. Boleyn (talk) 06:54, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't see "many, many messages about problematic editing"; I see four messages about specific article edits [88], [89], [90], [91], but no diffs so the edits themselves and their value cannot be assessed. The editor is clearly editing in good faith and clearly responds to positive talkpage messages. I'm going to suggest that you change your approach to editors you perceive as non-responsive and instead of posting increasing numbers of increasingly terse critical messages that you instead post positive messages from the get-go -- the kinds of posts I listed up above. With this particular editor, I suggest you also find something they have done well and send them a wikilove message thanking and praising them for it. That's what worked with Ipigott with this editor, and the editor responded by immediately joining the WP:WikiProject Women in Red and immediately creating an article on a notable sportswoman. In the case of this editor, since you've left so many carping messages you may have worn out your welcome and perhaps another editor should post some positive and praising messages. Bottom line: You're getting in the habit of leaving a dozen complaining or warning messages on an editor's talk and then bringing them to ANI (a habit which will become insupportable), but if you start out with lots of positive messages instead (all of the kinds I've mentioned), you'll get interest and cooperation. That's my opinion anyway. Softlavender (talk) 07:29, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Jingiby

This user makes numerous POV contributions particularly in regards to controversial matters in the Republic of Macedonia and its neighbouring country, Bulgaria. For instance, he created the article historiography in the Republic of Macedonia which seems to be biased and is an infringement of the 'Wikipedia is not a soapbox' policy. Furthermore, most of his edits seem to be motivated by trying to force identity politics into threads rather than to establish a fair and encyclopaedic article. He had been blocked numerous times for edit warring and nationalistic POV-pushing on such topics; and had an indefinite block lifted[92] on the condition that he would not continue in such edits. ['kɔbɹa]☠ 04:18, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

My edits are based every way on reliable sources. I do not see the serious problem with this article. If you have objections to a particular article, they can be discussed on the talk page. Greetings. Jingiby (talk) 04:47, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

From what I've observed, Jingiby is a useful editor in the Balkan area. It is a fact of reality that we have to deal with that Macedonian issues are contentious, and the fact is that Bulgarian and Macedonian editors are never going to agree. Since he has returned, Jingiby has been nothing but constructive, and has been a occasional helpful voice of reason in helping resolve Albanian-Greek disputes. A much better alternative to trying to get a guy you disagree with banned for one article is to initiate a discussion about whatever POV issues you have on a page like historiography in the Republic of Macedonia (I have some guesses about possible issues that page may have but let me say-- it is well organized and quite well cited too). Persuasion is mightier than the sword.--Calthinus (talk) 05:09, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

My contention is not just with this one article, that was merely an example. Also, when you perceive the sole criterion for reliability to be whom it was published by, then of course you would think that; despite the bias of the (Bulgarian) authors and the slant added to the information in the article itself. He is also responsible for Wikipedia:Harrassment#Wikihounding as is evidenced by his insertion into a discussion I initiated on on another Wikipedian's talk page and his follow up edits to articles I had gotten involved in, e.g. [93]. ['kɔbɹa]☠ 05:20, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Really, I do not understand you. I only have added "Skopje, Republic of Macedonia" as a birthplace of this person above. You have maybe some prejudice against me. Jingiby (talk) 05:27, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Ironic. "Many users track other users' edits, although usually for collegial or administrative purposes. This should always be done carefully, and with good cause, to avoid raising the suspicion that an editor's contributions are being followed to cause them distress ... hounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing". ['kɔbɹa]☠ 05:32, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Jingiby is Bulgarian -- he naturally has more access to Bulgarian sources. You could open a dialogue with him about how to best observe wiki policies. Have you tried that? Have you tried bringing up specific issues, besides accusations of hounding? --Calthinus (talk) 05:36, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

All Wikipedia articles are edited collaboratively. No one, no matter how skilled, or how high-standing in the community, has the right to act as though they are the owner of a particular page. My only edit above is not a hounding. Such claim is ridiculouse. Jingiby (talk) 05:40, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

This seems to be content dispute, not sth for ANI/I. Such situations are normal on Balkan articles. I have been accused for being "pro-Albanian" and "anti-Albanian". I suggest all Balkan editors to take things easy. Ktrimi991 (talk) 06:02, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Hm, I have been accused to be Bulgarian traitor, Turk, Pomak, etc., but also Bulgarian nationalist, POV-pusher, anti-Macedonian etc. Jingiby (talk) 06:23, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

It's ok man, I'm alleged simultaneously an "Albanian", a "Greek motherfucker", a "Turk", a "mountain warrior", a "Zionist conspirator", a "Turk in disguise as a 'Russian'", an "Islamist", and more :). They're kinda like bottlecaps, the more you collect, the better it gets :). --Calthinus (talk) 06:32, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

@Calthinus: Do you remember when someone suggested me to "enrich" ISIL articles? These things make Wikipedia a funny place. Content disputes are not to be brought to ANI/I. Ktrimi991 (talk) 06:38, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

• I am surprised to see user Jiginby being reported as being POV because this was not the case at all, at least for me. His contributions to numerous articles across Wikipedia on Balkan topic area, have been welcome. It is very easy to accuse others of WP:Hounding, but fact is: observing the contributions of other editors allow us to understand better where can we participate and how can we assist with our own contributions, as the contributions log gives us a more complete picture of where discussion takes place, on which articles and for which scope. I really do believe Jiginby didn't had ill intentions here and that the Admins take in consideration how much this user has offered with his input. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 07:48, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Umm, just as a note, if "had been blocked numerous times for edit warring and nationalistic POV-pushing on such topics" was a valid reason for blocking Jingiby, then the user filing this report, should be blocked, too. I remember you from the days of your previous accounts, plus the way you started out with this one. The fact that you've waited a couple of years before filing this, does not change those facts. I really fail to see any good faith in this case. Also, I do not think content disputes should lead to a block. --Laveol ^T 07:54, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I didn't "wait" for anything. If you look at my last 200 contributions you will see edits I made almost ten years ago with more frequent edits in the last week or so which explains the timing. Furthermore, this report has to do with recent trends so your attempt at tu quoque here is unwarranted (and for the record, I was blocked at once for harrasment on an old account, not on multiple occasions). It should also be noted that every responder thus far has a stake in this (being seemingly either Bulgarian, Albanian or Greek) and are by no means giving an impartial opinion. And this is not a content dispute, it is an infringement of various Wikipedia policies and I reported it here at the suggestion of an administrator (who I asked confidentially because Jingiby monitors all my contributions). ['kɔbɹa]☠ 08:18, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Interesting how someone who hasn't contributed in a while suddenly comes out of the woodwork to give their two cents. Well connected, I see. Touché. ['kɔbɹa]☠ 08:31, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I usually get a bit agitated when a long-time-no-see user starts pushing for other users to be blocked without any proper reason. Especially given said user's history. --Laveol ^T 11:55, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Is this some kind of spy movie: (who I asked confidentially because Jingiby monitors all my contributions)? You are free to check all my contributions and to change my edits and also to discuss them, man. This is a free encyclopedia. Jingiby (talk) 08:33, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: Is this a request to block the user based on his supposed POV-pushing? I don't really see any evidence for that. The sole example is an article which arguably needs some work, but is well-sourced and presents a subject that exists (Macedonian historiography). Is this a content dispute? If it is, then this isn't the place to address it. There's no issue at hand that would merit an incident report here, to be honest. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 08:35, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I didn't realise I had to scrutinise all his contributions like he does mine to make a case. I'll try to be more conniving next time. ['kɔbɹa]☠ 08:49, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

• G'day. This spilled over onto my talk page for some unfathomable reason. I know of Jingiby from a bit of interaction on Yugoslavia-related articles, but am not familiar with the quality of their work. I am not seeing anything actionable here. I suggest the talk pages of the various articles are used to deal with any issues that may have arisen, and dispute resolution such as RfCs are used if the editors can't agree. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:53, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

The post on your talk page was a catalyst for this report as it is a good indication (as with other instances) that the user in question is following me. ['kɔbɹa]☠ 08:57, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I think you're barking up the wrong tree here, mate. As I said, use normal dispute resolution avenues in the first instance. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:13, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

The talk-page of Peacemaker67 is on my watchlist since years from the time we have discussed with him about some Yugoslavia-related articles. The suggestion of ['kɔbɹa] yesterday on that talk-page "to merge the article World War II in Yugoslav Macedonia to its parent subject"(?) looked very unclear to me and because I have some edits there, I decided to participate in this conversation. The result was very strange: this discussion. Jingiby (talk) 09:16, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

So in other words I should not listen to the suggestions of administrators. Got it. ['kɔbɹa]☠ 09:22, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Maybe it would be better at first to ask the other editor about his intention and motivation and if there is a problem, to discuss the issue with an admin. In this case your suggestions are wrong. Jingiby (talk) 09:30, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Your sophistry would be commendable if it wasn't so transparent. [94] -- That's the same date you create the historiography article, isn't it? ['kɔbɹa]☠ 09:38, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I will repeat myself: You are free to check all my contributions and to change my edits here and also to discuss them. This is a free encyclopedia. Jingiby (talk) 09:48, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

You call yourself "AntiFYROMizator" and called the Republic of Macedonia "Northernmacedonia" yet claim that my suggestion that you're pushing an agenda is false. I'd try to dismiss it too if I were you. ['kɔbɹa]☠ 09:51, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

You reverted an edit in which someone replaced "Republic of Macedonia" with "Northern Macedonia", so doesn't that also make you a hypocrite? ['kɔbɹa]☠ 09:54, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I am against the use of the abbreviation FYROM and I never used it. That means I am "AntiFYROMizator". More, I oppose to every person here to use FYROM. I think also that the proposed new name Northern Macedonia is more accurate and I admit the Prespa agreement. However, I don't use it here for now, because I am waiting on the results of the referendum in R. of Macedonia. Regards.Jingiby (talk) 09:59, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Right. I assume both of you know about the ARBMAC sanctions. I know Jingiby does. I see no evidence that Jingiby has breached the rules regarding Macedonia and the naming issue. I suggest you drop this and walk away from the carcass. I'm going to hat this shortly as it has gone as far as it needs to. Discussion should be on talk pages re: content issues, this is not a forum for discussion of Macedonia. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:11, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

An IP is trying to start an SPI involving me

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

---

Anyone fancy taking a look at Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/Wpsunbit and 2602:306:3357:BA0:7987:5A43:B686:D610 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)? DuncanHill (talk) 21:43, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Yup, I've been added to this list as well. Orphan Wiki 21:52, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

IP has been blocked for repeated vandalism here at ANI. I trust that the SPI will be treated with the respect it deserves. --David Biddulph (talk) 22:04, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Orphan Wiki 22:05, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Afd voting to become autoconfirmed

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

---

See the Afd votes at Special:Contributions/Vanguard_Funny. The user clearly voted generically at several Afds in order to become autoconfirmed (next edit was to Carr Fire, which is protected). Since this edit was in good faith, I really don't care that they're autoconfirmed, but should the votes be kept? Home Lander (talk) 00:10, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Didn't look into the votes, but I'll note that Vanguard is still not autoconfirmed, and Carr Fire is not protected (expired yesterday). Someguy1221 (talk) 00:13, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Well now it doesn't even matter since they've just gone bad faith, blanking repeatedly. Home Lander (talk) 00:39, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

 Note: I have blocked this account as a vandalism-only account and reverted all of their participation at AfD. Mz7 (talk) 00:54, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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?

I'm not sure what the editor is implying here, but some might interpret that as a legal threat. Strikerforce^Talk 21:03, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

And some might just revdel it and otherwise ignore it. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:09, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

That, too, yes. Cheers! Strikerforce^Talk 21:36, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Blocked user Gewingewin getting personal

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

---

Gewingewin was blocked earlier today for disruptive editing. They're getting a bit personal in their insults since then - see this one and used similar phrasing to others. Would an admin mind taking a look and consider revoking talk page access? Thank you. Ravensfire (talk) 16:32, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

I have revoked their talk page access. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:39, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Ravensfire (talk) 16:41, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Blythe (doll) and Allison Katzman

On 21 June 2018, an unregistered IPv4 user (50.232.227.106) edited Blythe (doll) article (diff), and left a message: "Added content and omitted incorrct content. Edit was made by the inventor, Allison Katzman."

If the user is really the creator of Blythe doll, Allison Katzman, should it be considered a case of WP:COI? (The user did not submit a source that supports the claim, anyway.) JSH-alive/^{talk/cont/mail} 09:26, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) If it is the inventor, it's a COI. However, on the internet, nobody knows you're a dog. More importantly, the edit was unsourced. Reverted for that reason. Kleuske (talk) 09:56, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I resemble that remark! -Roxy, the dog. barcus 12:29, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Pussy! Kleuske (talk) 12:41, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

User:CMPLPR

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

---

Travelxp is a television channel which shows travel programmes, owned by Celebrities Management Private Limited (CMPL) in India. Days ago, User:CMPLPR edited Travelxp article to add pufferies. The username implies either the user works at the company, or the account is run by the company; if it is true, it's against WP:COI. JSH-alive/^{talk/cont/mail} 05:20, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I've reported this to WP:UAA. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 05:54, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

User has been soft-blocked so that they can create a new account or request a username change. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:38, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

• OK the username has been softblocked, but the COI can continue on Travelxp via a different name, so that article needs more eyes and probably a COI tag on the talkpage. Softlavender (talk) 03:45, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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:24.185.76.170

User:24.185.76.170 is a new IP [[95]] that has not only jumped straight into editing controversial topics, but also their second edit was this [[96]] a post that implied a long standing ed who is aware of my interactions with 72bikers. It was however this [[97]], the PAs and soapboxing that has led me to report them. The fact I also suspect bolck evasion or (at least) a second account being used for civility breaching is besides the point [[98]]. We also have a nice dose of whataboutism [[99]], [[100]]. I think it is clear this user is not here for any other reason then to POV push.Slatersteven (talk) 14:42, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Their comments appear to include, besides obvious soapboxing: personal attacks; scattered and off-topic subjects that can be included under the umbrella of OTHERTHINGS; no clear suggestions to improve article content; comments which indicate a familiarity with Slatersteven and are targeted harassment of him. They are NOTHERE and should be blocked. A CU would also be nice to block the real account behind these attacks. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:33, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

I had not thought about a CU, as I said I think they already are blocked.Slatersteven (talk) 16:36, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

That would make the case for a CU even stronger, IOW they deserve a lengthening of their block for block evasion. The blocked human being behind any username or IP must not touch edit buttons at Wikipedia. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 17:07, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

What "controversial topic" did I edit, "Steven?" Besides simply pointing out non-neutral and inappropriate standards of evidence on several talk pages? In fact, I don't think I've even made a change to an actual article in a very long time (yes, I post on whatever IP is associated with my internet connection, no point in having an account). Also, what "block" did I evade? Never happened. And if you think I'm lying, why don't you demonstrate it. The only account I did use has no blocking/suspension or any type of disciplinary action associated with it, ever. And you can look at every edit I ever made. I just don't like the lax and extremely non-neutral standard of evidence that you and others introduce on certain political topics, which I demonstrated with exact examples. You just seem to struggle with those and try to reply with empty threats and claims of personalizing which go nowhere. I don't care about you personally except for a bad standard of editing, and I don't care if you don't like me pointing it out. 24.185.76.170 (talk) 21:26, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

A topic can just as much be the topic we are talking about (I.E the Trump stuff). I think the above shows the user is here to right great wrongs, and I think this is in fact being used to sock now. Keep the main account clean whilst using IP's to fight the good fight.Slatersteven (talk) 09:10, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

A clear indication they have nothing but contempt for both out polices and other users [101], they practically admit that is why they do not use a named account. Because they "not subject to the opinions of people like yourself.", a clear statement that they are not interested in cooperation.Slatersteven (talk) 09:28, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

I didn't "edit a controversial topic," "Steven." I added a comment to the talk page, about patterns of non-neutral behavior with specific examples. You tried to argue but couldn't address those examples and instead went here to try to silence my account. Just like you do with your editing, you dishonestly try to use phrases that suggest that I was vandalizing the page itself, just like you dishonestly try to suggest that I criticize wikipedia as a whole. That's not going to work, "Steven." Trying to silence people who disagree with you by attacking random IP numbers is not going to work either. You attempt to clothe improper behavior as "protecting wikipedia," which is a subconscious method of projecting one's own biases while pretending to be objective. Just like emphasizing negative information about politicians that a "labour voter" would dislike and concealing negative information about political topics and people who you do like is how non-neutral POV creeps into articles about Trump, Fox, CNN, the Russia investigation, and other things, many of which I've commented on and pointed out specifically, with the only responses being things like "it's not disproven," or "you think Trump is honest??" Attack numbers all you want, that's not going to fix the situation. The non-objective editing is there, I can and will continue to point it out with clear examples on the talk pages, as is appropriate on this site. 100.35.112.60 (talk) 14:41, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

It is not what you are doing it is how you are doing it. It is clear you are not here to do anything more then push a POV, and aggressively do so.Slatersteven (talk) 08:40, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I went out of my way to demonstrate exactly the issue and what I've done, including pointing out your own inaccurate claims about me "editing controversial topics" and apparently attacking wikipedia as a whole instead of taking issue with the non-neutral behavior in very specific circumstances. It's good to see that you refer to what I'm doing, pointing out things like the presence of a Criticism section on Fox and no criticism section on CNN, where the separate page can simply be migrated over, so there's equal representation of the criticism of both (which I demonstrated was by noteworthy sources) where readers can make their own judgement, as "pov," when it's the opposite. A specific suggestion that would create neutral POV. Which, by the way, is reflected already on the Fox News main page with a warning box. As is obvious, you have absolutely no defense for any of it and no substantive reply. Which is exactly the problem. Refusal to change non-neutral POV when it's demonstrated to be non-neutral. 100.35.112.60 (talk) 12:08, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I've said as mush.

-EEng

I very rarely say this for a first offence (in fact never have) but I think the attitude is such that they will continue to be disruptive (and have said as mush. I think therefore a site ban is needed. But then I am positive this is not a first offence, and (the user themselves admits) they are an experienced ed (and are using the IP just to be able to use language they are not allowed to). The fact we cannot verify what other accounts they may have had (or any bans) makes it clear that we need a CU, and maybe a range block.09:35, 3 August 2018 (UTC)Slatersteven (talk)

I've seen you doing that before, Steven. Claiming that someone "hates wikipedia as a whole," when they are criticizing your own behavior. With examples. It didn't work for you then either. Your own lax standards are not wikipedia's standards. As I also said, I use whatever random IP I get at the time because there's no point in me having an account. I didn't see it so stopped bothering. If the side effect is that I'm not friends with you, I don't care. you're welcome to try to ban the random IP's of people who disagree with your demonstrated bias, but it won't actually do anything. 24.185.76.170 (talk) 13:16, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

And we now have this [[102]], whose tone and nature match the above.Slatersteven (talk) 08:32, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

See above. Not a single substantive reply to substantive points. 100.35.112.60 (talk) 12:08, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

• Having looked over the comments in this thread, I believe that the best option may indeed be to block the "random IPs". Icarosaurvus (talk) 17:16, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Issues at Sarah Jeong

To summarize my removal of contentious BLP content here:

I removed content for which Abecedare themself admits that there is no consensus for including. Read Talk:Sarah Jeong#Proposal/question – "In my tentative read, in the above survey the rough order of support is 2>3>1 at this moment." this comment by Abecedare has to do with the number of support votes, not necessarily consensus; "in interest of time" is no excuse because BLP; With regards to Abecedare's comment "And by discussion, I do mean establishing consensus." it's not okay because Abecedare unilaterally forced editors to remove it with consensus without having consensus to add it themself (and basically admiting it) which violates the WP:NOCON for BLP. wumbolo ^^^ 20:59, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Since this concerns the discretionary sanctions I implemented under the BLP AE, I believe WP:AN would be the right venue to appeal the restrictions I implemented at Sarah Jeong. Abecedare (talk) 21:03, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Abecedare, I can't even figure out what "this" is, it's so poorly written. Drmies (talk) 21:19, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Comment: I posted elsewhere and think I should mention again here that I think controversial and inappropriate edits were allowed to the page without any sort of discussion or consensus after the page had been locked. The only edits that were NOT allowed to the page were edits about the reason the subject was controversial; edits that fluffed up the subject's career were seemingly added without discretion or discussion. I would have opposed many of them as being WP:TOOMUCH or WP:UNDUE, or possibly even WP:INDISCRIMINATE, but time for discussion was not allowed if the edit was a positive one about the subject. Ikjbagl (talk) 21:20, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

• I believe that the false claim of the article having been "fluffed" was countered well enough. Ikjbagl, since you seem to be unable to drop that ball, and you're bringing it into this wider forum, are you even aware that you are hereby accusing Abecedare, an admin since 2015 with a clean block log and over 27,000 edits, and author of 32 articles, of having an agenda in editing the article? "Fluff"--meaning non-neutral editing? Do you think they're on the take? Whereas you have spent 1/3 of all your edits on this project, which you joined two months ago, on this one single article? Are you familiar with WP:SPA and WP:NPOV? I think you've been warned about the discretionary sanctions, and I'm hoping that one of our admins will judge whether any apply to you. It may well be that such an admin says that you are too new to be punished very harshly for your disruptive, timesinking, and accusatory battlefield editing--by the same token, you should consider that maybe editors with many times more the edits you've made actually know our policies better. Wikipedia is not a place to unload your partypolitical buzzwords on living people. Drmies (talk) 21:39, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

• • I think your comment here is really unnecessary. I don't know what you mean by my claim being "countered", and there is no reason for you to go digging through my history to disparage my edits to the page. I have worked very hard to find neutral, non-opinionated sources on this issue and have mostly cited BBC, CNN, NBC, etc., reputable news organizations. I have also tried very hard to propose neutral, non-opinionated language to add to the page. I did not accuse Abedecare of having an agenda, all I said is that I don't think his edits were appropriate, and I explained why (because there was no consensus reached). I think it's incredibly rude for you to accuse me of having "disruptive, timesinking, and battlefield editing" when I have tried very hard to propose neutral edits to a contentious page. The fact that I am a new editor should not matter one bit; if I am misunderstanding or misstating the policies, then it is certainly possible for someone to point that out politely without going off like you have done here. Ikjbagl (talk) 21:44, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

• Additionally, it's ridiculous for you to judge me based on the fact that many of my edits have been to this page- of course they have! This is a contentious page right now, and this is the first time I have been involved in a page like that. But if you looked at my userpage, you would see very quickly that I have worked much harder on other articles, mostly this one: Utilis Coquinario, but I have also worked on Meristem and Trophic state index. Ikjbagl (talk) 21:50, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

• You're totally missing the point. If you don't know how a place works and what the rules are, don't barge in and start pretending you lived there forever. If you worked harder at other articles, keep at it: this is obviously not your forte. As for your BS accusation of fluff, which you've made in various places, I responded here, the last time you wasted everyone's time on this noticeboard. If you don't know what "fluff" means, and what associations it has in a place like this, and if you can't understand what the burden is of administrators who try to protect the BLP while simultaneously accede to reasonable editor request and implement consensus requests, then don't drag them off to noticeboards--and don't use the word "fluff". Yes, a third of your edits are to this article and related matters. Yes, you have contributed very little that I can tell, except that you raised the temperature and are wasting our time, you and that other editor both--not to mention all the other right-wing activists who have jumped on this woman's biography under the guise of being interested in improving our beautiful project. Drmies (talk) 01:04, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm participating in a discussion. Nobody is forcing you to be here and read this and leave rude comments about me; you may leave at any time, or you may ignore my responses and stop responding to me. And if you're really that concerned about wasting people's time, maybe you had better stop doing it. Nobody is forcing you to post these long critiques of me here; if you've got a problem, message me or put it on my talk page, you're doing nothing productive posting this here but talking crap about me. Ikjbagl (talk) 02:09, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Comments at ANI should attempt to correct problematic behavior, and that's what Drmies is doing. Dismissing the advice is a typical WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT response. What you should do is work out what point is being made and strive to fix the problem. No one gets points for clever debating tactics here. Johnuniq (talk) 03:56, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Cool, then make your own topic about me if you really think my behavior is that problematic. If you think it's appropriate to post things like this about users who have tried very hard to contribute neutral content, then I really don't want to be part of Wikipedia anyway: Ikjbagl (talk) 04:37, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

you have contributed very little that I can tell, except that you raised the temperature and are wasting our time, you and that other editor both--not to mention all the other right-wing activists who have jumped on this woman's biography under the guise of being interested in improving our beautiful project. Drmies (talk) 01:04, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Across all the different proposals, there is a rough consensus for the inclusion of the matter at hand. The incident involving her tweets I mean. It is currently properly sourced by reliable sources, complies with WP:BLP with impeccable sources such as BBC, Associated Press via ABC, and citing the New York Times article itself. What is disagreed upon is the actual wording of the content in the article and perhaps the significance to her biography. Before the article was given full protection, there was a lot of edit warring, name calling, claims of bias, etc. Administrator Abecedare definitely had authority to enact these discretionary sanctions per WP:BLPDS, and I am thankful for them. The actual instituting of this version of events satisfies the immediate concern for editors who wanted to see -any- version of the events in the article. There are no less than 8 different proposals for different wording. That is rather insane given the context and its single event. Tutelary (talk) 21:32, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I respect the authority to enact the sanctions, but to me the sanctions seem like a breach of WP:ADMINACCT, for not following this part of WP:NOCON policy:

However, for contentious matters related to living people, a lack of consensus often results in the removal of the contentious matter, regardless of whether the proposal was to add, modify or remove it.

So if there is disagreement on the wording (therefore multiple proposals to modify the imposed status quo), the material should be removed. Cheers, wumbolo ^^^ 21:38, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

For those not steeped in the Sarah Jeong talkpage discussion, here are my observations as an uninvolved admin who had protected the article on Aug 2, and have been following the talkpage discussion since then:

• As Tutelary says, there was clear consensus about including something properly sourced and BLP-compliant in the article about the tweet controversy
• There was IMO a tentative consensus that among the options for how exactly to include the material, Option 2 was the best one (and, certainly BLP compliant)
• As I explicitly spelled out on the talkpage, I implemented the tentative consensus, while the discussion continues possibly for a few more days to determine the stable consensus. This was done so that the article could be reopened for editing by non-admins and the other sections improved (see previous discussion on this page as to why that was desirable).
• At the time the page was to be unprotected, I implemented a BLPDS to prevent editors from warring over the tweet-controversy without discussing the issue on the talkpage.
• User:Wumbolo disregarded the edit-restriction despite being aware of it, but I let it go with just a warning
• They filed this complaint against me for purportedly violating BLP!

Abecedare (talk) 22:11, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Oh I forgot to mention: User:Ikjbagl is another editor who violated the editing-restriction, but let off with a warning instead of a block. So of course, they are here too. :) Abecedare (talk) 22:19, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I did apologize and say that I missed that, did I not? I can apologize a second time: I'm sorry, I missed that- I saw the silver lock and I thought that meant auto-confirmed users could edit. And it looks like you TOLD wumbolo on their talk page to initiate this here if they disagreed; accordingly, wumbolo has done so. Ikjbagl (talk) 22:28, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Please don't misrepresent my words to me. What I told Wumbolo was: You can appeal the editing restriction I implemented at WP:AN, but you cannot simply flout it. This is neither the suggested venue nor the subject of their complaint. Abecedare (talk) 22:35, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

@Abecedare: Oh geez, I'm sorry, I guess I'll apologize one more time: I didn't realize that this was not WP:AN. I just saw that this was also called "Administrator's Noticeboard" and figured they were the same thing, didn't realize there was a separate "Incidents" page. I just looked them both up to learn what the difference is. Ikjbagl (talk) 22:42, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

• The inclusion of the content has already been substantially delayed by the full protection, despite an obvious consensus to include it in some form. Nothing unreasonable about finding a rough starting point to go from while the details are hammered out and the consensus restriction was obviously never meant to delay the inclusion longer. This is a baseless complaint, IMO, and Abecedare is doing the best they possibly can to maintain order in a shitshow of a situation. Swarm ♠ 23:31, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
• I would like to comment on the following sequence of events:
  1. The page was blocked by the subject editor for 3 days, expiring 19:38 5 Aug.
  2. Editors contributed several proposals seeking consensus for inclusion of the twitter controversy, at least as early as 23:18, 2 August.
  3. During this time, the subject editor continued to monitor and edit the article (based on proposals on the TP), and to encourage consensus-building, for example, at 16:40, 3 August .
  4. At 16:47 on the day of the expiration, i.e., less than three hours before the expiry of the block, another editor created a "Survey" of the proposals, effectively starting from zero, as he pinged none of those who had been contributing for three days. One must underscore the starter of the "Survey" proposed "his own tweak" as candidate #2. Before he reset the score, his proposal had 4 favorables/2 negatives; another proposal had 17 favs/7negs
  5. The subject editor, who was participating quite actively in the TP in these final hours, raised no objections to this "Survey" process.
  6. At 19:22, the subject editor tallied the !votes on the "Survey" and since #2 had 5 favs/2 opposed, the subject editor pasted #2 into the article.
  Were the contributions of many editors for several days properly respected? XavierItzm (talk) 01:51, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: The "Survey" implemented by Galobtter (mentioned by XavierItzm above) is less than 24 hours old, and did not even include some of the options discussed (Winkelvi's for example). Perhaps it is premature to choose any of them and insert them into the article (unless as a provisional stop-gap), especially since there is as of yet no clear consensus. Perhaps remember that there is no rush. Maybe let things gel, especially on a BLP. If necessary, create an official WP:RFC. -- Softlavender (talk) 02:37, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Softlavender A provisional stop-gap is exactly what the current version is intended as. See my note on the article talkpage. Abecedare (talk) 04:12, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Except the "stop-gap" does not reflect the work of the community at large. And the community was not afforded courtesy pinging, nor a timeline. With just 16 minutes in an artificially-created deadline, all of the sudden, with no forewarning, the subject editor picked up the result of a made-up "survey" that had been in place for exactly 155 minutes, and despite the community toiling for days on end. XavierItzm (talk) 12:08, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

• Comment 2: I think Abecedare is doing an admirable job of holding down the fort and monitoring discussions while still ensuring that Wikipedia policies are complied with. Someone has to be watching over that article and talkpage, because it's full of people up in arms about things that were in the news cycle less than 24 hours, and a lot of those editors appear to be very POV and do not understand the importance of WP:BLP, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, and so on. Even if there is a head-count that "approves" a certain wording, something should not go into the article if it violates WP:BLP, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NPOV, or WP:UNDUE. If all else fails, the article should be reported at WP:BLPN if the talkpage hysteria gets overwhelming. Softlavender (talk) 04:43, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

• I would also like to compliment User:Abecedare for doing an excellent job in a tough situation. He's responsive, and as balanced as seems possible on this polarized talk page. --GRuban (talk) 14:13, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
• As would I. Being an Admin in areas such as this one makes you a target of every pov editor. No wonder we have problems getting good people to run. I agree with User:Softlavender that even if there's consensus of a wording, it isn't acceptable if it violates our policies. Doug Weller talk 15:18, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
• Me too; thanks to all admins, including Abecedare, for answering FPERs and doing the closing and archiving, making the talk page less unmanageable. wumbolo ^^^ 15:21, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Boomerang Time for Wumbolo ?

This thread, like the one above filed by User:Ikjbagl, is an inappropriate attack on administrator User:Abecedare with regard to Sarah Jeong, and possibly other articles that are being attacked as an outside-coordinated campaign. As with the above one, it is time to close it, either because there is no conduct issue, and certainly no administrative abuse, or via the WP:BOOMERANG. I think that there are conduct issues, but they involve the filing party, User:Wumbolo. I recommend, at a minimum, a topic ban from Sarah Jeong, or, better, a topic-ban from all BLPs. I also recommend an indefinite block, either for incompetence, or for being a jerk or a troll.

Robert McClenon (talk) 20:54, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

• NOTE that The Daily Caller is alerting its readers about the article and encouraging people to fight for inclusion of her tweets in the wiki article. So I think it's a good idea to block all of the SPAs and POV-warriors that are on that talkpage and article. Softlavender (talk) 21:46, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

  @Softlavender: And that has to do with me because... ? wumbolo ^^^ 21:51, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

• Wumbolo has such a bad habit of completely misreading things and utterly failing to understand WP:RS to suit his obvious POV, such as interpreting almost everyone here calling a source "not RS" or "partisan" as somehow being "judged reliable". The links I've provided were just from a quick five-minute search before I had to take my grandfather to his doctor. A topic ban from politics strikes me as a better idea. I have no idea what his edits are outside of politics are like. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:57, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) @Ian.thomson: you have time per WP:DEADLINE to compile evidence against someone. Unfortunately, here, your evidence is baseless, and misrepresents almost everything I said or did. For example, I claimed that the Daily Caller was deemed reliable and I linked to a different discussion than you now linked, and you linked a discussion about the Daily Wire, not the Daily Caller. wumbolo ^^^ 22:03, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

• Comment - User:Wumbolo - When you are in a hole, stop digging. The more Wumbolo argues with multiple administrators, the stronger the case is why a topic-ban is not sufficient and a Site-Ban (call it an indefinite block if you like) is needed. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:07, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Proposal

I wish Wikipedia would fight harder against the tide of news, but that doesn't seem to be on the cards. Here are the issues:

• Abecedare was the admin who protected the page. They should not be getting WP:involved in content issues at all -- which they did by implementing this text themselves -- through full protection, no less. Someone else should have assessed consensus.
• The inserted text has had no consensus, and even the decision by Abecedare to include the text as a stopgap measure had no consensus.
• The article is very controversial and very polarized and the discussion is also polarized. We should do everything "by the book", so to speak.

  I am sure Abecedare acted out of the best intentions, but this action is completely against policy. The article was full-protected for almost three days, right at the height of the controversy. Why can't it stay that way until a firm consensus is found? There is no WP:DEADLINE.

  Here is what I propose: The text should be kept out. If there is to be a stopgap measure, there should be a discussion explicitly marked as such and properly attended, not just a random talk page discussion open for less than an hour where people mostly disagree. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 09:27, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Disruptive editor(s)

The following discussion is closed. 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: ZinedineZidane98 (talk · contribs), who has already been blocked six times in four years for disruptive editing [103], and in July received an indefinite topic ban from Linda Sarsour and related pages as well [104], is engaging in endless WP:IDHT WP:POV WP:BATTLEGROUND WP:DE on Talk:Sarah Jeong (just do a Control+F for his name). He has already received usertalk warnings about it from Paul Erik and Sangdeboeuf [105], [106], but instead of listening he is doubling down with his disruption. At this point I think it's actually a WP:CIR issue and that he cannot be rehabilitated (since July 2017 he has received a total of 50 usertalk warnings in addition to his blocks and TBan), but at the very least I think he merits a topic ban from Sarah Jeong at this point. Softlavender (talk) 09:25, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support topic ban from Sarah Jeong or from anti-racism activists, broadly construed on BLPs. per Doug Weller. Or longterm block for WP:DE, WP:TE, WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:POV, and WP:IDHT. -- Softlavender (talk) 10:03, 6 August 2018 (UTC); edited 20:25, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

LOL! "anti-racism activists, broadly construed"? So, would that be, people like Sarah Jeong then? Mel Gibson perhaps? :D Sorry to appear flippant, but you've gotta laugh at the absurdity of this. In addition to WP:DE, WP:TE, WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:POV, and WP:IDHT, what Softlavender doesn't know is that I also eat babies. ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 13:06, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support topic ban from edits involving BLPs. There was no recent DS notice on his page until this morning, so it would have to be a community action. Doug Weller talk 15:20, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
• Note: account blocked for a month by User:Bishonen for disruptive editing. Abecedare (talk) 16:06, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked. ZinedineZidane98 has been warned enough and disrupted enough and wasted enough of constructive editors' time IMO. I've blocked for a month, and if any admin wants to up it to an indef I'd be fine with that. Bishonen | talk 16:08, 6 August 2018 (UTC).
• I'd support an indef, considering that Bishonen has previously blocked for a month without effect. Zinedine only has 800 edits, but all of them are on controversial topics and all it seems in problematic ways (edit warring and personal attacks in Antisemitism in the Labour Party, just previously, and so on). Any topic ban would have to be far broader, would try including all hot button issues Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:14, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
• 7 blocks in 850 edits... that's about as high a ratio as I've ever seen. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:38, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support topic ban This user is blocked roughly once every 124 edits. I think this shows that there are, at the least, certain topics they should not be allowed near. I would also support an indef. Icarosaurvus (talk) 18:06, 6 August 2018 (UTC) Adding bold that I apparently neglected earlier. Icarosaurvus (talk) 20:44, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support indef block (in addition to TBan). The block should be extended to indefinite. This user has been more disruptive that any in recent memory. With 50+ talkpage warnings in the past year, seven blocks in four years, a topic ban which he is currently repeating the exact same type of behavior on at a very similar BLP, 25 (disruptive) edits to Talk: Sarah Jeong in less than 15 hours [107], and endlessly AfDing/PRODing Sarah Jeong and her book plus removing "Keep" !votes from that AfD, this is not a user who is here to work constructively to build/improve the encyclopedia. Softlavender (talk) 20:02, 6 August 2018 (UTC); edited 20:26, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

• Softlavender, you've !voted twice. Can you condense things?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:16, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

• After I posted my original !vote, the user was blocked by Bishonen, who invited any other admin to up it to indef, which I then responded to considering the user's behavior in the past 10 hours. (In case it isn't clear, I support both a topic ban and an indef block.) Softlavender (talk) 20:25, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support indef. Unfortunately, seven blocks in 865 edits feels like a pretty plain indication the message isn't getting through. I might've had optimism for a t-ban at an earlier stage but after seven blocks, to me it strains plausibility to think we wouldn't wind up back here. Innisfree987 (talk) 20:47, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support an indefinite block as a net negative and a jerk. I would support a Site Ban, but there is not much difference between an indef and a ban. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:58, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
• Indeffed; way, way too much of a time waster. Courcelles (talk) 21:04, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Calling shenanigans

The following discussion is closed. 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 with respect to User:ESparky who has been very active on the talk page.

I only this morning noticed that ESparky is a paid editor since October 2017, and while they disclose their employer they have not been disclosing their clients. See the notice here where they say "Various clients -- all edits commencing October 4, 2017" (bolding in the original).

User:Innisfree987 asked ESparky here if they are editing for pay on this page and asked about alt accounts (the latter question due to Esparky describing what happens at AfD and Innisfree not finding any history of contribs at AfD) ; ESparky replied, clearly answering the question about whether they are being paid on this page, but not answering the question about alt accounts.

They have not directly edited the Sarah Jeung page.

However they have made 70 edits to talk. Many of them are repeating the same point, BLUDGEON style (e.g diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, etc.

I have informed them that they are in violation of PAID and have asked them to stop doing anything else, until they provide full disclosure. Their responses there were to say that they stopped paid editing a while ago and to remove the disclosures from their userpage and talk page altogether (diff, diff). That was very much the wrong answer. They have still not fully disclosed their clients etc for all their paid edits.

I also followed up with ESparky about alt accounts at User_talk:ESparky#Alt_accounts; and their responses have gone from flimsy evasion to simply strange, now referring to themselves as "we".

This sort of shenanigans while editing for pay and editing a white hot topic, is unwise at best, and smells very bad at worst. I will not recommend any action but wanted to call folks attention to this.

I'll post at COIN about their paid edits more broadly. Jytdog (talk) 20:19, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Huh. They did edit the article on Jeong's book The Internet of Garbage, at one point removing a reference and claiming that it was "a paid interview". XOR'easter (talk) 22:08, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Their justification for calling that a "paid interview" was the "sponsored content" label at the bottom of the Toast piece, as they wrote here. I pointed out here that the "sponsored content" tag is a header for the links below it, not a label for what is above it. ESparky acknowledged their error here; that was after they made the edit to the book page. I don't know if they really believed what they wrote or this was shenanigans; those "sponsored content" sections are common as dirt on online news articles. Jytdog (talk) 22:34, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Well--I did ask the question for a reason, namely that while much of the sturm und drang over there doesn't seem unusual (in or out; if in how much), I was perplexed by ESparky's repeated insistence on mentioning one particular outlet (Reason) and a person with only a very tenuous connection to the issue (Norton) by name... But now this exchange really feels above my paygrade, so I'm going to impose to ping Kudpung, who is both uninvolved in the content debate and expert in some of the broader issues this may raise, and defer to his judgment on the matter. Thank you Kudpung for the time to look at this if you can spare it. Please let me know if you need any additional information from me. Innisfree987 (talk) 04:19, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Innisfree987, I'll take a look when I get home from work tonight. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:46, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Very much obliged. If you start with Jytdog's exchange at User_talk:ESparky#Alt_accounts, I suspect you'll quickly see why I thought you'd know best whether it needs more attention, will appreciate your advice in whatever direction. Innisfree987 (talk) 04:56, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

@Innisfree987 and Jytdog:, there is a blatant evasive flavour coming from this editor along with the admission of having created multiple accounts. I'm 99.99% inclined to a) indef, and b) get a friendly CU to do a search and block any old accounts that can still be located, any sleepers, and a range block if necessary. If there are no objections, that's what I'll do. Jty can then decide what he would like me to do with any affected articles. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:41, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

None from me. I will post at COIN about the other stuff. This thread is already long and should remain focused on the Jeong page. Jytdog (talk) 13:20, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Sounds right to me. Appreciate your attention to it, thank you Kudpung. Innisfree987 (talk) 15:01, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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: 203.122.193.21 - vandalism only account

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

---

Requesting immediate permanent block of User: IP 203.122.193.21. Account is used for repeated vandalism, see here: [108], [109], [110], [111] and [112]. regards Mztourist (talk) 03:37, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Mztourist, the place to report vandals is WP:AIV. -- Softlavender (talk) 03:56, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

We don't do indefinite blocks on IP addresses. Most of those edits are pretty old. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:01, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Softlavender Noted thanks will raise it there. NinjaRobotPirate Indefinite block is only suitable remedy, has been warned 9 times since July 2017. Mztourist (talk) 04:54, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

@Mztourist: We don't indefinitely block IP addresses. Full stop. Generally, the longest we will block an IP address is 1 year at a time, but we simply don't do indef an IP for vandalism; truly static IPs that are known to belong to a single person for all of eternity are not a thing, so there's no utility for blocking an IP indefinitely. We can't stop someone by doing that, but what we will do is stop good-faith edits from the next person who happens to get that IP address, which we don't want to do. One-year blocks are sufficient, if it starts again in 1 year, we'll block again for 1 year. We can keep up with that pace. --Jayron32 15:08, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

You'd think someone who'd been here this long would know these things. Drmies (talk) 00:40, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

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

164.163.135.156 @ Ajaib Singh

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

---

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

I already posted a request at the Indian topics noticeboard for content/manual-of-style issues. However this is about behavioral ones: this editor trolls at my talk page (insults and baseless threats). I tried to explain that we have a manual of style, to no avail. A few diffs: Special:Diff/853940888, Special:Diff/853941370, Special:Diff/853942224 (after I deleted the first two posts, this was slightly better and I replied), Special:Diff/853943797. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 00:27, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Hmm seems to be a long-standing issue... Special:Diff/677851693, Special:Diff/806012625, (and maybe Special:Diff/429362110). I guess it's best to just ignore per WP:DENY and request article protection when necessary... —PaleoNeonate – 01:28, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

A few more recent posts (after this report): Special:Diff/853958874, Special:Diff/853959701 —PaleoNeonate – 02:24, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

• Warned by Titodutta and currently inactive. —PaleoNeonate – 23:57, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Sarah Jeong disruption

I would really appreciate if an administrator could step in and review what's going on in this talk page: Talk:Sarah Jeong. I would also request that the edits which have been hastily pushed through in the past two days (without community consensus on a locked, contentious page) be reverted so they can be voted on as they are supposed to be and so that consensus can be reached. It would seem appropriate to revert the page back to this version [113] at this time so that those edits pushed through can be reconsidered; I would have personally argued against many of them as being non-notable bits of information designed to fluff up an article about a controversial figure (See also: Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Due_and_undue_weight).

See my first request for administrator attention here: Talk:Sarah_Jeong#Request_for_administrator_attention_Re:_article_protected_status

Thank you kindly, Ikjbagl (talk) 11:22, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

This is a content issue, which ANI doesn't deal with. You can seek dispute resolution, but if you open a case there you will need to point out what it is in the current version that is controversial, in comparison to the old version you linked to. --bonadea contributions talk 11:35, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

The discussion at the article talkpage is a mess with editors apparently retreating to their ideological corners and talking past each other (contrast the proposed additions and the sources being discussed in these two sections), unfortunately reflecting the real-world response to this controversy. And, while additional admin attention is welcome, User:Drmies and I are already are keeping an eye at the page and what is really needed is involvement of neutral editors experienced with WP:NPOV and WP:BLP policies. I'll re-post a request at WP:BLPN.

As for the edits made after the page was protected, those are routine non-controversial improvements (implemented by me in response to open {{edit-protected}} requests on the page) that I believe shouldn't be held hostage to the unrelated dispute over the tweet-controversy. If any other admin disagrees, please let me know here or on my talkpage. Abecedare (talk) 15:04, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

• Abecedare, I saw the good work you were doing there and I thank you for it--and I saw you got shit for thanks in response to your quick response to edit requests. I have taken a less active approach than you, since my first foray into the article. For one, it's all so hot off the press, and there's so many new editors coming from a very specific angle, and so many of them simply aren't aware of our policies, that frequently diving into that talk page is just a waste of time. I wanted to leave a single note the other day and spent ten minutes first wading through the history just to figure out who wrote what among all those unsigned, undated, unindented messages. In the meantime someone opened up a thread at DRN (because NOT-NOTNEWS...), and I just dropped a note on the ArbCom noticeboard since this has GAMERGATE written all over it. Drmies (talk) 15:19, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it's a hydra sprouting tentacles a la Gamergate! Since I logged on an hour back, I've responded to related posts at the article talkpage, my talkpage, here at ANI, and at BLPN. And that's leaving aside discussions at Talk:Kevin D. Williamson, DRN, the arbcom talkpage, and who knows where else. <smh> Abecedare (talk) 15:30, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

• Wait, Ikjbagl. If you think that the difference between this and this is fluffing, you don't know much about article writing. For starters, compare the leads: the one is just a collection of loose factoids followed by the acme of weakness, "and has also written articles ..." with links to, guess, what, those articles, not secondary sources; the other is short, elegant, and summarizes the article. I see what you're doing, though, and wish you good luck with it. Let me just note that this article is subject to discretionary sanctions, and blackballing the admin who made the uncontroversial edits that improved the article and were suggested on the talk page is not a good way to start this off. Drmies (talk) 15:24, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Drmies and Abecedare, I'm seeing a serious problem here. There's a quite substantial amount of coverage about racism here, and not just from partisan references. ([114], [115] (CNN isn't exactly known as a right-wing mouthpiece), [116] (the BBC is hardly noted as being partisan either). When the material is that well-covered, it is not a BLP issue, it is a content dispute. Full protection and suppression of the issue is absolutely inappropriate here. That's use of protection in a quite legitimate case of a content dispute. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:53, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

The protection has been applied not to suppress mention of the issue, but to allow editors to arrive at a consensus on how to mention it. See the note I left on the article talkpage when I raised the protection level from semi to full. Abecedare (talk) 15:59, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Seraphimblade: Judging from the amount of edit warring that was going on I fail to see how full protection can be called "absolutely inappropriate". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:00, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

It was an edit warring and BLP issue. If you think (as you seem to suggest below) that the BLP is satisfied as long as content is verified, then you are wrong. Moreover, kindly look at this edit, for instance, and note that there is no secondary sourcing. And afterward, when some secondary sourcing is in, all while this matter is piping hot and nothing is settled in the press, there is a serious question of UNDUE.Seraphimblade, surely you know, as an admin, that the BLP is much more complicated than just "it's verified". Drmies (talk) 16:33, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, Drmies, the question is always "Verified by whom?" If an editor puts into an article "John Doe molested 50 children", with no source, that's most certainly a BLP issue and should be handled as such. If they put in the same edit "referenced" to a crappy, unreliable source, same applies. On the other hand, if they put in "Doe was accused of molesting children", and reference that to highly reliable sources indicating Doe does indeed face such an accusation, that is not a BLP issue. In this case, highly reliable sources cover the accusation of racism regarding this individual. How and whether to present those accusations are a content question, not a BLP question, and are properly resolved by discussion on the talk page, not use of protection. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:32, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Sorry Seraphimblade, but for the duration of that edit war they were "verified" by the tweets themselves, with editorial commentary thrown in for good measure. You know that's not acceptable. Secondary sourcing came later--with the "UNDUE" accusation in response, which also needs to be taken seriously. And "highly reliable source" is also a misnomer in this case, as first of all coverage is still developing and second corrections and modifications are made--didn't that happen to the NYT article? It sounds as if you're speaking in general, not about this article in specific. But in general, if that's what you prefer, in BLPs we should err on the side of caution, as editors and as admins. Drmies (talk) 17:44, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

I've tossed a suggestion based on NOT#NEWS/RECENTISM to wait it out two weeks to see if the coverage is still there.

As a broader point, we need this type of hold-off-and-wait approach on a LOT more of these ideologically driven controversies, regardless which way the wind is blowing in them. While externally the controversy seems manufactured, internally, I think the increased interest in the article from new/IP editors, based on comments there, is due what would appear to be hypocritical nature in how WP covers these types of controversies (we rush and have no problem including criticism of the right, but take a lot of care to consider criticism of the left), which I think needs to be taken into account in how this overall editing behavior and content problem should be handled. Hence the wait-and-see delay. --Masem (t) 16:09, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The "amount of edit warring" was mainly by one editor who repeatedly reverted (way over 3RR), falsely claiming "BLP" when in fact the issue is well sourced. There are administrative actions which are appropriately suited to handling that, but full protection of the article on that editor's preferred version aren't it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:11, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Look again. Edit warring just continued right on happening after the one editor was blocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:36, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

See also this related thread on BLPN (not about the same subject, but others in the same recent campaign, it seems). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:16, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

In my view, the protection should be allowed to expire tomorrow. Anyone who cares to get blocked under discretionary sanctions is welcome to.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:20, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

I haven’t dug to deep into this but this sounds like the kind of “cut the crap” approach I am generally in favor of. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:31, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

That is how I intended it.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:36, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

At least worth a try. I'll alert the current participant of the applicable BLP ruling later today (anyone is welcome to beat me to it). Abecedare (talk) 19:36, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

• Note - A thread was filed at the dispute resolution noticeboard by the filing party for this dispute. It has been closed for various reasons, including lack of an identified content dispute, and that it is forum shopping when this thread is also open. Also, if an editor doesn't know how to determine what administrator has been making non-contentious edits through protection in response to edit requests, please ask for advice at the teahouse or the Help Desk rather than dragging the whole community to DRN. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:42, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Why do you place it in the passive voice when you closed it? Asking for a friend.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:47, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Why did I state in the passive voice that it was closed rather than in the active voice that I closed it? Because two other editors had said that they thought it was not an appropriate dispute for DRN, so that I was not merely acting on my own but with (I think) their concurrence. In any case, it isn't a good dispute for DRN, whether or not it is a good dispute for ANI. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:31, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. Were these from neutral editors or people who had participated in the edit war?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:07, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

One of the other two editors was User:Drmies, a respected administrator who was trying to resolve the edit war. The other editor was another DRN volunteer, entirely neutral, who thought that it was not a good fit for DRN. DRN isn't designed to handle cases with 28 named editors. The one dispute resolution procedure that is appropriate with 28 or more identified editors is a Request for Comments, in which all of the editors can !vote. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:52, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I've gone and checked out the article history and the participation of the people you name. Thank you for your candor.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:09, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, thanks for the kind adjective--that's the second time today, so it must be true! Srsly, your note made me realize that indeed there was supposed to be (sorry for the passive, Wehwalt) dispute resolution with 28 PARTIES. Holy moly! So I guess you closed it? That makes sense. Drmies (talk) 02:00, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I closed it for multiple reasons, including the 28 parties. The only method of dispute resolution that works with 28 parties is an RFC. Normally a dispute resolution request with more than about 8 parties is a device by an editor who wishes to fight a consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:30, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Ah, Drmies, in case you didn't notice, my previous edit brought peace to AN/I for nothing less than 51 minutes. Given that, who can say what is possible? Ta,--Wehwalt (talk) 03:11, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

• Note: The disruption has spread to Andrew Sullivan. Can some admins and experienced editors watchlist both pages? Abecedare (talk) 03:17, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I've semi-protected Andrew Sullivan. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:36, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

• The talkpage is full of agenda-pushing, non-neutral point-of-view pushers. Even discussions on AfD are hastily closed by non-admins, when the article itself is fully protected. This article deserves more neutral-admin involvement. Nergaal (talk) 09:00, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Indeed, I just closed the AfD, which anyone can see wasn't going anywhere. Drmies (talk) 20:18, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
• Nergaal seems determined to continue personal attacks ("go push your agenda elsewhere troll", "Continous vandalism. this is a request for discussion that is silenced by a small group fo whiteknights.", etc) and to keep what seems to me a very spurious AfD on her open, violating WP:3RR in the process. Would appreciate an uninvolved admin stepping in. Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:08, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I would like an admin to comment how an AfD on a fully-protected article is allowed to be hastily closed by a small group of non-neutral, involved editors that are not admins themselves. Nergaal (talk) 09:10, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Nergaal - When an article is fully protected, that doesn't mean that you get to go to the article's talk page and throw the AFD template there. The point of full protection is that you discuss the issues and disputes on the article's talk page and work things out. Why couldn't you just wait until the full protection expired before tagging the article? And why did you result to uncivil personal attacks (such as with your edit here) in the AFD discussion? Your recent edits have absolutely been over-tenacious, disruptive, unneeded, and uncivil. The 24 hour block I imposed upon you will probably be seen as much too short, but I'm hoping that it's all that's necessary to get this to stop. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:25, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Only noting that the fact that the lack of any coverage of the controversy is now hitting (conservative) news sources [117] which means that we're going to start seeing even more IP/new editors there. --Masem (t) 18:13, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

• PLEASE NOTE: See the subthread I have started on the related thread down below: [118]. -- Softlavender (talk) 09:23, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

• If you liked the first AfD, you'll love the second! (The nominator, ZinedineZidane98 (talk · contribs), seems to really want the discussion to spill over onto my talk page, too [119], in a borderline-personal-attack-ish way [120].) XOR'easter (talk) 15:44, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

• ZinedineZidane98 (talk · contribs) removed a "keep" !vote from that AfD, claiming it was a personal attack [121], and isn't bothering to read the article being debated [122]. XOR'easter (talk) 15:54, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oh, and they modified another user's comment with a deceptive edit summary. XOR'easter (talk) 16:13, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Boomerang time

It is either time to close this thread as failing to present a conduct issue, or time to bring the boomerang on the filer, User: Ikjbagl, who appears to be not here to contribute constructively. At about the same time as they filed this thread, they also filed at the dispute resolution noticeboard. As noted below, they listed 28 parties (an extraordinarily high number). They said: “Someone is making edits to a locked, controversial/contentious page without waiting for community consensus on any issue other than that for which this person is notable”. Because they claimed that they could not determine who was making the changes, they listed everyone who had updated the page. This would have made the DRN thread unmanageable. Of course, it was not difficult to tell who was making the edit requests, or that administrator User:Abecedare was making the non-contentious edits through protection. I find the argument of the filing party that they could not determine who was making the changes hard to believe (and I advised them to ask for help in reading the history at the Teahouse or the Help Desk).

It appears that Ikjbaql either has a competency problem that led them to try to drag 28 parties to DRN (never mind that DRN is voluntary and you can’t be dragged to it without your consent) or that Ikjbaql is trying to filibuster about Sarah Jeong. In any case, it is time either to close this thread as having failed to identify an actionable conduct issue, or time to take action against the filing party, whose conduct is the issue. However, I think that we have identified the issue, which is the filing party. Trying to drag 28 editors to DRN either is incompetence or is being a jerk. I recommend, at a minimum, a topic-ban from Sarah Jeong, and, better, from all BLPs, and, even better, an indefinite block, either for incompetence or being a troll.

Robert McClenon (talk) 17:32, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

The user in question's account is 2 months old. So it is possible that they are neither incompetent or a jerk, but simply inexperienced in the many layers of rules and bureaucracy of DR. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:49, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

I feel that User:Abecedare has been doing good work on a thankless task. This said, I do not believe user:Ikjbaql was malicious; merely new. (New with admitted competence issues, but new nonetheless.) I would absolutely recommend that they take time to review policies, and could support a ban from this article, but I think an indef is a bit hasty. Icarosaurvus (talk) 18:24, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Fwiw, I too take Ikjbagl (talk · contribs) to be a inexperienced user entering a whirlwind of a talkpage and then getting frustrated when their position, which they take to be obviously right, is not shared by everyone (see conversation on my talkpage). While some of their conduct has been disruptive and their failure to assume good faith has led to needless escalation (DRN, 2 ANI reports etc), I don't think any of this warrants a temporary/indef block yet. The account has't edited in ~7 hours, and if on their return the disruption continues/escalates, page or topic bans can easily been issued under WP:BLPDS (there are several admins monitoring the article and related AFDs by now). Abecedare (talk) 18:42, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Abecedare, you are very kind, considering the mud they slung at you. Drmies (talk) 20:22, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

@Drmies: does the "they" in "the mud they slung at you" refer to Ikjbagl, or multiple editors (possibly including me)? wumbolo ^^^ 21:28, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Mostly Ikjbagl, because of that "fluff" nonsense, but yeah, if the shoe fits--weren't you the one you brought Abecedare up on BLP violation charges on this very noticeboard? Accusing an admin of a BLP violation, that's pretty severe. You may have noticed that your "incident" failed to gain any traction at all. Of course, you can always retract those accusations. Remember, #civility. Drmies (talk) 00:07, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

• NOTE that The Daily Caller is alerting its readers about the article and encouraging people to fight for inclusion of her tweets in the wiki article. So I think it's a good idea to block all of the SPAs and POV-warriors that are on that talkpage and article. Softlavender (talk) 21:47, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't even know if I'm allowed to comment here, but here goes: I was TOLD to post the thing on the Dispute resolution board on this very page! It's the first reply to this post!! Now I'm in trouble for using the Dispute resolution someone told me to use? I asked where to post this (above) comment about the page and I was told to post it on the admin noticeboard- so I did! And now I'm in trouble for this, too!

I said "someone" because I was trying to be polite and did not want to single anyone out; I guess that was the wrong thing to do. I'm new to Wikipedia, but I'm not so incompetent that I don't know what a history page is. If it is not yet clear, I was talking about User:Abecedare, with whom I still disagree about implementing some of the edits, but I did not want to seek to have him blocked or anything like that. I thought this was the place to discuss disagreements about actions like that. And I repeat: I was TOLD on this same page we are on right now to initiate the dispute resolution.

User:Abecedare thank you for your work monitoring the page. I still disagree with you about the content thing, but whatever, I don't really care. I'll stop contributing to the damn talk page now, since I'm apparently too incompetent to handle having a discussion. This whole thing is ridiculous. Ikjbagl (talk) 23:06, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Reply to User: Ikjbagl

I will reply to you primarily, since I need to clarify what I think you did wrong. First, you were given well-meaning but sub-optimal advice. You were told to take your dispute to . the dispute resolution noticeboard. You should have been told to take your dispute to dispute resolution, and there are multiple dispute resolution mechanisms, including the BLP noticeboard and Request for Comments. DRN was not the right dispute resolution venue. Second, you say that you do know how to read a history log, but you said at DRN that you did not know who was making the edits through protection, and so you identified 28 parties. You could have named only Abecedare. That was either a clueless move or a troll move or a mistaken move, and I am willing to take your word that it was merely mistaken, but, if you do know how to read the history log, you knew that User:Abecedare was making the edits. In any case, if you know anything, you were just off the mark in thinking that identifying 28 parties would be useful. So: You were given well-meaning but sub-optimal advice to go to DRN, and your decision to identify 28 parties was just silly, especially if you knew that User:Abecedare was the approving admin, and it does look as though there is a train wreck off-wiki to pile onto Sarah Jeong. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:16, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: I mistakenly thought I was supposed to invite everyone I thought was "involved". It looks like request for comments is what I really should have done. I also did not fully understand what THIS page is for, I thought it was simply to discuss administrative matters such as disagreements over an administrator's actions. But most importantly, I want to FIRMLY dispute any notion that I was involved in an off-site effort. I saw the controversy in the news almost as soon as it happened and went to the Wiki page to see if anyone had begun sourcing it. At that time, I began aggregating news sources (I reposted my list several times, and it only had reputable sources such as BBC, CNN, NBC, ABC, The Hill, The Guardian, etc.) and discussing on the talk page how to update the article to reflect the controversy. Please look at the time stamp of the first time I edited the talk page, which was on August 2, and then look at the articles from conservative groups calling for people to come edit the page. The ones that I see are dated August 5, though I certainly may be missing some. I believe that the time stamp shows that I was discussing this DAYS before off-site groups began calling for their users to influence the page. I also encourage anyone to review my edits to the page and tell me if they think I have been partisan or pushing a point of view. I cited only reputable news sources, and I honestly think I did a good job of portraying the controversy in a neutral light, using neutral language. See for example my proposal for describing the controversy here: Talk:Sarah_Jeong#Option_3:_Ikjbagl. Ikjbagl (talk) 00:33, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Ikjbagl - Either you did know that it was User:Abecedare who was making the non-contentious edits on a protected page, or you didn't. Your statement at DRN was that you did not know who to list. I agree that you were given standard bad advice, because it is standard bad advice to take content disputes to the dispute resolution noticeboard rather than to take them to a dispute resolution procedure. I also think that the DRN instructions should be revised to impose a limit on the number of parties that can be listed, because mediated discussion with tens of editors does not work. I still think that you should have known better, but evidently you didn't. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:15, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Repeated edits against consensus by GTVM92

The user has a history of edit warring in 2017–18 Iranian protests. I had reported him at ANI:3RR for his problematic editing pattern (Case 1, Case 2) Consequently, He was warned by the admins against continuing his edit wars. For instance, see the latest warning. However, I think he's a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT since he still edits against the consensus persistently:

• Talk:2017–18 Iranian protests#June protests, [123] and [124] show there's a consensus on not adding further protests to this page.
• GTVM92's edit wars [125] and [126] although he was told about it.

Admins please take care of it. --Mhhossein ^talk 14:40, 4 August 2018 (UTC) :Article is fully now protected. Everyone involved will need to discuss the disputes at-hand and come to a consensus before editing can continue. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:01, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

...and the current version is against the former consensus on the article talk. Do you always neglect edit warrings by a user whom you've already warned? --Mhhossein ^talk 12:00, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Mhhossein - Forgive me. I think I got my wires mixed up here. I've removed the protection I applied. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:12, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Oshwah: Many thanks for unlocking the article. Although I know you're always kind with editors, I should say that the reported user has acted against your last warning at least two times. That would make him put no value for the consensus made by others. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:16, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Mhhossein - Yeah, sorry about the protection. My brain got itself into a stupid mix-up earlier... *sigh*. Checking... Taking another look at this user's talk page and other factors - stand by... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:19, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

You're welcome Oshwah: Never mind. In my eyes, you were trying to do the right thing and there's always a chance of having mistakes. Thanks for taking care of it. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:23, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Mhhossein - Since it's been many hours since the user's last edit, applying a block to this user right now wouldn't be a justifiable action. Let's keep this discussion open. I've asked GTVM92 to explain himself below, and I'll leave a comment on his user talk page. If the user modifies the article against the established consensus again, my options outside of enforcing a block will be limited - especially if they don't participate in this discussion and respond to my question below... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:28, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Warning and notice has been left. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:36, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Oshwah: I saw that, thank you. Although I think his persistent acts against the talk page is clearly observable, your final decision on this is certainly respected. You're really kind just as your photo shows. Regards. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:42, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

GTVM92 - What's the deal with the repeated edits and despite being told about a consensus that you're editing against? It's been pointed out to you that there's an existing discussion on the article's talk page here where consensus has been reached regarding what protests belong on this article and which don't... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:16, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Why you warned me?! I only add the REAL news to the article and Mhhossein are removing them. All we know that in Iran are a series of the protests since last December but Mhhossein are tries to deny it! Why he do this?! Because he tries to cover the truth. I REALLY did not understand what different is between the protests! In one persons wants regime change and in other praised the regime?! What is different between economic and political issues protests?! If you see other protests, they have different causes. GTVM92 (talk) 17:03, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Here, on Wikipedia, we do not right WP:great wrongs, or get to the WP:truth. We edit based on well-sourced facts, with consensus. The latter part is important; even if we feel we are right, we must abide by what the community has decided. Regardless of what one feels is right, Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and must be treated as such. Now, note that consensus can change, but the correct way to work on establishing consensus is to use the talk page. Edit warring is unacceptable. You could be correct; these could be a continuation of the previous protests. But using the talk page is the way to go about it, not edit warring. Icarosaurvus (talk) 17:42, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

We're talking about an almost unanimous consensus, not a personal viewpoint. Oshwah: Can you see the user's personal attack against me? --Mhhossein ^talk 17:46, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

GTVM92 should discuss - however they are now particpating in the discussion. The previous discussion had one editor that is now known to be a banned sock. It was also closed improperly by a particpant in the discussion itself. The current discussion (per the present RSes which seem to be changing and linking more) at Talk:2017–18 Iranian protests#Why separate pages?! is ongoing.Icewhiz (talk) 17:57, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Discussion close - [127] by Mhhossein less than an hour after reverting GTVM92 [128], and after being involved in the discussion itself.[129] Icewhiz (talk) 18:07, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I had problems with this too! I said it here. It was just one of Mhhossein's unfair edits. GTVM92 (talk) 18:44, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Icewhiz:Are you going to say that there was no consensus? You have made numerous reverts based in the discussion I closed and it's now bizarre you're questioning my closure. That was certainly in accordance with what the users, including YOU, said. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:20, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

I have indeed reverted GTVM92 per the consensus at the time, and indeed I supported the position these should be separate (though my present opinion - given coverage of the August events which does, in part, treat the current events jointly with Dec/Jan - is on the fence). Closing discussions - per Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Closure procedure is to be performed by "Any uninvolved editor may close most discussions" - which was most certainly not the case here - the close was highly improper - closure should not be done by an involved party when another party shows up and challenges the situation - that's the sort of situation where discussion should continue, and such a closure hampers discussion. I also think that taking this to AN/I was premature - both in terms of GTVM92's edits and in terms of the strength of consensus (which has decreased since the improper close). I do not endorse GTVM92's editing practices - he should be discussing more - however he has been engaging in talk.Icewhiz (talk) 06:43, 6 August 2018 (UTC)fs

My English is not good as must be for discussing professional :( GTVM92 (talk) 07:43, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: Your comment is highly misleading; That I have closed the discussion does not touch the already built consensus on the talk page. You're position is not definite here and seems you're merely opposing me, since, if you admit there was a consensus (based on which you yourself made some reverts), then GTVM92 had been edit warring given his lack of participation in TP, specially in the period after my closure and the recent August developments, and given the previous warnings he was given, it was correct to report him here. FOH, if you don't admit there was a consensus, why did you revert the users referring to he consensus. So, don't try to deflect this discussion. However, I'm not saying new consensus can't be built, since there might be new sources with different contents than we saw in the past. So, yes GTVM92 was edit warring, since he was acting against a consensus. --Mhhossein ^talk 08:21, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

This report was filed after GTVM92 attempted, following developments in August (and there have been developments - new protests which seem to be linked by RS to the Dec/Jan ones), to extend the protests to present 3 times on the page. This was in contravention of an inappropriately closed talk-page section (not a RFC) in which one of 4 participants was a banned sock, dated back to 2 July 2018. This is a low threshold for filing an AN/I report. As for the actions by Mhhossein - inappropriately closing a discussion [130] (closely after reverting [131], and after being involved in the discussion itself.[132]) - would seem to be actions that strongly inhibit discussion.Icewhiz (talk) 09:34, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Another misleading comment by Icewhiz. No, at least one of his reverts were done before attempting to build consensus. Btw, stop repeating "inappropriate", "inappropriate",... that does not make your comments sound appropriate. You're supporting an edit warrer. Drop the stick. --Mhhossein ^talk 09:39, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

• GTVM92 has been doing a much better job at communicating; I do not believe any sanctions are required at this time. Icarosaurvus (talk) 02:46, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Unusual Activity by Coffeeandcrumbs

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

---

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

Originally reported to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, but I was told there to come here. User User:Coffeeandcrumbs has removed multiple sourced items from the article Lemur Conservation Foundation without explanation and also created confusing page that violates copyrights User:Coffeeandcrumbs/James Thompson (Kansas politician), also found to be removing sourced contents from other articles and adding POV information. Please check user revision history. Joeptchjijihhtgghbyjhhmkkkl (talk) 17:42, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

The LCF edits were not without explanation, and the Thompson sandbox does not violate copyrights. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:50, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

No action needs to be taken in regards to Coffeeandcrumbs. I can't tell if any other action needs to be taken at this point, though. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:05, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree that all of CaC's contributions are explained. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 16:09, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Hidden mergers

The following discussion is closed. 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 about subversive merger of some articles. And possibly according to your appreciation a recovering of those (merged) articles, and maybe a calling for discussion on future merger, if so.

Again we have an editor merging and exerting ownership on articles, now with the username Katolophyromai, (and thus deleting large extensions of them), without any discussion or even a tag inviting to talk. Taking in particular the article “Kur,” Katolophyromai while enforcing his unilateral merge, Katolophyromai first created a “umbrella” article called “Ancient Mesopotamian Underworld”. Afterwards he gathered all articles that had some in common with his definition and merged them with his umbrella article. In doing that he also first carefully deleted any other reference (citations), definition, contents from the original articles that could not fit his preferred definition used for his umbrella, which by the way is a shallow article (even that it is okay in citations; yet, that is it), so lacking scholar meaningful information as usually happens in these cases. However I measure that some of the merged articles also could be largely improved (with or without any merge).

But moving on. For that above described process, Katolophyromai “fooled” the Wikipedia rules creating his “Umbrella” article and then simply redirecting other articles to his umbrella. In so doing that, the revision history of the merged articles became no longer listable. That is, the old versions and their history were lost to any search be it via the Wikipedia engine or even by Google. Thus only his brand new umbrella shows a revision history. It’s like the other articles never had existed before. For example notice that the umbrella was created on June/19/2018 and before that no history is found of the merged articles. However the "true" (previous) Kur was created on June/16/2003. Interesting no?

However we of course can still check these lost articles, old versions, and history if we somehow search hard. For example in particular we can take the merged/deleted articles “Kur (e.g. old version)” and “Irkalla(e.g. old version)”. The obliterated “Kur” brings particulars that not fits the umbrella. That is, specifically “Kur” is not only defined as “underworld,” but instead “kur” word has other meanings. In regards to “Irkalla,” it kind of fits his umbrella, yet it sounds more informative in its own/previous article than in the umbrella. Smilingalien (talk) 21:14, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

You haven't edited since December 2011 when you made two edits, one substantive. You also failed to notify the user. I've done that for you, but I must say your resurfacing after so many years is concerning.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:56, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

So, what exactly is the problem here? :bloodofox: (talk) 22:30, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

@Smilingalien: Your accusation that I am trying to "fool" Wikipedia is untrue and ridiculous. First of all, why would I even want to hide the history of the two articles I merged? I cannot think of any reason. Second of all, I am intelligent enough to know that you simply cannot "fool" Wikipedia; this website is a transparent as air when it comes to its own history. If there is anything you want to know about the history of any given Wikipedia article, you can find it easily. Both of those articles I merged still exist as redirects; to get to them, you just search for the name of the article and then, when it takes you to the ancient Mesopotamian Underworld page, click the "redirected from" link that pops up at the top and it will take you there, allowing you to check the history if you want. It is easy. I had no deceitful intentions and I frankly have no idea what on earth gave you the impression that I did.

My merge of the articles Kur and Irkalla was entirely justified; they are two different names for the same location in Mesopotamian mythology, which makes this a pretty cut-and-dried case of not needing two articles about the same thing. I was also following the lead of the French Wikipedia, which has a "Featured Article" entitled "Enfers mésopotamiens". I do not see how you can advocate for the academic superiority of the two original articles over the one I merged them to create. While I have only just started writing the article ancient Mesopotamian underworld and it is by no means complete, it already contains far more information and is far better cited than both of the original articles combined, especially seeing how neither of the articles I merged were in any sense substantial. I actually copied all the relevant information from the Kur article into the ancient Mesopotamian underworld article from the beginning. The Irkalla article did not even have a single in-text citation and, since everything we write must be cited to scholarly sources, that meant I could not use any of it.

As for the other meanings of the word Kur, its definitions as a general word for "earth" or "mountain" might warrant an entry on Wiktionary, but are not notable enough to warrant a separate encyclopedia article. They are mentioned in the first section of the ancient Mesopotamian underworld article anyway, so no information was lost there. Kur's supposed use as a name for the first dragon is only discussed (as far as I am currently aware) in Samuel Noah Kramer's book Sumerian Mythology, originally published 1944 and later revised in 1961. Kramer's book is a classic by all accounts, but parts of it are outdated in many respects. More recent sources do not seem to acknowledge or even mention Kramer's interpretation of stories of gods fighting kur as dragonslaying myths. Instead, recent sources interpret those as stories about gods fighting mountains, as strange as that may sound to us today. As far as I can tell then, that interpretation is just a bizarre quirk of outdated early scholarship on the subject, certainly not noteworthy enough to require its own article.

My goal is to bring the article ancient Mesopotamian underworld up to Good Article status, as I have already done with many of our other article about ancient Mesopotamian mythology. --Katolophyromai (talk) 23:29, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I don't particularly see a problem, the target article does mention dragon and mountain for instance. Bold editing is common but there are processes when they are contested. If you contest it for this particular case, I suggest reverting the redirect and opening a more formal discussion about it (a merge discussion). If we ultimately find that various redirects need to be restored (difficult to evaluate immediately), a warning to rely more on formal processes may be in order. —PaleoNeonate – 22:47, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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 very disappointed to learn that ancient Mesopotamian underworld doesn't refer to the Hammurabi crime family. EEng 00:58, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

  

Hammurabi gives the finger in "someone's" general direction. Debouch (talk) 18:38, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Odd behavior on RfC

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

---

There is currently an RfC going on at Illinois gubernatorial election, 2018. Over the last couple of hours, a couple of accounts that are brand new showed up and !voted. These accounts are User:Endurrance and User:AprilDurr. Endurrance's only edit before that was this, a continuation of the edit war, while AprilDurr had never edited and was created literally just moments before posting on the page. I am concerned that this could be a case of WP:MOREVOTE. I don't want to fill out an SPI because I have no actual proof or evidence of who the sockmaster would be, if this was a case of sockpuppetry (and I really don't want to accuse anyone of something like that when I don't have proof). I have commented on this RfC and made my opinion known, and while I am totally fine with consensus forming that disagrees with that, I would not like to see consensus swung by one person using multiple accounts. I am not 100% sure that this is the case, but it very well could be, especially given the massive edit war that led to the RfC. I understand that anyone can comment on RfC but I am a little suspicious of someone making an account just to comment. I am not sure what if anything I should do. I apologize if I am mistaken or if this is somewhat unreasonable. Tillerh11 (talk) 23:53, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

@Tillerh11: you must inform subjects of discussion that they are being discussed here. You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} to do so. Please do so now so that may particpate in the discussion. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:00, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) You are right to be suspicious if an account is created just to comment. Tornado chaser (talk) 00:02, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox: Done. I knew that, I just forgot. Sorry. Tillerh11 (talk) 00:03, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

UPDATE: The user Endurrance has left a message on my talk page here. The user has admitted to both a COI and off-wiki canvassing but denied being a sock. I'm not sure what to make of it. Tillerh11 (talk) 01:32, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

@Tillerh11: I assure you I am no sock. My intentions are that of my own and only want users such as myself to see information so participated in the vote and made corrections to what I saw previously. user:Endurrance

• Yes, this looks fairly clearly like off-wiki canvassing rather than socking. The closing admin will almost certainly give less - or no - weight to the three SPAs and the IP who have mysteriously shown up to vote for the same option on the RfC within a very short space of time. Black Kite (talk) 19:09, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

• Though ... Endurrance and AprilDurr are by admission !voting from the same PC, so at least one of those should be removed. Black Kite (talk) 19:12, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing by User:Hassan Nazeer Chaudhry

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

---

• Hassan Nazeer Chaudhry (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Pakistani general election, 2018 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Imran Khan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This user first tried to censor or tone down the information which he considered negative against Pakistani military, intelligence agency and judiciary from Pakistani general election, 2018 and tried to also mask the words such as "violence" with umbrella terms such as "law and order" and now they are doing the same thing on Imran Khan, they are removing the information which they think negatively reflects on the subject. As long as I know we do not censor on Wikipedia and we are not here to show the hunky-dory picture of Pakistan or anything else. This user's editing pattern shows that they are not here to build encyclopedia. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 00:38, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

@SheriffIsInTown: The user is trying to incorporate gossip and unauthentic information in most viewed page of Pakistan, Imran Khan.

• The user added tyrian white under the Imran Khan children main heading, she is alleged child and is not accepted by Imran Khan himself. In the article Imran Khan she is already mentioned in Personal life heading.

• He has removed authentic bibliography written on Imran Khan and introduced a book by Reham Khan, which is disowned by Imran Khan, his spoke person, media activists and independent media in Pakistan.

• He included Sitta White , an alleged affair of Imran Khan in main heading of relationship, while she was already mentioned in Personal life heading.

The side bar of any personality is meant for authentic and known information, while the rest can be discussed in sub headings below it. Hassan Nazeer Chaudhry (talk) 00:50, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

@SheriffIsInTown: I hope the Wikipedia is forum of mutual respect and considered opinion. I am not showing hunky-dory picture of any one, i am here to keep the information neutral and authentic. Is it wrong to generate an opposing opinion and contest on facts? Wikipedia , doesn't allow monopoly and editing can be done by multiple people with respect and coordination. Hassan Nazeer Chaudhry (talk) 00:58, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

• This content has been there for years as far as I know, this user comes in yesterday and removed it under the pretext of vandalism then he comes again today and removes the book written by Reham Khan, Imran Khan's former wife, the book is mostly about Imran Khan and he removes it under the pretext of vandalism and then he has an audacity to change the facts here by saying that I was adding Sita White and Tyrian in the infobox based on gossip which is not true, I just restored what he removed, Sita White was in the infobox for years. This information is not inauthentic and gossip, this is documented in numerous reliable sources and there has been a court order establishing that Khan is biological father of Tyrian. His accusation that I removed authentic bibliography on Khan is wrong as well, I just shifted the existing section and added two more books on him. The user's claim that subject does not own his daughter and his spokesman rejected Reham Khan has no value in view of Wikipedia policies. We do not go by what the subject prefers but what the reliable sources claim. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 02:02, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
• He removed same text again with the source which was based on a book written by Chris Hutchins and Dominic Midgley. This is clear vandalism and disruption by this user. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 03:07, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

I've yet to go through Talk:Pakistani general election, 2018 because it is tl;dr, but having seen the problematic behavior of Hassan Nazeer Chaudhry on some occasions in the past, I can feel the grievance of SheriffIsInTown. Chaudhry is a civil guy but his contributions are mostly POV pushing, and he often indulge himself in inserting unsourced material to our BLPs. I would suggest slapping a warning to him and advice him to refrain himself from editing articles that xe cannot cover neutrally. --Saqib (talk) 06:47, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

@SheriffIsInTown: have restored the page to last stable version on 20:09, 7 August 2018‎, it has reverted all changes after that point , lets agree to this version of page, what ever was before, is there now.

• In the page the number of children 3 was mentioned on side bar, My Shareiff added Name of children and some how , legal children Suleman and

Kasim made last place and child Tyrian which is not even accepted by IK makes the first place. Sitta white and Tyrain are already mensioned under personal life section.

• Reham Khan's book is added to the Imran Khan page , the section is meant to suggest a book to read further about person. Reham's Book is controversial and it contain unproven allegations like druge use, being gay, and all bad things about the person. The book is already contested in court of law, besides criticised on electronic media, if you want to add it , i should be in controversy section not in further reading about person.
• Mr. Sharrif has added His documented out of marriage relationships included Stephanie Beacham, Goldie Hawn, Kristiane Backer, Susannah Constantine, Marie Helvin, Jerry Hall, Emma Sergeant, and Sita White.

As reference book mentioned Goldsmith, money , women and power is a book about Mr. Gold Smith, it quotes a conversation between Mr. Goldsmith and his daughter Jamima Gold smith , when she is trying to persuade his father , you used this text as fact and ground bases to write such a strong sentence His documented. How come a showbiz magazine and a book quoting individual conversation becomes documented? How come, it is presented as fact? 

If you think i made some wrong change which were already there, i reverted the page to last stable version on 20:09, 7 August 2018‎. Please agree to this version? Hassan Nazeer Chaudhry (talk) 09:23, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

• You are again misquoting and misrepresenting the source by saying it is a conversation between Jemima and his father, no it is not a conversation. That is what the source says Imran was more seriously compromised by the adoption of a political philosophy that clearly conflicted with his womanising reputation. He may have successfully reinvented himself as an orthodox Muslim and faithful husband but his new guise as a champion of traditional morality and female subservience smacked of political opportunism in a land where the forces of Islamic fundamentalism were on the march. These views represent a remarkable transition from hedonistic bachelor to devout family man. His time in London was marked by an epic series of conquests. Apart from his well-documented relationships with the likes of actresses Goldie Hawn and Stephanie Beacham, portrait painter Emma Sergeant, models Jerry Hall and Marie Helvin, Viscount Linley's ex-girlfriend Susannah Constantine and former MTV presenter Kristiane Backer, he fathered an illegitimate child by Sita White, daughter of his father-in-law's late friend and fellow tycoon, Lord White......White had begun her affair with Imran in 1986, shortly after he had finished with Emma Sergeant. Their relationship ended after two years when he wrote her a note saying, "I cannot love you as Emma will always be the love of my life". But White became pregnant when they slept together for one last time in 1991 and she gave birth to a daughter, Tyrian.

This is what the source says, this is no conversation between Jemima and his father.

So, considering the misrepresenting of sources for POV pushing, removing well sourced text under the pretext of vandalism just because the user do not like it and BLP violations mentioned by Saqib reflects net negativitiy for Wikipedia. User had done the same on other page Pakistani general election, 2018, if we want to keep the integrity and neutrality of Wikipedia especially Pakistan related content, I request the admins that a topic ban from all Pakistan related pages is in order for this user otherwise they will keep distorting and censoring the information based on their personal likes and dislikes and we cannot allow that. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 14:23, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

• Can an admin take an action please, here he removed content sourced to three separate sources, how long we are going to allow this disruption? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 21:54, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

• Please see the editing pattern of Sherif, he is continuously attacking BLP of Imran Khan , he is adding information from controversial sources, POV's of opponents of Imran Khan , and tabloid journalism. The information sources quoted in above case

are all rooted from same source ex-wife of Imran Khan, Reham Khan , who holds personal grudge against him. She painted Imran Khan as devil as being Gay , involved in drugs, misusing and mistreating women in his political party. She even went so far to say that all women in Pakistani media are sexually abused and misused by Imran Khan, and women in Imran Khan's political party give sexual favours. The information has no prove , also several allegations are in litigation. All above quoted sources quote to same reference i.e. Reham's book, should we add unauthentic information in personal bio page of a political leader in this way? He is continuously reporting me without reason, give the fact that threads are already opened on the talk page, and already with discussion we have resolved some conflicts earlier. Hassan Nazeer Chaudhry (talk) 22:24, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

• The book is one of the top controversial books around, the legal notice are served by businessman Zulfikar Bukhari, authors first husband Ijaz Rehman, renowned crickter, Wasim Akram , PTI International Media Coordinator Anila Khawaja. The book contains “a litany of malicious, false, incorrect, highly misleading, callous, wanton, tortious, prejudicial, damaging, libellous, and defamatory imputations”. The civil court in Multan already issued stay order on the book. First wife of Imran Khan Jamima Khan also issued defamation notice against the writer. Famous social activist Hamza Ali Abbasi has openly contested the book, as it was launched just before elections 2018 by political opponents. The sources quoted by Shariff , all three of them refers to same book and are same news source? Howcome, you include unaunthentic information in BLP of a leader from such controversial sources?

Why he is reporting me again and again even the matter is already under discussion on talk page of BLP? Hassan Nazeer Chaudhry (talk) 23:38, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

• He has again accused me of attacking Khan's article wrongly, if an admin can categorize this editing as an attack on Khan. I will quit editing forever. I was adding all the positives about Khan when this user showed up and vandalized the page to remove longstanding sourced content calling that sourced content vandalism instead. The removed content is considered negative by some people, everyone's perspective is different. This intrigued my interest in this aspect of Khan's beautiful life. The user shows up again the next day and removes Reham Khan's book from Bibliography again under the pretext of vandalism. I have seen this user hiding the word "violence" under ambiguous terms like "incidents" and " law and order" on Pakistani general election, 2018 before, this hinted to me that this user is not here to build encyclopedia but to censor any information he considers negative about Pakistan and Imran Khan and that prompted me to report him as this type of POV pushing results in net negativitiy for Wikipedia. User keeps displaying this negative behavior since I reported him and is unwilling to change.

As for as Reham Khan's book is concerned and any pending lawsuit, I do not think there is any Wikipedia policy which cares about the lawsuit by third parties (not the subject). I can highlight many policies which support the inclusion of that content, all three sources cited are secondary sources pointing to one primary source, the content is exactly as described in the sources, nothing more than that. This is according to the sourcing policy of Wikipedia, the user is acting out of bounds when removing sourced content and is unable to provide any valid policy reason to remove the content. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 00:16, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

References

• Blocked indefinitely I came across this user via an WP:RFPP request, investigated on my own (i.e. not influenced by this report), and quickly reached the conclusion that this is an immensely disruptive editor who needs to dramatically change their approach before being allowed to edit here any more. The conduct in this thread is one small example of a larger problem, but the inability/unwillingness to simply listen to input and respond in an effective and reasonable way alone convinces me that will be impossible to resolve this by any means short of a conditional unblock. I am doubtful that they will listen, but I have still made the possibility of an unblock clear to them, and explained to them what to do in order to achieve it. Swarm ♠ 00:44, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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:Panji Keramat

The following discussion is closed. 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 considering reporting User:Panji Keramat to WP:AIV for the persistent disruptive editing, but thought it better for that user to explain the edits firsthand. Firstly, the user engaged in repeated partial removal of table header content at List of Malaysian State Assembly Representatives (2018–), eventhough it was specified that the column follows the format of Coalition (Party). Then, there were the addition of non-existent Wikilinks at List of Chief Ministers of Penang and the Penang State Legislative Assembly, potentially violating WP:WTAF.

Most of the user's edits did not come with any edit summary, so the edits were unexplainable. bonjourPinang (talk) 01:50, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

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

49.145.243.80

The following discussion is closed. 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:49.145.243.80's Talk page, from their second edit here, read "I Love Hitler, Hitler did nothing wrong, fuck Jews" As well as being unimpressed with their sentence structure and grammar I didn't think this could be left so I have removed it and warned the user, vaguely citing WP:TALK at them. Is there something else I could/should do or ask admins to do or is that sufficient? Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 07:35, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

If you can gloss over their racism (and I don't, for one), then they seem to understand how to prod an article wit their third-ever edit, suggesting at best a sock, or worst, simply WP:NOTHERE. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:05, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Lugnuts. I am not sure what you mean about my glossing over racism, would you like to clarify? On your suggestions, thanks - I didn't think I had enough evidence for SPI and the trouble with WP:NOTHERE is that their other edits, while hardly scintillating, did appear to be of reasonable intent - a slightly ill-advised comment which they removed themselves, and the prod which you mention. Without their Talk page comment I would have ignored them as a reasonably unsurprising start ... which is why I am here. DBaK (talk) 08:12, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

I didn't mean that you have glossed over it (far from it), just that if the general public was to read it, and think "meh". At least there's a few more eyes on their contributions if it all goes south! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:14, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, duh! Hypersensitive of me, reading it wrong. Thanks and apologies DBaK (talk) 08:17, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

I've rev-deleted that comment, which is grossly offensive. This could be someone nasty or it could be someone immature, so I don't intend to do anything more myself until we see more evidence. I suggest keeping an eye on them and reporting here if there's any more nonsense. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:55, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much - sounds highly reasonable. Cheers DBaK (talk) 09:08, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Looks like the IP has been doing test edits [133] [134] since the block. A longer block, perhaps? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 16:02, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Both edits were before the block.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:20, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

This IP was just blocked for 72 hours as a sock. Tornado chaser (talk) 22:10, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

• Bbb to the rescue. Drmies (talk) 02:00, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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 accused of edit warring

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

---

This is long because User:Dennis Bratland has blocked the talk page. Hours of work by me was lost when the person I've been having a problem with blocked discussion on the talk page. User:Dennis Bratland has been the only person on Wikipedia I have ever had a problem with. He is evidently at the administrator level. I'm not a major contributor but you can see I do participate. Dennis on the other hand has a long history of disputes and edit wars include the use of foul language on his talk page twice in the last 2 monts alone. If I'm right and he has become an administrator with the power to be both judge and jury and has influence with the exectioner. This all does not make Wikipedia look very good. I don't know how he's kept from being banned and yet he's an editor that cost me the loss of hours of work today, who post things then deletes them while you're responding. This isn't the first time he has started an edit war and then accused me of being the one that's doing it. I made two changes to the List_of_fastest_production_motorcycles_by_acceleration. Dennis reverted both of them without saying anything about it on the talk page. I reverted them back and went to the talk page for discussion and made my case then reverted them again. Now if I'm counting correctly Dennis has reverted my work for the third time on two different topics. And yet I'm the one that he's accusing of edit warring and now the discussion page for the Kawasaki part has been locked by him. Judge jury and executioner. He has previously used the 3 revert rule, yet because he can't revert me again without breaking that rule, has come running to administrators claiming I'm edit warring. I can see from his long history here he is experienced dealing with complaints and the administrators. I am not. I should say He has the worst history of anyone here who hasn't been banned. Instead, I get the impression he's been promoted to paid administrator. I've never had to take anything this far in all the years I've been coming here. I don't have a reputation for being a troublemaker here, Dennis does. And I'm frankly sick of wasting hours of my time with someone who reverts hours worth of work being dismissive of arguments worth discussion and debatable Wiki policies. I know many Wiki policies are not written in stone and have to be interpreted. Dennis knows them all and uses them all as a deterrence 4 people disagreeing with his position. He is using the fact that he is used to being complained about and uses that knowledge against other users. He has the worst history on here I've ever come across in years of being here. you won't find that I have a problem with anybody but Dennis. He hovers over every word I write every time I post anything in motorcycle related articles. His objective is to wear people down until they just go away. This kind of behavior is costing Wikipedia reputation and discourages people who don't spend countless hours reading Wiki policy from even participating. He's reverted me three times on one section and at least twice on another. Maybe more because he seems to change more than one thing per edit. I've answered, I believe, every one of his reverts with why I was reverting back. He began by reverting my 2 major additions without comment on the talk page. If it sounds from the beginning on the talk page like I have a bad history with him, it's true. You should be able to see I'm far from the only one.

Many articles go on and on without sourcing. Often on very important topics and editors don't say anything. Then along comes someone like Dennis that wants a source for every line you write, then when you supply them he claims they are not good enough. he's done that same thing to me before. My sources for the sub 12 second runs on the Mach IV are good, especially given the FACT I raced against the NHRA national record holder in the class at 11.81. The fact I was a racer should at least help in terms of credibility that I'm not talking about things I know nothing about. I have institutional memory that at least proves I'm not a bad actor with intent to deceive. Dennis knows this. Yet he pounces. He thinks he and his arguments are bulletproof when they are far from it and I'm not the only one that thinks he is arrogant. NHRA does not give the public access to old records so I don't even use that number, even though I raced against the guy that same day. And I just found out I can't ask Pete Grassilli for help on it because he died July 25th. and that makes documenting this claim particularly important. Loss of institutional memory is a real problem Wikipedia should be helping with, not hindering.I use an 11.95 run that quoted the name of the rider, the date, and place of the run. I have 2 sources but Dennis thinks because one of them is from Kawasaki about the history of their motorcycles claims valid solely because it comes from Kawasaki, despite naming the rider, the date and the drag strip, and then he says that the others quote the first, which is NOT true. One is an independent article from the writers at dragbike.com about the same run. I understand independent sourcing. But if the US government said the Iraq War started on such and such a day and the New York Times said the Iraq War started on such and such a date you wouldn't call The Times article a bad source because it quoted the same date if it just so happens to be the truth. That's all that has happened here. the run the name of the rider the location have been repeated because they are true. Nobody claims they are not true so arguing they are not independent serves no purpose. Not even Dennis doubts it's true, so why is he reverting? I get into that. It was an AHRA record. AHRA is long gone, no records from them directly to use. I have other sources but I know Dennis will do the same with them because it's the only documented sub 12 run I can find, despite the fact I went sub 12 myself against Pistol Pete Grasseli, and still lost. Dennis himself admits the sub 12 runs happened but is a slave to having a certain kind of source. He evidently likes Cycle world, but not dragbike.com. He's even using an article in Cycle World about the Dunstall Norton, not even a factory bike, to include it in the sub 12 list, which is beyond reason because it's not a factory bike, and there is no way for anyone to see the actual source. It's from 1971. It is not publically available. This isn't edit warring, it's a war for the truth and I think of Pete Grasselli every time I think of that Mach IV king of the streets days. Help me record the first factory bike to go sub 12, which wasn't done again for 6 years. Dennis is a Wikipedia power freak. Look at the list of reverts he did in the last 3 days. And remember this an article about motorcycles, not heart surgery and that he's the only one that is arguing against my additions, just like has happened 2 or 3 times before. I feel targeted by someone who has become an admin. I spent all damned day trying to satisfy his whims only to lose what I wrote because he had locked the page while I was writing. That's precisely why I'm writing so much here because he blocked the talk page. King Dennis decides he's done talking? He's done discussing points? He accuses me of edit War then closes any possible discussion. That makes no sense to me. This is yet ANOTHER tactic of his. He acts without giving people that don't do this everyday time to respond. And he has deleted all record of a couple of things I wrote, which I didn' think was possible. He has weaponized his authority and has the gall to accuse me of the edit war. And he is flippant in his responses as though my points are not worth his precious time. Look at his talk page. One recent response was "FOC yourself" which is obvious and then said. "Please go f*** yourself" to another person both in the last couple of months. His talk pages (including the 30 something archives) are full of acrimony from people that feel insulted by his attitude. Of course, if I'm barking up the wrong tree please tell me what the right tree is. Like I said this is the first time I've ever come asking help of Administrators. Jackhammer111 (talk) 03:20, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

• Could you say this in fewer words? Literally tl;dr, but I'll just note that Dennis is not an administrator, and does not have the technical capability to "block" anything, talk pages included. He just threw up an archive template. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:48, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

• Jackhammer111 Could you summarise this? Down to say 100 -200 words. I'm not going to read it all. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:24, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
• I'll just add that there's no such thing as a "paid administrator" either. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 04:27, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

• Well I skimmed it, and if you read this bit you'll know all you need to know:

My sources for the sub 12 second runs on the Mach IV are good, especially given the FACT I raced against the NHRA national record holder in the class at 11.81. The fact I was a racer should at least help in terms of credibility that I'm not talking about things I know nothing about... NHRA does not give the public access to old records so I don't even use that number, even though I raced against the guy that same day. And I just found out I can't ask Pete Grassilli for help on it because he died July 25th. and that makes documenting this claim particularly important. Loss of institutional memory is a real problem Wikipedia should be helping with, not hindering.I use an 11.95 run that quoted the name of the rider, the date, and place of the run. I have 2 sources but Dennis thinks because one of them is from Kawasaki about the history of their motorcycles claims valid solely because it comes from Kawasaki, despite naming the rider, the date and the drag strip, and then he says that the others quote the first, which is NOT true. One is an independent article from the writers at dragbike.com about the same run. I understand independent sourcing. But if the US government said the Iraq War started on such and such a day and the New York Times said the Iraq War started on such and such a date you wouldn't call The Times article a bad source because it quoted the same date if it just so happens to be the truth ... I have other sources but I know Dennis will do the same with them because it's the only documented sub 12 run I can find, despite the fact I went sub 12 myself against Pistol Pete Grasseli, and still lost...

Get the picture? EEng 04:54, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

just what the situation needs. A smart ass. Jackhammer111 (talk) 06:31, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Court order

The following discussion is closed. 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:Ianswingland informs me that a court order prevents any mention of this trial and anything to do with it but they didn't prove that the court order exists. What should I do? ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 11:15, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

I've left the standard warning about WP:NLT. If he wants to press the issue further, he can be blocked. We're not based in the UK. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:22, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Given that the trial is covered in multiple reliable sources, he'd need to prove it - there is a possibility that an injunction was served after those newspaper articles were written, but he'd need to prove it. Also, he shouldn't be editing his own article anyway. Black Kite (talk) 11:22, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

@Ian.thomson and Black Kite: Thanks. I will wait for the user to respond (in my talk page). ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 11:24, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

As Ian.thomson said, even a superinjunction still wouldn't apply to Wikipedia per se, although anyone editing from the UK would technically be in breach. Black Kite (talk) 11:26, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

I'll post at WP:LAW to see if anyone knows anything about this. GiantSnowman 11:38, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

• Per WP:General disclaimer#Jurisdiction and legality of content: "Publication of information found in Wikipedia may be in violation of the laws of the country or jurisdiction from where you are viewing this information. The Wikipedia database is stored on servers in the United States of America, and is maintained in reference to the protections afforded under local and federal law. Laws in your country or jurisdiction may not protect or allow the same kinds of speech or distribution. Wikipedia does not encourage the violation of any laws, and cannot be responsible for any violations of such laws, should you link to this domain or use, reproduce or republish the information contained herein."
• In other words, Wikipedia content is not under the UK's jurisdiction, period. Furthermore, per WP:Content disclaimer: Wikipedia's current policy is to include such [controversial and/or objectionable] content, provided it breaches neither any of our existing policies … nor the laws of the United States, where Wikipedia is hosted."
• I will forward this message to the user with a final warning for editing their own article and making legal threats. Beyond that, there is nothing more to discuss. Swarm ♠ 12:13, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Just to clarify. To which trial did this purported injunction apply and when was it served? Was it the same trial as edited by the editor in question here, on 21 April 2018? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:29, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Martin, according to this [135] you could be subject to the death penalty so I hope your affairs are all in order. Nice knowing you. EEng 12:40, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I know. But it doesn't explain whether the death will be temporary or permanent. Nor whether it might affect my tax liability in the relevant financial year. My offshore accountant advises me that it is a "risk worth taking" (as long as it doesn't also include a funeral or burial, which are not tax deductable). Martinevans123 (talk) 12:54, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

You will be dead indefinitely. If you think there are good reasons for being undead, please read the guide to appealing death.Girth Summit (talk) 13:46, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

If it's civil death then at least that would be in line with our civility policies. EEng 14:18, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

What a relief! I do so hate it when things get frightfully beastly and unpleasant. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:42, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Also that email he posts on his talk page is clearly nonsense, "I really don’t think it does but they said that your (Ian’s) Wikipedia page I think (how ironic) also referred to it and is in breach of the Order and is therefore potentially a contempt of court punishable by death." Contempt of court in the UK punishable by death? I really don't think so and it throws every other statement into the dis-believable area. Canterbury Tail talk 12:56, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Even ArbCom hasn’t imposed a death sentence in a long time. Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:59, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

I assure you it can have real tax advantages (if accompanied by a fully-compliant claim made in the same financial year). Martinevans123 (talk) 13:04, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Hotblack Desiato 13:07, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

• [136], [137], [138], etcetera etcetera. Short of invoking the Genies (Putting Back In Bottles) Act of 2018, he's got no chance. Guy (Help!) 13:09, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, currently timetabled as the "Brexit Financial Adjustments Re-Referendum (Private members) (2018) Bill", I think. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:15, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Er.. I think there may be something in this. There's only one source (of an unsure veracity) with anything on the trial after 2016, and that states that the trial finished in Mar 2018. If that's correct, why isn't there anything in any UK newspaper searches? - X201 (talk) 13:35, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Why would there have to be? There's nothing because after the completion of the trial, there was nothing left to report. I wouldn't expect some news source in 2018 to, apropros of nothing and with no new developments, to suddenly write a news article about a 2-year old trial. --Jayron32 13:36, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Trials usually end with a verdict, and if appropriate, sentencing. Which I'd have thought would count as'news'. 86.147.197.31 (talk) 13:48, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

And given his connections to the royal family....added headline value. - X201 (talk) 14:07, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

It only counts as news if someone reports on it... And someone choosing not to report on it is not the same as someone being forced to NOT report on it. --Jayron32 14:20, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Or the trial hasn't happened yet. Or it was settled out-of-court. Or any number of things. Regardless, this discussion is irrelevant. The sources exist which report on the events in 2016, so there is no reason, beyond normal editing decisions regarding importance and relevance, to exclude the information (which is to say the Wikipedia article is not required to report it, but insofar as consensus is that it is a relevant part of the narrative of the article, it can be included because the sources material exists to cite.) --Jayron32 14:22, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

This was the point I was making. If a (super)injunction does exist, it clearly didn't exist in 2016 - however if it does exist, it may be problematic for any identifiable UK editor who inserted material pertaining to it now. Black Kite (talk) 14:34, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

This entire article is problematic. It was created in 2009 as the only edit of a one-use account, and then heavily beefed up by two SPAs, one of which is the editor in question who leveled the legal threat in the first place. Most of the statements in the article are unsourced, and many of those that are rely on primary documents. It looks overdue for a thorough cleaning. Grandpallama (talk) 14:25, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Disruptive IP

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

---

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

IP spreading irredentist unsourced pro-Turkmen/Turkic content since February 2018.[139]-[140]-[141]-[142]-[143]-[144]-[145]-[146]-[147] Warned on numerous occassions on his talk page as well, but never bothered to respond.[148]-[149]-[150] Seems to be determined. - LouisAragon (talk) 16:27, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

• OK I think it's too early to start blocking, esp. since most of what they've received have been templated warnings. I wrote a warning, with my own two hands (OK I typed it with my ten fingers, but whatever); I hope that helps. Hey, I just noted I rarely use my left thumb when typing. Interesting. Drmies (talk) 16:53, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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 deletion request

Please can the following edit be deleted it serves no purpose, and is potentially the revelation of personal information which is outing. The edit is REDACTED. 91.110.126.22 (talk) 16:25, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Like it says at the top of this page, don't post privacy violations here. I'll email oversight. EEng 16:28, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

AFAICS there is no issue with the edit anyway, unless I'm missing something. Black Kite (talk) 16:30, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

I deleted the edit summary, as it was a bit disruptive, but it doesn't even seem close to being oversight-able. But I guess EEng notified them, and they can make their own determination. Monty₈₄₅ 18:28, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Crispgatoglitz claiming password stolen

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

---

Crispgatoglitz has been posting in various places (here, here and here) that his/her password has been hacked/stolen and therefore believes the account might be compromised and that others should not hold him/her accountable for any problem edits made from the account. Maybe an admin can look into this and explain what to Crispgatoglitz what his/her options are. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:33, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't believe a word the user says. I've started looking at the situation, but I won't be able to finish until tomorrow.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:54, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

• Ugh. I was this close to simply blocking as a compromised account, but this, that someone tries to access your account, is so run of the mill that it's hardly worth commenting on, though I know some kind soul will post the link to some page on password security, two-stage authentication, etc. Drmies (talk) 01:57, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

  That was already done at the Teahouse. Primefac (talk) 02:26, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Notification_regarding_password_theft_attempts_1.jpg.png

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Notification_regarding_password_theft_attempts_2.jpg.png

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Notification_regarding_password_theft_attempts_3.jpg.png

There is one more notification from Marathi wikipedia even.I had merely used incognito tab or downloaded wikipedia app from the app store but not a new device , there is no question of multiple failed attempts even if one or two out of mistyping but not a new device and not when I am not browsing ! But I informed the film Actress I follow of some vulnerability in the security of her email account with similar attempts at gmail plus asked her to correct her age in regional wikipedia pages through Instagram comments! Probably this is a retaliatory action on part of her hired software firm to teach me a lesson as I follow her social media accounts with the same username but they didn't touch my Instagram or twitter accounts !

Crispgatoglitz (talk) 04:34, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

"New device" warnings can absolutely be triggered by logging in while private-browsing, or logging in from a new app. It is very unlikely that someone is trying to hack you. Regardless, you should have a secure password for your account, and never use the same password on more than one site. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:42, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

I get emails from Wikipedia or Commons fairly often which are similar to the ones you got; I just ignore them because I know it was me doing the editing. Is there anyone particular edit in your edit history which you think was made by another editor who has hacked your account. If there is, please provide a WP:DIFF for it so that others can look at it.

For what it's worth, I have no way of knowing whether the actress or her representatives are trying teach you lesson. Maybe they or someone else is. All you can do is follow the suggestions at Wikipedia:Personal security practices, Wikipedia:User account security, m:Make sure you have a password and Wikipedia:Password strength requirements#So that's it, my account is secure? to try and keep your account as secure as possible. You might also consider Wikipedia:Committed identity if you're worried about others impersonating you. Unless your account has truly been compromised, any edits made with it are going to be assumed to have been made by you.if you want an administrator to block the account so that nobody can use it to edit from this point forward, then maybe they will; however, I'm not sure what more anyone can do to help you.

I briefly mentioned to you about being a WP:SPA once before on your user talk page. If you want to make the primary focus of your Wikipedia editing be content related to this particular actress, then you can; however, if you're then going to try to contact her and other representatives off-Wiki, you need to be aware that people out in the real world might view you with suspicion. Posts like this subsequently followed up by attempts to contact the editor off-wiki might be seen as a form of harrassment so you need to be very careful. Just edit articles as best as you can based upon the reliable sources you can find. When you've done all you can for a particular article, move on to another one and try to imrpove it. You don't have to only edit content related to this actress; there are lots of other aritcles you can try to improve. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:30, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Crispgatoglitz is blocked with TPA revoked. --Tarage (talk) 17:50, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Issues concerning JDRF article

• JDRF (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello,

This notice is in reference to a possible edit being made to the JDRF article. I am a fairly new user and have a COI that is stated on my user page. I posted the original edit last month directly to the article: [151] and had it reverted a few hours later by user jytdog: [152] He also stripped the page of most of its content: [153] I then left a message on his talk page to ask for clarification, which has since been deleted. He responded on my user talk page explaining paid editing and COI policies on WP. He consistently reiterated that his main concern was with my COI: [154] From there, I followed every step that was given to me in order to both better understand WP guidelines and work towards an agreeable solution with the editor. Including, posting my possible edit to the JDRF talk page and stating my COI: [155] The editor responded with his thoughts and suggested an RFC. He posted to the WikiMed Noticeboard and another editor commented. I worked on my potential edit, taking both of their commentary and suggestions into account and did my best to incorporate them into the edit: [156] I let the editors know that if I did not get further commentary I would be reposting the revised edit. I had not understood when you posted to a talk page with a COI you are unable to post your edit to the article yourself. Jytdog reverted my edit within the hour and put an edit warring warning on my user talk page. He then commented on the JDRF talk page with further suggestions and commentary on the revised edit. Some of his issues being the language not being appropriate for WP, the research grant spending charts not telling the "entire story" and one of the graphs being misleading. I took his suggestions into account and made revisions to the edit to include research grant spending along with research administration costs, SGA+fundraising, and management (these are the four items listed on non-profit 990s) in order to tell the "whole story". I also edited the language of the edit and fixed the misleading chart: [157] Jytdog responded to the edit claiming that I was using WP as a soapbox to promote my organization's "complaints": [158] I responded, after feeling like what he had said was hostile and a bit abrasive: [159] He left a message on my talkpage, once again, about his issue returning to my "paid editing" which I had thought we had gone over: [160]

The most pertinent issue here is that I believe the final revised edit I would like to add to the wikipedia page [161] is 100% fact based, can be cited to tax documents through credible sources, and is important information for the JDRF page. I have been as agreeable, civil and accommodating as possible. I have asked for his guidance, since he is who has responded to all of my potential edits and who was the only editor aggressively reverting my edits and have taken every opportunity to learn more about WP guidelines, practices, and protocol. I took into account every suggested edit that was given, by both editors, and even added in additional information I was not planning to add in order to better the edit for Jytdog. I felt this was the final step I could take because it does not seem he and I will find a middle ground. Thank you for your time! ElisabethF (talk) 21:25, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I think WP:DRN is the place for this, as ANI is for conduct issues (discussions of wrongdoing by editors), and this sounds more like a content dispute (just a disagreement over what an article should say). Tornado chaser (talk) 22:29, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

WP:DRN and WP:DR

This is another case where editors with a dispute that appears to be a content dispute are told to go to the dispute resolution noticeboard, DRN. That may or may not be the right place to send them. I have not yet researched the dispute in sufficient detail to know. Editors with a content dispute should read the dispute resolution policy, DR,and then go to the appropriate content forum, which may be further talk page discussion, Third Opinion, DRN, or a Request for Comments. The volunteers at DRN sometimes have to decline to accept a case where a party here at ANI was told go to to DRN, because the case isn't right for DRN, and that results in embittered new users being given a run-around. DRN may or may not be the right forum. It is for the mediation of content disputes by compromise. It doesn't work if an editor declines to take part in it or is uncivil, and it doesn't work well if there are a very large number of editors (RFC is better then). Just a comment. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:20, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Ongoing disruption by Учхљёная

Учхљёная (talk · contribs)}

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive987#User:Учхљёная, that discussion has been archived with no consensus regarding any action, and since that the aforementioned editor has continued to make disruptive edits, such as adding lyrics when there is consensus not to, and adding nonstandard formating to articles, now the SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Diabedia ended up as inconclusive, but even if this user is not a sockpuppet, they clearly do need to be dealt with. Pinging @Oshwah and Kashmiri: who were actively involved in the previous ANI thread. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 00:34, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Champion - If you could provide diffs to the ongoing disruptive edits you describe here, it will be significantly helpful not only to me, but anyone and everyone else who reads this ANI report :-). ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:38, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Most recently, there was a discussion at AN3 which ended with the page being fully protected, see here. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 00:41, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Also see [162] when there is consensus against including lyrics per WP:NOTLYRICS and [163] in which nonstandard formatting is reverted. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 00:43, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

@Champion: It's clear you think this user needs to be indeffed, but it's not that clear what exactly the problem is. The issues you describe are minor, unless you can demonstrate, with diffs, that they are ongoing problems that are persisting in spite of warnings. Swarm ♠ 01:47, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

It is still ongoing, see [164]. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 08:31, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Davidbena

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

---

After posting this frivolous ANI report yesterday, I decided to look into Davidbena’s recent behavior. What alarmed me from the get-go—other than taking a content dispute to ANI straight away—is David attacking Huldra by accusing her of being a staunch pro-Palestinian writer for disputing a questionable source. Davidbena doubled-down after Huldra’s explanation, again referring to her editing as “POV”.

• The dispute in question is over the reliability of a self-published author. Again, at RSN David avounched that they “know” Huldra and made more unsubstantiated accusations on her “clear tendency for POV editing”; he again described her behavior as POV-based editing. At no point did he indicate any understanding of why the source is not preferred here. In an earlier discussion at RSN on 25 July, more of the same from David: It does not surprise me that some editors who take a strong anti-Israel bias would want to expunge this vital information.
• David’s also advocates for fringe theories during discussion. At this recent one, David commented 16 times—despite editors insisting he is clearly incorrect and should stop [165][166][167][168][169]—on there not being an occupation of the West Bank, ignoring the majority view of reliable sources. Just read the discussion; honestly, a single diff cannot do his blocks of text supporting a fringe view any justice.

Recent discussions with David indicate an editor who does not hear the advice and constructive criticism of others; when challenged about an edit, he assumes bias on part of the disagreeing editor. I hope editors with more familiarity with David come foreword because these diffs only touch on an alarming concern. Perhaps a warning or a t-ban from the I-P area would do David—and the encyclopedia—some good because this trend cannot continue.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:58, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

I'll be more than happy to respond one-by-one to any allegations that editors might have against me. My suggestion is to make bullets, with each separate allegation (complaint), and there I'll post my reply and give explanations for my conduct. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 03:04, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Honestly when editors have a dispute I like to think we can keep the bullets out of it. EEng 08:33, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Proposal: Topic 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 propose that Davidbena be indefinitely topic banned from all WP:ARBPIA topics, broadly construed. It is not reasonable to require people working in an area where every stone is argued over to engage in such pointless discussions. Anyone can have a bad day so it was not a big deal when Davidbena started at ANI, but the inability to hear the responses was alarming. Then it was raised again at RSN where Davidbena asks for an opinion from a "Wikipedia Administrator who may live in Israel". Davidbena's claims of reliability of the source in question seem to rely on personal knowledge and the fact that the book is catalogued in a university library. After all that we see concern about "User:Huldra's POV-based editing" (diff) (Huldra removed the source as unreliable, as confirmed at RSN). Johnuniq (talk) 03:58, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Pardon me, but I do not understand why, if the ANI has been closed, it is now being brought-up again. After realizing that I made a mistake to bring my complaint before them, I immediately complied to their suggestions to raise the issue with Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard.Davidbena (talk) 04:07, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

The very first words above are After posting this frivolous ANI report yesterday, I decided to look into Davidbena’s recent behavior [emphasis added]. What alarmed me from the get-go...

In other words, the very first words EXPLICITLY say it's not the ANI "being brought up again": your behavior there triggered a further inquiry about your pattern of behavior overall. Your claim of not understanding is therefore a sign of not listening, not being competent, or of being disingenuous. Would you like to revise your statement? --Calton | Talk 13:59, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

It may possibly be seen as relevant that Davidbena was blocked [170] back in 2015 for accusing Huldra of "pursuing a political agenda bent on defaming Israel". [171] There seems to be a pattern here. 86.147.197.31 (talk) 15:01, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Actually, he was not blocked for what he called me, he was blocked for violating 1RR (and yes, I was the one who reported him) Huldra (talk) 21:05, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban - While David's behavior hasn't been optimal (but whose is?) - the proposed remedy is out of proportion to the editing. Not everything needs to be at AN/I - especially when this was discussed here a couple of days ago.Icewhiz (talk) 19:58, 3 August 2018 (UTC) clarified !vote seeing this turned into a proposal.Icewhiz (talk) 19:25, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Any editor who is active in the ARBPIA-area is bound to loose their temper once in a while, make an edit that wasn't optimum, or write an edit-summary that was less than courteous. We have all been there, and yet we all together make this project better. Huldra is an pro-Arab editor, as I am pro-Israel. We try to make good edits, but sometimes our POVs show. That is normal and that is legit. We have all been blocked at one time or another, yet we are all veteran editors, with thousands of good contributions. Let's not make a big deal of nothing, forget the talk about bans, block and all those things, and just continue to work on together. Especially in this case, where I feel something close to nothing is being blown up out of proportion. All in all, this project is benefiting from the varied input from all editors. Debresser (talk) 15:34, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

OK, background: Davidbena and I first met at Talk:Bayt Nattif in early 2015, at which time he admitted that he knew "absolutely nothing " about the Arab history. Since then I have actually been quite impressed with the way he looks up sources...(Even when I feel I have to batter facts into him...).

Lately he has, however, used some rather partisan Hebrew sources.

I wasn't going to support a topic ban...until I saw this edit by him, made after this thread was opened(!) Here Davidbena inserts a Joseph Tabenkin source again....after just being told by a virtual unanimous crowd on WP:RS/N that it wasn't acceptable(!). He seems to suffer from an extreme case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Therefor;

I support a 6 month topic ban, and if it is implemented, then I strongly urge Davidbena to use that time to read some books from "the opposite side"...and not only hear the viewpoints of Haganah commanders, Huldra (talk) 21:05, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Sigh. This is incorrect. The view of some editors there was that Joseph Tabenkin could indeed be used as a source if it were first premised with the words, "According to Joseph Tabenkin, etc.," and supported by a Secondary source. I did just that. This was in accordance with the Reliable Sources Noticeboard thread seen here.Davidbena (talk) 18:50, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, people can see here, what the RSN said about this. Benny Morris, 2004, never mentions Joseph Tabenkin, except on p. 464, where he mention that Tabenkin was "a major proponent of transfer in the Israeli political arena". Or Ethnic cleansing, as that would be called today. Tabenkin might be mentioned in Dominique Lapierre and Larry Collins, O Jérusalem; alas, they were not academics; if you want O Jérusalem accepted as a RS on 1948 war related topics, then I'm afraid you will have to go WP:RSN again, Huldra (talk) 23:54, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

We have no disagreement here. We can discuss these issues on the relevant Talk-Page. My initial response to your allegations that I restored an unwanted edit after posting on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard was that the discussion permitted our use of a Primary source if we used it with caution and if we added the premise, "According to Joseph Tabenkin, such-and-such a thing took place." I have always been open to discussion about the edit, and if all else fails, we can always open a RfC on the specific edit. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 00:23, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

*Oppose I do not support the ban of Davidbena here at ANI as it seems more like an anarchic attempt at democracy. I find that David is highly partisan and, within the very limited contact I've had with him, seems to be here to promote Pro-Israeli POV without any attempt at NPOV. But I feel also that my, albeit limited, interaction with David would make me seem, to any reasonable outside observer, biased. As this relates to ARBPIA, I feel it is going to be a disorganized mess full of Pro-Israeli partisans and Pro-Palestinian partisans, making it hard to determine the over all consensus on this matter. I take this as a request to apply ARBPIA discretionary sanctions and I take from WP:ACDS that WP:ARE would be the appropriate venue for this. While I can't say that ANI here can't take this action, I question if ANI should, and my opinion is no.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:03, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

• WP:AE is totally unsuited for this kind of problem. At AE, two or three diffs of clear violations of discretionary sanctions are required. ANI is the place to handle a case where someone consistently shows WP:CIR problems in a sensitive area. The problems (see OP) include the WP:RSN debacle and repeatedly using phrases like "clear tendency for POV editing" to describe other editors. The problems might be excusable for a newish editor or one not working to push a partisan view in a sensitive area, but Davidbena has been editing for five years and has over 20,000 edits. Johnuniq (talk) 23:39, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

::*I was assuming above there was more than three clear examples and an over all longterm pattern that has developed.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:09, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

• Davidbena's problem is the total lack of clue as shown, for example, in the RSN discussion about whether a self-published source should be used for a non-trivial fact in a topic under discretionary sanctions. Combined with that were the attacks on the integrity of the editor who did the right thing by removing the inappropriate source. It's impossible to provide a couple of diffs which show the problem because each diff would be dismissed as just showing bad judgment with a "minor" issue of casting aspersions. AE requires much clearer issues such as diffs of edit warring or strong personal attacks. At ANI, the big picture can be considered—is Davidbena's overall behavior such that a topic ban is warranted, regardless of the rules of AE? The answer is yes. Johnuniq (talk) 01:55, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Having just finished our Sabbath-day of rest and coming back to my computer to see this barrage of attacks, well, you can imagine my surprise. Frankly speaking, I think that you are being a little too harsh with me. Anyone looking at my edits and my communications with our fellow co-editors will see, without any doubt in my mind, how that I have persistently pursued a course of balance and neutral editing in all articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. I cannot understand why anyone here would think that this is wrong, after all, Wikipedia policies support WP:NPOV. As for my worries about our co-editor, Huldra, and what I thought may be somehow related to a POV-based edit (based on many previous conversations I've had with her and her clear pro-Palestinian Arab stand, versus my own pro-Israeli stand) - although in all my edits having emphasized our need to remain unbiased and to paint a broader neutral picture, I can see nothing wrong with a person turning to those in a position of authority for addressing such suspicions (whether they be founded or unfounded) and without that person having to fear reprisals because he had turned to them for their impartial judgment. In the final analysis, my conscience is clear. I wish for us to work together in perfect harmony and without misrepresenting facts.Davidbena (talk) 19:06, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support topic ban based off WP:CIR issues as shown at RSN, plus inappropriate musings about editors' ethnic backgrounds, requests for admins of specific national origins, etc. Link: [172]. Too much disruption from this editor, in a sensitive topic area where editors are expected to have a clue. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:04, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose topic ban Just another attempt to remove editor with certain WP:YESPOV that some other editors don't like and goes against their own WP:POV. --Shrike (talk) 06:49, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support topic ban - based on the evidence presented by Johnuniq and K.e. coffman. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:03, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support topic ban after reading the discussions linked above. Everybody has a POV in some area or other, it's part of being human, but the issue here seems to be a persistent refusal to listen to any arguments that contradict his own POV, combined with disruptive/chilling comments about other editors and their backgrounds. It is not just a temporary loss of cool, which again is a common and human thing, but a long-term pattern from what I can tell. --bonadea contributions talk
• Support - Unless this stops: [173][174][175][176] Xavexgoem (talk) 13:46, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
• Comment. An indefinite topic ban is way too hard. David has great difficulties in grasping the fact that different views can legitimately exist, and that the best guide is not independent or personal research, but looking at the consensus of professional academic sources. He does however read a lot, and that commends the idea that we should encourage him to take time off, reflect on policy and practice, and hopefully return to work here. I think 3 months is fair. If thereafter, there is no improvement, the indefinite ban would kick in. Nishidani (talk) 17:33, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Many of you may not know it, but despite my differences with User:Huldra, we have often worked together to improve many articles here, working together in a collaborative spirit. I think that she can attest to this (e.g. Allar, Jerusalem, Surif, Az-Zakariyya, Khirbet al-Deir, etc.). Our cooperation has been far greater than our disputes over content. Still, should two editors working on the same article be afraid to express their views about each other on Talk-Pages? I don't think so. We have often spoken about our private views and dislikes in these Talk-Pages (e.g. Talk:Husan, Talk:Emmaus Nicopolis/Archive 1, Talk:List of modern names for biblical place names, Talk:List of military occupations, "Ceded" or "Confiscated"?). Sometimes callow editors hoping to make their first impression can be quick to judge others without looking at the full picture. Sad is the day if, on Wikipedia, we cannot discuss freely with our fellow co-editors our concerns and raise with them our suspicions without being punished. At least I can remember being taught that "open rebuke is better than secret love." Until now, my opinion of Wikipedia has been a good one. I sincerely hope that it remains that way. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 19:49, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Having considered all that was said and done by me, and since there is no man who sees his own disabilities - and I being no exception - I wish to apologize if I wrongly insulted a person here, among my fellow co-editors. I deeply apologize for coming across as rude, and believe me when I say that I respect every man's contribution here. Every man/woman has his/her special talents and abilities, whose mission here cannot easily be filled by others. I'm fully convinced of that. Perhaps, too, my upbringing as a Yeshiva student may have something to do with how others perceive me here, since we are taught to revel in debate and to challenge certain views in order to get to the truth. This should not be seen as a detriment (in my humble opinion), but something peculiar to a group of people who sincerely want to know the truth. Again, please accept my sincere apologies.Davidbena (talk) 20:26, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

So now sincerely wanting to know the truth is peculiar to Yeshiva students? Softlavender (talk) 23:21, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Everyone is in search of the truth, perhaps though on different levels, and no one should be punished for that.Davidbena (talk) 00:17, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

But David, our job here is not to establish The Truth™, rather, we report what the reliable sources say. This is not a minor point. - Nick Thorne ^talk 00:53, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

True, but I was referring to my own inquisitive nature which may have sparked some feelings of resentment towards me. We can be, both, inquisitive and still support our findings with reliable and verifiable academic sources having a universal acceptance. The two do not have to be mutually exclusive, unless of course we're talking about censorship.Davidbena (talk) 05:25, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support topic ban from ARBPIA topics. This is an extremely sensitive area of the project, and editors who volunteer there should not have to wrangle with someone who, despite 5 years and over 21,000 edits to Wikipedia, seems to lack basic comprehension of what it means to be a reliable source. Efforts to educate Davidbena otherwise appear to be unproductive. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:45, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

For the record, no one has ever accused me of tendentious editing. And while we do discuss heated topics on the articles' Talk-Pages, I have ALWAYS conceded to consensus. Here, in fact, the reason I am being brought before this board for an alleged "breach of etiquette" is because I filed an ANI complaint against User:Huldra for deleting material of historical importance without first referring the matter to the article's Talk-Page. My mistake. From there, everything blew out of proportion. Whatever the case might be, I humbly submit myself to any verdict that the jurors of this board may decide fitting for me, in hopes that I will not offend anymore.Davidbena (talk) 06:10, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Why would Huldra have to "refer the matter to the article's Talk-Page" before making an edit? Unless the matter had been discussed before, and there was a standing consensus against the removal, Huldra is perfectly free to make a WP:BOLD edit without consulting with other editors. If his edit is disputed, then -- in the best of all possible worlds -- WP:BRD kicks in an Huldra should discuss it with other editors on the talk page to arrive at a WP:CONSENSUS, but there does not have to be a consensus beforehand. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:19, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, again, that was my mistake. I'm sorry about that. I'll know better next time.Davidbena (talk) 21:47, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. It's not that any single conversation is incredibly egregious (though that stuff about someone being married to an Arab was really out there). It's that the user keeps having these repeated run-ins, especially over reliable sources, and does not seem to change their behavior at all. Their problems with repeated long-winded discussion about reliable sources go beyond just what would pop up searching "Davidbena" over at WP:RSN. It also shows up all over talk pages: [177] (where they first argue for the Bible as an "authenticated historical source" and then suggest a first-century (!) writer's retelling of biblical stories as a "secondary source"), [178] (where they try to argue that the Bible plus personal Yemini friends add up to an authority on the etymology of an ancient place-name), [179] (where he argues that only a Yeminite source (!) can falsify a particular claim about someone's birthdate -- other sources don't count). The stuff just goes on and on. All you have to do is type "Davidbena" and "reliable" into a Wikipedia talk page search and it just rolls out. Repeated enough times, this kind of stuff has a corrosive effect on collaboration here. A whole bunch of different editors, over and over, haven't been able to get through on this. Competence isn't optional. Alephb (talk) 05:11, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support while I disagree that ANI is suited for this I do agree that this action is called for. DavidBena is quite long winded and stray off topic for something that should be an somewhat resembling an academic discussion many of the diffs here show. Biblical sources are not authoritative and the personal opinion of the position of a deity is not either[180] [181]. I'd go further but I don't feel from his responses that he's really hearing whats being said.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 18:31, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

• I'm very sorry to read this invective; I can see that I've amassed a few enemies here (which I never intended to do). Anyone looking at the above diffs with an open-mind, and who will analyze the sum and bearing of the conversation as it applies to each topic, will see that everything was done in Good Faith. Each topic is far too extensive to be entered upon here.Davidbena (talk) 21:57, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

• Once again, there is not even a hint of introspection in that. Rather than acknowledging any problems, comments supporting a topic ban are dismissed as "invective". Johnuniq (talk) 23:04, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
• Davidbena: I do not consider you my "enemy", and I do not doubt that your edits were done 100% in Good Faith. As Johnuniq says: that really isn't the issue...Huldra (talk) 23:17, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
• I don't find my comments to be particularly invective. I am your enemy? Are you batman? Am I the joker? I never suggested you made those comments in bad faith. I suggested they line up with the other diffs shared by others. All of the diffs provided here show you have a deep bias and you do not attempt to manage it. "Open-minded" who analyse sum and bearing of the conversation will apparently see it your way.... You keep saying you get it and you apologize and etc then you comeback and make comments like this that show otherwise. You need this break from this topic area as much as wikipedia needs it.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 17:05, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support. I have finally become convinced this is necessary, especially from this comment: [182]. -- Softlavender (talk) 23:28, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Please see here.Davidbena (talk) 00:28, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support indefinite topic ban on Arab-Israeli conflict. User seems to approach articles with a preconception of how they should read rather than wanting to look at what the majority of reliable sources say. Seems to think that inserting minority POVs like spam wherever they apply is "balance". Equivocates or moves the goal posts [183][184] (see portion in tq) without blinking an eye. Also tangentially but speaking to CIR or understanding Wikipedia, this user seems to promote intelligent design and young earth creationism as patent facts or as not being pseudoscience [185] and especially [186], claim that Noah's alleged account of the flood is a reliable primary source[187], etc. Even though it's been a year, user appears to have repeatedly violated 1RR [188][189][190][191][192], having had persistent trouble understanding things like "24 hours". Overall CIR and POV problems. It's unfortunate because the Arab-Israeli articles probably do lack a good balance of editors' POVs but we are not here on account of personal POVs, just to report reliable sources, and understanding this is where Davidbena seems to fall short. A change of topics couldn't hurt, there is a lot of Wikipedia out there to edit. —DIYeditor (talk) 06:49, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I believe that I'm entitled to explain my motives here. First, it is a specious argument to think that the above suggested edits (as shown in the first two diffs) are not supported by reliable sources. They are. I call your attention to the following articles published by JSTOR, see: Why Is Israel's Presence in the Territories Still Called "Occupation"?, and The Need for Fundamental Change in the Law of Belligerent Occupation. Besides, my understanding of WP:UNDUE is that we are to represent all views, as much as they can be substantiated by reliable sources: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources."

For your information: My personal views on "creationism" and the Great Deluge at the time of Noah have NEVER been incorporated in any Wikipedia articles. Are you saying that editors here are not entitled to express any personal views on Talk-Pages and to show through available sources how they reached such conclusions?Davidbena (talk) 13:17, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Ah, but they have been incorporated into Wikipedia articles. See especially the last line of the second paragraph of the "Archaeological evidence" section. The early Europeans had genetic DNA that resembled more closely Near Eastern and Anatolian people, insofar that ALL were from one family - the progeny of Adam > Seth and/or Cain. That's not balance, that's rubbish. —DIYeditor (talk) 14:06, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

These were not my own personal views. Rather, two archaeologists and professors made those claims about genetic DNA changes in Europe (at a time corresponding with the alleged Great Deluge), but the edit was never allowed to stand. Therefore, none of my personal views on this subject (whether they can be supported by scientific evidence or not) are, to this day, incorporated in Wikipedia articles, where the majority of editors here have chosen to take a "mythical view" of the flood.Davidbena (talk) 14:31, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

This concerns an old edit, but since you seem to be arguing that it was relevant I guess the problem still exists. The edit added two paragraphs. The first one consisted mainly of two long quotes taken from the source (as well as an incorrect claim about the location of the excavations, but that's a very minor detail). The second paragraph consisted of interpretations of those quotes, without any source for the interpretations other than a vague "Those who accept the tradition of a colossal flood". It is reasonable to assume, therefore, that the interpretations and opinions presented, including the very problematic last sentence quoted by DIYeditor above, were your own. Note that the source used in the first paragraph makes no mention of the flood myth - that's not any part of the subject of that article, so there is no reason to add it to the article at all! (In fact, some other theories for the DNA changes are presented.) Your phrasing the majority of editors here have chosen to take a "mythical view" of the flood is also a little problematic, since it is not a question of "[choosing] to take a mythical view" but of accepting the overwhelming scientific evidence that it is a myth. Accepting scientific evidence and writing articles based on that world view, using reliable mainstream sources without adding our own interpretation, is pretty much what Wikipedia is about. --bonadea contributions talk 09:46, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

I suppose there's a place for scrutiny (as it keeps us all in check), but, as you can see, I never challenged the consensus. The consensus was allowed to stand.Davidbena (talk) 13:39, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support, largely based on the (clueless) argument at RSN that problematic, self-published sources should be "given a chance" because a particular editor vouches for them. Grandpallama (talk) 10:13, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

At first, we did not know that Heally Gross' books (refer to RSN here) were self-published. When we sent an inquiry about them, we then learnt about their nature, although the author herself seems to be quite adept in her field of expertise. Since she did not meet the standard set on Wikipedia for "reliable sources," although her works are verifiable and she does have a University degree in her field, we were left with no choice but to avoid her as a source. I am not arguing against this decision. I accept it. I sure wish my interlocutors here could be more heedful in reading these appeals for arbitration on the respective Noticeboards before passing judgment.Davidbena (talk) 13:17, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I read and understood what you promoted perfectly well. When we sent an inquiry about them, we then learnt about their nature, although the author herself seems to be quite adept in her field of expertise shows that you still don't get it. Grandpallama (talk) 13:56, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

On the contrary Davidbena - as the RSN discussion that you referenced shows, it was observed very quickly that the sources were self-published. You then engaged in a lot of special pleading as to why they didn't really count as self-published, and later whether we could overlook the fact that they were indeed self-published, but the overwhelming consensus after much back-and-forth discussion was that they were unreliable, self-published sources from a non-expert. To be honest, it looks like you still haven't genuinely accepted that: you are again mentioning her university degree, again saying that the books are verifiable, again telling us how adept she is in her field. I think this is why Grandpallama described your argument as clueless - not very friendly perhaps, but I think people are getting frustrated because you're just not hearing what everyone is telling you. Girth Summit (talk) 14:03, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Even so, at first none of us knew that the work was self-published and I, after learning that, tried to find some succour and "saving grace" that might keep the source from going under. I think this is a natural response to a source that brings down vital information that might be permanently lost. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 14:16, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

And this perfectly exemplifies why the TBAN is needed. You read my comments, and then Girth Summit's comments, and still are talking nonsense about "vital information" and the idea that a source needs to be "saved" instead of simply evaluated for its suitability. Grandpallama (talk) 14:21, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support TBAN from all WP:ARBPIA topics, broadly construed, as he's continuing to make unsupportable arguments for obviously unreliable sources. Girth Summit (talk) 14:25, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

As I've said before, I have already accepted the decision that Heally Gross' books cannot be used on Wikipedia as a reliable source. What more can I say?Davidbena (talk) 14:41, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Your comments above do not look like genuine acceptance Davidbena. It looks like you've acknowledged that you're not going to get your way, but you still seem to think that the decision should have gone the other way - I believe that's the problem. If you are unable to genuinely agree that those books are totally unsuitable sources, and agree that material found only in them is totally unsuitable for inclusion, then you shouldn't be working on this area. Girth Summit (talk) 14:49, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Whoa whoa whoa. We are not the Thought Police. It doesn't matter what David thinks about the decision, as long as he doesn't cause disruption and/or disregard it. Fish+Karate 08:53, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Huh? Girth Summit said that Davidbena's comments show he accepted the decision about this particular source, but they also reveal no overall change to his understanding of policy, which is the underlying problem. That's a perfectly valid observation, particularly in deciding whether or not to support a TBAN. That doesn't have anything to do with "Thought Police". Grandpallama (talk) 09:28, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Actually, that's probably fair comment by Fish and karate - I should have expressed myself better. What I meant was that while David acknowledges the decision about this particular source, his comments at RSN, and again here, make it clear that he continues to believe that some stuff is so important that we should be flexible in how we apply our referencing policies to allow its inclusion. That is not a good approach to use in such a contentious area, where one should be taking extra care to make sure that any assertions are rigorously sourced. Girth Summit (talk) 10:37, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

For your information, what remained of those old sources, I have already deleted them, while some were deleted by others.Davidbena (talk) 18:08, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

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

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

EEng's continuous uncivil comments

The following discussion is closed. 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 WP:UNCIVIL, it is Incivility consists of personal attacks, rudeness and disrespectful comments. Especially when done in an aggressive manner, these often alienate editors and disrupt the project through unproductive stressors and conflict. While a few minor incidents of incivility that no one complains about are not necessarily a concern, a continuing pattern of incivility is unacceptable. Any time something dealing with professional wrestling comes to ANI or a RfC, EEng jumps in and says everything dealing with professional wrestling should just be deleted. For example, see his unproductive comment today here [193]. That comment clearly violates the items I have bolded above. This is a continous pattern, as you can see by looking in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive979#User:Kev519 and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive985#Follow-on discussion re addressing disruption in the pro wrestling topic area and several other locations. While EEng might offer constructive comments in in response to other areas, I request at least a warning to cut out these uncivil comments. I do not care if he likes professional wrestling or not, but he is hurting the project with his comments. He should be encouraging people to try and work on cleaning up the issues, not poke fun every time someone does. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 21:20, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

I would also like to add that his move of my comments [194] is unacceptable. I am opening a new complaint that he is attempting to hide burying it under an earlier thread. This is a comment about this user, not about the other topic. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 21:26, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Oh, he's not hurting the project with his honestly very truthful comments - it would probably be to Wikipedia's benefit. But I will agree that the comments are unhelpful, and cause editors who can't help themselves to waste their valuable time responding to him, like I'm probably wasting time responding to this. EEng should refrain from bringing that up on ANI in the future - after all, this is a place to discuss whether editors' behavior is in line with policy, and those discussions should not be derailed by policy proposals like EEng's. Someguy1221 (talk) 21:33, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

That seems like a very balanced summary. In my defense, I point out that the product of my last unproductive comment along these lines (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive985#Follow-on_discussion_re_addressing_disruption_in_the_pro_wrestling_topic_area) was that pro wrestling is now under general sanctions, which certainly was a step in the right direction, but apparently not an adequate one. Perhaps my most recent unproductive comment will produce even more effective results. In the meantime, how's about this: I'll stop pointing out that huge amounts of community time are being wasted by these trivial content disputes being brought to ANI, if these trivial content disputes stop being brought to ANI. EEng 21:41, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) @EEng: I completely get where you're coming from, but I think everyone would get along a bit better if you said exactly what you just did instead of saying everything wrestling-related should be deleted. I absolutely agree that wrestling articles have an unusual amount of contention surrounding them, and they can be annoying time sinks. Saying that is just a statement of fact at this point. Hopefully, the general sanctions you prompted will improve that. We know that we're not deleting all the wrestling articles, though, so maybe leave that part out? I know I would feel a tiny bit attacked if someone said everything related to Canadian football should be deleted because most Canadian football biographies are terrible (true!). I would probably initially feel that was a dismissal of my work to make some of them marginally less terrible, which is probably what most editors bringing that stuff to ANI are trying to do. Fair? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 21:48, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

I have no opinion of whether Canadian football is terrible or whatever. What I do know is that it doesn't show up at ANI all the time. It's the low signal-to-noise ratio in pro wrestling that makes it a fit object of derision. EEng 21:57, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps that just means less people care about Canadian football than professional wrestling. I know nothing about it but do they get 3 million+ people watching it every week, 52 weeks a year? The volume of information is by its nature going to be different, which means more articles and more edits and more changes, so by default more issues. There are tons of Israel related topics here constantly, why dont you propose deleting all of those articles? Maybe the answer is you should stop following ANI if you dont care about people raising issues here. Or if you don't have something helpful to add, just stay silent! - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 22:04, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)So your response to my complaint that you are offering unhelpful comments in response to people seeking help is to continue piling on more unhelpful comments? If there are issues on a page on wikipedia, the answer is to bring it to ANI, not to not bring it so EEng doesnt have to see it. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 21:53, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

If there are issues on a page on wikipedia, the answer is to bring it to ANI – Aha! Perhaps we've come to the root of this problem. See the big box at the top of this page: ANI is for "urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems", not every "issue on a page". Haven't you heard of WP:Dispute_resolution? EEng 22:01, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

I didn't say all issues should be brought here. Scroll up and see that I said I have seen you bring up similar comments outside of here, at RfC or other similar places. So the issues isn't with everyone but you, the issue is with you. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 22:07, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, you did say that. I even quoted you. And yes I make such comments elsewhere, to raise awareness of the absurd disruption to the project originating in this topic area.

I'll say it again: why aren't you using WP:Dispute resolution? EEng 22:13, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Because that is not the correct venue for issues that I have brought here. That is why. This is the correct venue of the issues I have raised here. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 22:28, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

No, it's really not. Perhaps you've noticed no action's being taken on the two threads you currently have on this board, and several editors have said how pissed off they are at you for wasting the community's time? EEng 16:35, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

• Pro wrestling has a practice called kayfabe, putting on a show of having big rivalries and feuds, based on trivial offenses, in order to better entertain the spectators. Maybe that's what Galatz is attempting to do for the drama-fans in the audience here at ANI? —David Eppstein (talk) 21:51, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

So if someone came to complain about someone making comments about comedies would you be making the same stupid comments, but just saying they are making jokes to bring comedy to ANI? - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 21:55, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

I might, if I thought they were making a big fuss about trivial offenses and their joke concerned doing just that. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:36, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Thought about further measures to reduce wrestling-related disruption

In the discussion a few months ago which ended with general sanctions being imposed on pro wrestling, it was suggested along the way that topic specific sources, such as "news" from WWE's promotion apparatus, be treated as non-independent sources. This would radically reduce the number of notable people/topics, and the amount of detail available for inclusion in the articles that remain. I'd like to hear people's thoughts about this, and perhaps someone experienced in such deep matters will volunteer to take it to the appropriate venue and help shepherd it through. EEng 22:19, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Professional wrestling uses the exact same criteria for notability as anything else, where there must be independent sources to establish notability. Nothing related to WWE promotion is attributed to notability. Additionally, since you clearly just talk without checking into anything, you would see the volume of useless articles that get nominated and deleted all the time. I suggest you follow Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Article alerts if you want to see how many articles get deleted for not meeting notability. So do you care to give an example of something that only uses the "WWE's promotion apparatus" to establish notability, or is this just you talking out of your ass again? - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 22:26, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

"Professional wrestling uses the exact same criteria for notability as anything else" Ha. Haha. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Haaaa... --Tarage (talk) 22:30, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Care to give an example of something that has survived an AfD that you disagree with? - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 22:31, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

The correct question is "Can you give an example of something that was kept in an article that shouldn't have been due to overzealous wrestling fans". Yes. Yes I can. --Tarage (talk) 22:35, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

So in other words "no you cannot show where the notability criteria for articles is different", thank you. MPJ-DK  22:38, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm saying the statement "Professional wrestling uses the exact same criteria for notability as anything else, where there must be independent sources to establish notability." is hilariously absurd. --Tarage (talk) 22:40, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

@Tarage: Call it whatever you want, but show an example or else your comments are meaningless. Everything on wikipedia must meet WP:GNG. Professional wrestling falls under WP:ENT for more specific criteria. Again, give an example. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 22:43, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

So since anything from WWE is not considered an independent third-party source on anything WWE related the above suggestion is about as pointless as suggesting that a cup is a good vessel to hold coffee.  MPJ-DK  22:37, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Then why are wrestling articles full of WWE sources e.g. Elias_(wrestler)? Where are the independent reliable sources for Travis_Banks? Viper_(wrestler)? EEng 22:58, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I agree, many people rely heavily on WP:PRIMARY sources, but they are not used to establish notability, and they follow the guidelines established for that. The article you claim is full of WWE sources, uses them for 2 sources out of 21. As for Travis Banks, there are almost no WWE sources as well, everything is independent. Most are weak at establishing notability, but they have nothing to do with the "WWE's promotion apparatus" you are complaining about. Check out WP:PW/RS for a list of what sources are independent and notable. That article relies way too heavily on cagematch, and most of the sources are WP:ROUTINE, but that isn't what your issue was, that is a separate issue, but cagematch is independent and reliable. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 23:11, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you so much for clarifying your suggestion, I did not get the impression that you were asking for Wikipedia to censor a specific source, not because of the source itself or anything like that, but by your perception of how it it is being used by some editors. Question, does that mean you've stepped down your suggestion to censor an entire subject on Wikipedia to just a specific source or are you still suggesting an action that runs contrary to the core values of Wikipedia? Just curious.  MPJ-DK  23:18, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Put a sock in it or I'll smash you over the head with a chair. I never seriously meant we should eliminate all coverage, but in saying so I was expressing a sentiment that's close to universally shared: something has to be done. And I am suggesting that sources such as WWE be declared non-reliable because of the sources themselves, in that they are simply part of the elaborate promotion apparatus, and are therefore no more independent than an actor's agent's press releases. EEng 23:22, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

So perhaps drop that "delete it" line and try to do something constructive instead? 99% of the things WWE.com sources are 1) their press releases etc. and 2) match results. I am at a loss to how this suggestion does anything to improve matters? your examples of Viper and Banks had no WWE sources, so I'm trying to figure out what sort of improvement you think this will actually bring? So all other back and forth aside, I am genuinely curious about what problem you think this suggestion will solve? I just don't see it.  MPJ-DK  23:28, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

I am at a loss as well. It is a WP:PRIMARY source. There are guidelines for how they are used. Do you have an example of why it is unreliable or how it is being used to establish notability? If not then do you have a point? We don't just declare things unrealiable willy nilly unless there is some policy I am unaware of. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 23:31, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Hmmm... I had some other article than Elias (wrestler) on my clipboard but somehow ended up with Elias. Anyway, my proposal stands: that subject-specific sources on pro wrestling be considered non-independent. Let's hear what others think. EEng 23:43, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Can you please clarify what results you think this suggestion will have? How will this improve Wikipedia?  MPJ-DK  23:48, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Let's play this out and pretend an RfC or some other measure sees this proposal through. Generic WWE Wrestler (GWW) has all the WWE affiliated sourcing removed and thanks to DS this removal sticks (which is easier said than done). Suddenly GWW no longer appears notable and is nominated at AfD. A large number of wrestling fans show-up to the AfD !vote keep but the wise admin sees the few delete !votes and recognizes that they are policy based and closes as delete. This overriding of majority then causes the fans to flock to DRV for further appeal. We repeat this for several other GWW. Does this settle things down in the long-term? I ask this sincerely given again that some measure of DS seems like it would be necessary to keep WWE affiliated sources off wrestling pages especially because new wrestling interested editors come aboard regularly. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:30, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

But we already have General Sanctions in the wrestling subject area, don't we? Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:52, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

We do (I called them DS above). My point is that if we adopted the proposal to ban the sources suggested, even with GS there is going to be more conflict rather than less for at least some period of time and perhaps indefinitely. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:40, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

For this to make a difference the assumption is that primary sources are used to demonstrate notability, not to source statements in the article? Examples of this has yet to be provided. See this hingest on the assumption that this is how WWE sources are used. To counter that - everything you just stated would happen today, with no need for additional actions, if primary sources are used to establish notability - which of course is totally against what's outlined in WP:GNG. So I am still not seeing how going through this rigamarole would make anyone able to do anything more than they do today.  MPJ-DK  00:57, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

• Hmm that Elias article--I suppose one of the sources (incidentally the one that has a Wikipedia article) might could count as an acceptable source, being possibly reliable and independent. The rest is all primary, fan sites, zine stuff--as with most rassling articles. But the same applies to anime, K-pop, etc, which is why we have over 5 million articles, most of them useless and better placed on Wikia. Drmies (talk) 01:20, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

  Reminder - "Notability" is not determined by the sources presented in the article, but the coverage that exists on a person or subject. Search for the words Elias and WWE and I'm pretty sure you can find reliable third-party coverage for the subject. Are there wrestler/wrestling articles that don't meet that standard? Certainly, and they get prodded and AFD'ed all the time - just like every other topic on Wikipedia.  MPJ-DK  01:47, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

• User:MPJ-DK, are you seriously reminding me of something about notability? Did you really think I was somehow arguing the person wasn't notable? I've deleted probably thousands of articles--you'd think that if I needed a reminder about notability someone would have yanked my magic wand by now. Drmies (talk) 04:22, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

• So considering, in the middle of a discussion stating articles would be deleted if the WWE sources were yanked and you analyze the sources in the article instead, it was either that or a comment that you were off topic - take your pick.  MPJ-DK 

• Then we may well really be on to something here. But I think wrestling is unique in that the entire industry is essentially one giant coordinated kayfabe publicity machine, complete with captive "sources" and "commentators". If we treat all such sources as primary, then notability has to be established by mainstream sources outside the industry. EEng 01:49, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

• So if a source focuses on pro wrestling it's a "primary source" now? that's an interesting interpretation, are political news sites primary sources for political subjects? is "cricket coverage" news sites considered primary sources for cricket? Interesting, and still doesn't answer my question about what the original suggestion would entail. Now we are talking about reclassifying sources for a specific subject instead of following the general wikipedia standards for primary, secondary and terciary sources? I'm not sure that RFC would gain a lot of traction.  MPJ-DK  01:56, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

No, if a source is part of the captive promotional apparatus of the industry then it's not independent. Most political and sports commentary doesn't meet that description. No changing of Wikipedia standards is needed, just a recognition of the reality of the structure of the wrestling industry and the "sources" that cover it. EEng 02:06, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

• Further, how will this latest suggestion REDUCE distruptions? Seems like an admin nightmare to enforce to me. Is this suggestion actually giving you what you look for? Apparently the General Sanctions implemented didn't give you what you're looking for, how will this do it?  MPJ-DK  01:59, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

It will reduce disruption by radically reducing the number of idiotic articles on this idiotic topic, thus reducing the number of idiotic disputes over whether some group of these idiot spectacles are a "brand" or a "division" and other such idiocy. EEng 02:16, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

At this point I would like to remind you that this topic is under General Sanctions, you being uncivil in a topic like that may have side effects. This isn't a magic silver bullet, do you not think there are plenty of third-party sources covering the WWE and the high traffic, high dispute articles? Again, this would not fix any "idiot" problems that you seem to suffer from.  MPJ-DK  02:27, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Let's float a couple of things here to make sure I get your point. It is your contention that even if a source is totally independent of the WWE, has a defined editorial process to ensure fact-checking and accuracy - you are saying that currently, Wikipedia guidelines says that is not considered a reliable source to establish notability? I may be reading it differently. If the word you hang your argument on is "closely affiliated with the subject" then my point stands on political news websites or sport-specific websites. Let's take this thought experiment further, I work in Quality Assurance and I like things to be clear an unambiguous - are you suggesting that this "demotion" is applied to websites that only cover pro wrestling? I just want to be sure what portion of sources currently considered "Reliable Third Party Sources" this would affect since very few of them are exclusively pro wrestling. I appreciate any clarification you can provide, I know it would make a difference to any future RFC or the likes you may want to raise to build a consensus on such a proposal.  MPJ-DK  02:27, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

User:MPJ-DK, I don't see where EEng is being uncivil to you. Given the circumstances (they're dealing with an editor, you, who seems hell-bent on misunderstanding the point others are trying to make), I think they're remarkably patient. And EEng asked a question worth pursuing: if they have a point with "one giant coordinated kayfabe publicity machine", or as some might say "heavily scripted entertainment operation", then--and I've thought more than once about just boldly inserting this--every time the word "winner" or "champion" is mentioned it should indeed be in quotation marks, since it's all theatre. Drmies (talk) 04:26, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Drmies - Not to me, but don't tell me using the words "idiot", "idiots" and "idiotic" is not uncivil? If it is "worth pursuing" then I figured a clarification would be "worth it too". If you want a discussion on format/content please feel free to do so.  MPJ-DK  04:32, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

• Oh and thirdly, this latest "disruption" you complain about was basically created by you continually making snarky, pointy comments every time pro wrestling comes up. Should we suggest a topic ban for you to reduce the disruptions? After all if that is your end goal you are getting in your own way.  MPJ-DK  02:06, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

No, the disruption was created by Galatz bringing the latest idiotic wrestling dispute here. EEng 02:16, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

So you are saying that if you had not been snarky and pointy he would have still brought a dispute about you here and we'd be in this very subsection? don't see that myself.  MPJ-DK  02:27, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm saying that Galatz should learn other ways to deal with things he dislikes than opening an ANI thread at every turn. He's opened two in just the past few hours. EEng 02:40, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

And I am saying that without your continual snark and sniping that number would have been reduced by 50%.  MPJ-DK  02:44, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Don't take that comment as me defending or condoing the actions of Galatz, far from it. But your proposal on sources also doesn't address Galatz, so you'd be no different off.  MPJ-DK  02:47, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

But enough about me. People will no doubt think about what's been proposed here, and the next time an idiotic wrestling dispute comes to ANI, we can talk about it some more. EEng 02:59, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

So.... no clatifications? Just making a vague suggestion without actually being able to articulate the benefits of the suggestion? And I am really saddened by this repeated incivility and hostility you display - how does that help quell disputes here?  MPJ-DK  04:07, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

No, no clatifications. I think there's no need to clatify. EEng 12:55, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Actually I think you just made it very clear, thank you.  MPJ-DK  14:48, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Voluntary topic 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.

---

Ok, first off a confession. Some years ago I was at a lucha libre-themed Mexican eatery, and found myself explaining to the people I was with about the masks, the "hair" matches, the set pieces when a luchador moves from one franchise to another and so on. And someone said, "how do you... know all this stuff? Oh, wait, it's the Wikipedia thing, isn't it." I subsequently have given myself a topic ban from reading, viewing, or otherwise thinking about anything to do with professional wrestling, broadly construed. To enforce the ban, if I see words like "Smackdown" or "pay-per-view" in an ANI thread, I immediately stop reading it and move onto something else.
Perhaps EEng might like to consider a similar topic ban?

• Support as proposer. Pete AU aka--Shirt58 (talk) 02:11, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose because it doesn't seem to be working well for the proposer. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 03:28, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

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

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

Antifa (United States)

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

---

Need an uninvolved admin to have a look at recent edits by User:154thTN Pvt. Seth Adam and User:SDSU-Prepper, who keep keep claiming that Antifa engages in domestic terrorism, something not borne out by the sources (a BBC article and a later added, though misplaced, Newsweek article). Note also Seth Adam's edit summary: "It is clear by the common definition of "domestic terrorism" that this term applies to the group Antifa from the violence they inflict on the people and environment they encounter"--obvious original research. Also pinging User:Newimpartial, who reverted Seth Adam. BTW both editors have been notified of discretionary sanctions. Admin intervention invited to put a stop to this edit-warring disruption. Drmies (talk) 04:34, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

• Aha, the private thinks that third-gender Wikipedians who are against concealed carry are Antifa: please see this gem. Drmies (talk) 04:53, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

  Personally I had you down as Antifa years ago. EEng 05:51, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

  Do you happen to have a bike lock? PackMecEng (talk) 14:33, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

• I full-protected for a week, but that definitely shouldn't be the only action here. ansh666 05:20, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

How about we get the Department of Homeland Security involved as a matter of national security? I have no problem talking with agents. I'm concerned because you are changing the narrative about what antifa is about and this is a national concern. As a reminder “ If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it.”

Incidentally, here is my source: https://www.newsweek.com/are-antifa-terrorists-658396 The United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS) declared the activities of antifa as “domestic terrorist violence” in 2017.

SDSU-Prepper (talk) 05:36, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

My opinion: the sources (Newsweek and Politico) state that the DHS has classified Antifa activities as "domestic terrorist violence", so that's what we should say - that the DHS said so. We shouldn't make such classifications in Wikipedia's voice. Note how this is how almost all of the groups mentioned at Domestic terrorism in the United States are treated. ansh666 05:48, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Agreed: Let's add to the antifa article a statement such as "The United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS) declared the activities of antifa as “domestic terrorist violence” in 2017. https://www.newsweek.com/are-antifa-terrorists-658396

Let's also invite The Department of Homeland Security to investigate the contributors of the page! In the last few years America has experienced election meddling with foreign actors and it's not just Russia -- other hostile actors in China and the U.K. have infiltrated. The simple matter is that anyone capable of editing a page on Wikipedia has the ability to shape the narrative about a subject by creating original criticism, but many of the people writing and editing antifa are not from the United States! Foreign actors must not infiltrate with propaganda and a false sense of consensus building. Shadow banning and intimidation is rampant on Wikipedia. The web is an intricate trail of IP addresses and I feel that the Department of Homeland Security should investigate the antifa contributors. I'm happy to speak with anyone regarding the concerns of our nation. SDSU-Prepper (talk) 06:21, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

This is crossing a line... asking DHS to investigate editors? WP:LEGAL... EvergreenFir (talk) 06:40, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Way way across the line. I'm calling for a WP:NLT block for SDSU-Prepper unless or until he retracts that. John from Idegon (talk) 06:56, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

And repeated here.John from Idegon (talk) 07:06, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Legal (?) threats at Antifa (United States)

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

---

An editor is proposing that the DHS should track down the IP addresses of editors to the page. PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:11, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Yep... on AN, above section, and Drmies' user talk page too. Support NLT indef... though AP2 DS block and CIR would also be justified EvergreenFir (talk) 07:21, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: Ah, my bad, I was absentminded. Shoulda checked for any other sections before starting mine. PeterTheFourth (talk) 09:39, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

There is no legal threat?!? I think that we should get the opinion of homeland security. SDSU-Prepper (talk) 07:48, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

The Department of Homeland Security is an excellent resource. https://www.dhs.gov/ SDSU-Prepper (talk) 07:49, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

 Done I have blocked SDSU-Prepper per WP:NLT, amongst many other signs that they are WP:NOTHERE. – Joe (talk) 07:51, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

And just to clarify, the DHS has never made such a statement. Politico reported that they were privy to information that the DHS had made such a classification, but it was not picked up by the major news outlets other than Fox. The FBI hasn't reported any domestic terrorism activities attributable to them. Doug Weller talk 08:11, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Can someone revoke TPA? SDSU has not retracted his threat, and this just appears an oblique way of saying that he's going to start reporting people, and he's not using the talk page for unblock requests Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:41, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

They have made an unblock request, though I declined it. 331dot (talk) 09:01, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Based on my lengthy and tedious interactions with this editor before they went into amateur national security investigator mode, they aren't competent to edit the encyclopedia. Regardless of any action on the legal threat angle, the block should cover NOTHERE and competency, indefinitely. Acroterion (talk) 13:59, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

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

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

Help - Sneaky Vandalism!

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

---

Reported at OTRS Ticket:2018081110004267. On Empire_State_Building, the map clearly shows the words “Jewtropolis” over Manhattan and the phrase “INSIDE JOB” over lower Manhattan. Where does this data exist? I looked at https://maps.wikimedia.org/ and zoomed in to NY - and there it is. foundation:Maps_Terms_of_Use says if you find an error then go to https://www.openstreetmap.org to fix it - but it not there to be fixed! Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 17:31, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

I was about to report this as well; someone's exploited a loophole somewhere. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:35, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

I saw this but did not see the cause so was hoping someone else would figure it out. We may need to go to VPT.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:47, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Must be new, just had a second OTRS message Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 17:49, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Started thread at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Help_-_Sneaky_Vandalism!Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 18:01, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

• I've disabled the new mapframe code in Template:Infobox building, see Template_talk:Infobox building for hopeful followup. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:40, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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 page being used to attack other edds

User:Intellectual Property Theft seems to be trying to use his user page as a political platform. [[195]]. Also this reads very forumy.

For the background see [[196]], [[197]], [[198]], [[199]] and [[200]]. It is clear to me the user is wp:nothere.Slatersteven (talk) 14:44, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't see anything I would characterize as political on that user page. Can you be more specific as to the objectionable content you see? Because, while it's a bit brusque, there's nothing overtly polemical or political. I also don't see any other editors attacked on that user page, he doesn't even name or link to any editor at all. --Jayron32 15:05, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

I should have said there were other issues related to POV pushing, which my links show. But as to the user page "The main issue is China stealing IP from the U.S. and benefiting their economy without paying rights." hard to see how that is not a political statement "Some users often use these same, almost word-for-word intimidation tactics when you try to achieve consensus on a political article edit. Remember to AGF. Unfortunately, as we all now, political articles on all kinds of websites often have bias added by either side of the political spectrum. This practice typically goes "There will often be a handful of users, that obsess over highly controversial political pages that end up dominating the consensus process. These people will spend easily 20 hours a day monitoring the same page during a current controversy, trying to make sure the page falls and stays within their common idea of what is politically acceptable. Their idea of politically acceptable, whether it be to the right or to the left, would typically be agreed upon as not being neutral. As to AGF in this case, the most common reason is probably unconscious cognitive bias, which we probably all have to some extent, and should all make an effort to suppress.". The page is being uses to attack perceived political bias on Wikipedia, to attack users perceived political bias (including a verbatim quote from a post of mine [[201]] as an example of said. At the vert least users pages should not be used to attack other edds, no he does not name me, but is is a straight cut and past).Slatersteven (talk) 15:13, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

And maybe socking too now [[202]].Slatersteven (talk) 15:15, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

To any moderators or other accounts reading this, Slatersteven, after a disagreement on the NPOV policy regarding consensus I was trying to seek, came to my user TP and unprecedentedly accused me being "tendentious". I checked that policy, and none described my attempt to get consensus. Please see what Slatersteven posted on my user TP, as well as the Infowars TP near the bottom. As for my page being political, that does not to my knowledge violate any policy, but I recently changed it anyway due to preference. Slatersteven also has political and statements on his page. Based on the way Slatersteven has antagonized me, it is of concern that he is doing this to win an argument. I'm not assuming that, but I hope it's not the case. I don't want to create any complications with someone I simply disagree with, but if this continues extensively, I will post a new section to complain about threatening to falsely accuse and falsely accusing, as well as unprecedentedly not assuming good faith. --Intellectual Property Theft (talk) 15:39, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm kinda doubtful about the socking (not explaining all reasons, but with the recent YT, FB, and Apple bans Jones's fans have been coming here to defend him). The editor appears to be here to WP:RGW (at least with regard to InfoWars). The issue of whether or not InfoWars is fake news one of those topics where (informed) pretense of a middle ground is promoting a fringe perspective. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:12, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

I would have played out more rope before coming to ANI. I think what we have here is a new editor who dove into the deep side of the pool (a controversial BLP) before learning to swim. At first the editor edit warred, made tendentious edits, and violated 3RR. These are not unusual new editor mistakes. The editor also put a warning on the user page of an editor with 1,000 times as many edits after one revert.[203] Although the edits were to a BLP, they were not BLP vios as they were not negative. After a few warnings, the edit warring seems to have stopped, only just yesterday so we can’t be certain. The editor also doesn’t understand some of the guidelines, in particular NPOV. The user page does bother me as it’s remarkably arrogant for a new editor. Lashing out at other editors in frustration is not a good sign. I’m not crazy about the editor name either as it suggests the editor is here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. But, basically, this is a WP:CIR problem which may be curable. Perhaps a logged warning, a mentor, or a brief sanction will give the editor time to consider the possibility that they are the problem, not everyone else. (I’ll provide diffs if needed, but wasn’t trying to file a 3RR or EW complaint.) O3000 (talk) 15:43, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Topic ban would allow us to see if it's the topic or the editor that's the issue. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:12, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Makes sense. I don’t know how broad a TBan need be. O3000 (talk) 16:22, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

I oppose, they are new and it may just be they need a warning. But they do need one.Slatersteven (talk) 16:25, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, at first I thought a narrow TBan might work. But, there’s this: There is also a part where it says infowars is "devoted to fake news". Easily 50% of people would agree with most of the content[204]. Frankly, I find the concept that 50% of people agree with InfoWars quite scary, and RGW may be a larger problem here than CIR. O3000 (talk) 17:17, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

• I'm not an expert in this area, but it seems to me that Intellectual Property Theft is a username violation.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:43, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

my reason for bring this here is the hope that an admin will fetch up and explain to him, and he will listen. Because he has refused to listen to anyone else. I would be happy with a logged warning and mentoring. As a new user I think it is all they need, but I think they actually do need it else they will take no notice.Slatersteven (talk) 15:47, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

And we now have this [[205]] A frankly bizarre assertion that making accusations of unconscious bias is done in the name of AGF. I really am not sure what to make of this. But this lack of (self?) awareness does tie in with their interpretation of consensus (which seems to be "getting my way").Slatersteven (talk) 16:17, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Two the two previous posts, impugning a users character on a page like this is ridiculous. You could at least reference a link to my page instead. And to assume I would resume edit warring is also ridiculous. Please read what I wrote in my page.--Intellectual Property Theft (talk) 16:30, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: While it does seem likely that IPT will end up blocked or banned if he continues engaging the InfoWars and Alex Jones articles in almost any fashion, I do not see this route going anywhere. I do see potential for it to damage your future arguments against him. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:44, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

• I think Bbb has a point with the name: we typically look for offensive names or names that implied shared use, but here we have what looks like a case of "referencing controversies" (see WP:ATTACKNAME). I don't know if--fellow admins?--we should block in the middle of this conversation, but I certainly think they should change their name.

  Second, the talk page comments display a profound misunderstanding about things, esp. reliable sources; I don't want to belabor the point here but this edit is indicative enough. (Note--it took me a while to find the diff since the editor keeps editing their earlier comments, in this case adding material at the very beginning of their comment. Please stop doing that.) So yeah, righting great wrongs is an issue here. Drmies (talk) 16:40, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Users are impuging my character on this page

I recently got into a political consensus dispute regarding users Objective3000 and Slatersteven. Please refer to near the bottom of Infowars TP, as well as my user TP. I tried seeking consensus for what I believe(d) to be a violation of the NPOV policy. I got several users posting multiple disapproving messages in a row without discretion. Although there was some previous activity on that page that seemed to agree with me, these accounts offered fierce disagreement (which I'm not complaining about). Then, one of these users, Slatersteven, came to my user TP and made an unprecedented and vague threat that I could somehow get in trouble. I decided to back up my point, and we went back and forth. He then decided to report me here for somehow being "tendentious". The charge was dismissed. On that same post, just a few posts above this one (please see it, titled User page being used to attack other edds), Objective3000 went there and interjected a big paragraph impugning my character, calling me "remarkably arrogant for a new user" and that I don't understand NPOV. (Even though he is siding with a user that said "NPOV means we put all significant viewpoints", being Slatersteven.) Slatersteven also stated that I have a "lack of self awareness" because of something I wrote in my own user page. Slatersteven also stated that an admin should give me a warning because I "refuse to listen to anyone else", even though I've listened to every single one of them. They just can't tolerate disagreement! (To clarify something else, I did apparently violate a policy called 3RR on my first day of editing the Alex Jones page. As a new user, I was unsure how to edit controversial pages at first. I was corrected for these issues and acknowledged my responsibility. From that point on, I only tried obtaining consensus) This is something O3000 also brought up in a misleading way in an attempt to defame my account. Once again, the evidence of my accusation is all in a post just a few posts above me on this thread, titled "User page being used to attack other edds". I'm unsure how to link it specifically. If I'm not mistaken, these two users are violating WP's code of conduct. This article on civility prohibits much of what these two users did. It also states: "it is as unacceptable to attack a user who has a history of foolish or boorish behaviour....as other users." This is all a result of me strongly affirming my disagreements with them. The reason I'm reporting this is because I worry they will continue to falsely and unfairly impugn my character and cause other users to lose trust in my account. --Intellectual Property Theft (talk) 17:56, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Please don't start a new thread to discuss the same issues, this makes things confusing and hard to follow, discussing problems with your actions is not the same as attacking you, attacking would be blatant name calling or unsupported accusations, but it it ok for other users to say "I thing they are doing this wrong" or "I think they don't understand this". I got confused and was sometimes afraid others were trying to get me in trouble when I was new too, feel free to ask me or someone at the WP:Teahouse if you are confused about anything. Tornado chaser (talk) 18:16, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate the info. However, I'm confused as to how I'm repeating the same issue. I discussed quick and false accusation on that thread. This thread was meant to discuss what I thought is a civility violation. Appreciate the help, --Intellectual Property Theft (talk) 19:26, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Extended confirmed cheating...

Special:Contributions/Annothumaho, fresh off of a 24-hour block for edit warring, appears to be using their sandbox as a means to quickly gain extended-confirmed status per the many useless edits they are making there. Unless they can offer a really good explanation of what they are trying to do, that is. Home Lander (talk) 00:33, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

:( :) --Annothumaho (talk) 07:25, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

• How 'bout if the 500 edits needed for extended confirmed only counted edits in article or Talk space? EEng 12:21, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Please. Abequinn14 (talk) 17:00, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

@EEng: Now that would be a good idea. Please implement it immediately. And on a lighter note, it would mean that Annothumaho would have completely wasted their time  :) —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 12:49, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

That's exactly the idea. More specifically, the change proposed would force the 500 to be out in the open where there are plenty of eyeballs. In fact we could take it a step further and require that the 500 touch a minimum of 20 different articles (counting Article X and Talk:X as one). That's the kind of experience we want to trust someone as x-confirmed anyway. A further enhancement would to make it so that edits by editors not x-confirmed would be specially marked in edit histories, thereby bringing even more scrutiny. (I suspect someone could work out for us what % of edits fall in that category, minus IP edits which of course we already can identify immediately anyway.)

If I get a few positive comments here I'll take it to Village Pump (or maybe someone who spends more time there will do it for me). EEng 13:02, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Bad idea - it will force potentials gamers out into main space, where this can actually be harder to detect if "done right". An extended confirmed user with an edit counter like this and contributions like this - sticks out like a sore thumb (especially when they hit a few hundred edits doing it). Might as well discover this once they become extended confirmed (after wasting time doing 500 edits to their sandbox).Icewhiz (talk) 13:29, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Now that's some weird logic. EEng 13:32, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately, no matter how much you change or alter the rules regarding what edits will count toward the 500 and which edits won't, these users are going to be able to use this method in order to quickly rack themselves up to 500 edits... there's not very much we can do to stop it; we can only move the location in which they'll just need to do this. On the other hand, this is why we also have the requirement that your tenure exceed 30 days. If you want a solution that will actually add length to how long it takes for an account to to become "extended confirmed", you need increase the tenure requirement to be longer...

I'm currently Investigating this user's edits... Please stand by. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:57, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

I see many concerns with this user's edits (and hence have applied an indefinite block to the account). Editors can reasonably come to the conclusion that this user is trying to "confirm grind" themselves to rack up 500 edits based on the user's edits within their sandbox. This user is also being disruptive on the Mexico article and repeatedly restoring unreferenced content. The biggest concern I had with this user's edits were the last two that were made before I applied the block: The two edits made to The Hideout Inn that add to the edit war over the content there (see the page's edit history). I suspect sock puppetry and will be pursuing a further investigation... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:05, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately, no matter how much you change or alter the rules regarding what edits will count toward the 500 and which edits won't, these users are going to be able to use this method in order to quickly rack themselves up to 500 edits... there's not very much we can do to stop it – Sure, not very much, beyond someone noticing that they're making meaningless edits, and requiring that they edit in article and Talk space to earn their stripes helps make that happen, even if it's far from a perfect fix. It's certainly hard to see how it's not in all ways better than the current rule allowing 500 edits anywhere – including your own userspace. Look at it this way: suppose we simply excluded User: and User_talk: edits from the 500. Surely you'd agree that's a huge improvement, since anyone who edits only in those two spaces is clearly NOTHERE anyway. My proposal goes further, but clearly is at least as good. Why wouldn't we do that?

I'm looking for just a little encouragement here before I take this to VP. EEng 20:42, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

And you have it; it would be a step in the right direction. All the best, Miniapolis 22:28, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Same - you have my encouragement as well. Let me make this clear in case it may not have been: My response above was not meant to say or imply that the current rules regarding what edits should count towards the 500 shouldn't be modified or changed; that would be ridiculous ;-). I agree that changing the requirements to only count edits made in certain namespaces toward the 500 would be beneficial. I was simply trying to say that there is no magic bullet that will stop users from "confirm grinding" their edits to reach that amount :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:55, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Give some encouragement to this user.

Does that work? :-)

I say go for it. I think even Talk pages should not be counted, so one can't rack-up edits with argumentation. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:57, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

I'd say keep talk, portal, and mainspace, let go of user and sandbox and such. Encouraging people to use talk pages is good; we don't want to make people think that they're unnecessary or do not count for whatever reason. Icarosaurvus (talk) 00:24, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Ok, so long as it's clear it's still Admin discretion if it appears the clock needs to be reset. Doug Weller talk 12:07, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

So I will take this to VP, but Doug Weller, what do you mean about Admin discretion and clock being reset. Are those used with relation to x-confirmed now? EEng 04:03, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

The ECP bit can be stripped by an admin - and has been in cases of gaming. There have been a few ANI or AE cases about this. (for the record - I'm opposed to your suggestion - as gaming in user space is much easier to spot than main space - and there are plenty of totally meaningless ploys one can do in article space without attracting attention... The current "easiest/thoughtless route" of editing one's own edit space is also the easiest to detect).Icewhiz (talk) 05:55, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I am also opposed to the restrictions on the EC right, mainly because 'extended confirmed cheating' is not common enough to warrant changes to policy. Also, you have a whole month to discover possible issues before problems begin. There is also the possibility that others will just work around restrictions. User:funplussmart 17:05, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Hmmm. Icewhiz just about has me convinced. It seems to be a matter of balance: does counting User page (etc.) edits more likely enable someone who is gaming the system? Or expose them? ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:32, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

• Actually, I had an idea about a way to counter "autoconfirmed/extended confirmed grinding" by having a new flag (either one for auto- and x-confirmed or one for each) that can be applied by administrators which, when given to a user, would disable being autoconfirmed/x-confirmed until (if ever) the flag was removed. I'm not sure how this could be implemented, or how effective it could be (perhaps having an edit filter detecting confirm grinding and a bot that would add the flag if a user tripped the filter. . . ?). I don't know if this is a good idea, but it might work. ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 21:50, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Too complicated -- we've got way too many bits and flags already. Anyway, once you realize someone's cheating we should just just block him, period. We don't need people like that. EEng 13:52, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @EEng: Though I do feel like using a bot to carry out edit filter actions could be useful (on Wikipedia:Edit filter, the page mentions that an edit filter may respond by "revoking (the editor's) autoconfirmed status"). There is already a bot used on some other Wikimedia projects that responds to edit filters by blocking or removing user rights, so I feel like something similar should be used here. ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 21:26, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

• WP:Village_pump_(idea_lab)#Narrow_the_types_of_edits_that_count_toward_the_500_needed_to_quickly_gain_WP:extended_confirmed_editor_status EEng 14:04, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

I just across another user who added and removed a period on their user page over 100 consecutive times, just to reach 500 edits. I would definitely support a change in policy that requires 500 edits to article space, with a minimum of 20 different articles. This gaming the system is ridiculous. - wolf 20:23, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Contaldo80

Contaldo80 has a very aggressive style of editing. As he states on his user page, he has been called a "one-issue editor," and his talk page shows multiple bans [edit: I mean blocks, not bans], 3RR violations, and other warnings. He is clearly on a mission to show that the Catholic Church has been mean to gay people, and whether he is right or wrong he shows multiple types of WP:Tendentious editing. I have tried to work with him, tried to reason things out on talk pages, and tried to use WP policies and guidelines when making arguments. However, it usually comes down to WP:IDL with him. He has been dismissive of others who have tried to counsel him as well. Below are difs of some of his more problematic edits. He has even vandalized my userspace with taunts here and here. --BrianCUA (talk) 14:08, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Diffs on: One who accuses others of malice/ One who wrongly accuses others of vandalism
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
[206] [207] [208] [209]

Diffs on: One who disputes the reliability of apparently good sources
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
[210] [211] [212] [213] [214] [215] [216] [217] [218] [219]

Diffs on: One who deletes the pertinent cited additions of others
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
[220] [221] [222] [223] [224] [225] [226] [227] [228] [229] [230] [231] [232] [233] [234] [235] [236] [237]

Diffs on: One who assigns undue importance to a single aspect of a subject
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
[238] [239]

• From his talk page: " I've been called a "one-issue editor". It's true that I feel passionate about improving knowledge on how gay (and bisexual) men and women have made a contribution to history - small or big, good or bad. The issue of homosexuality in particular has often been hidden in the past - a lack of understanding, fear of persecution, religious intolerance. But it is there if one looks hard enough for it."

Diffs on: One who never accepts independent input
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
[240] [241] [242] [243] [244]

Diffs on: Righting great wrongs/ The editor on a mission to combat POV
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
[245] [246] [247] [248] [249] [250] [251] [252] [253] [254] [255] [256] [257] [258] [259] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Political_activity_of_the_Catholic_Church_on_LGBT_issues&diff=853858552&oldid=853858126[

Diffs on: General incivility
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
[260] [261] [262] [263] [264] [265] [266] [267] [268] [269] [270]

Diffs on: One who demands that others find sources for his/her own statements
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
[271]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Briancua (talk • contribs) 14:08, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Response:

Assertive editing to ensure that editors are abiding by agreed guidance and in good faith is not the same as "aggressive". It is also not correct to state that my talk-page shows "multiple bans". I do state on my user page that I have been called a "one-issue editor," - that doesn't mean I am a one-issue editor, nor that there is anything wrong with being a "one-issue" editor interested in improving coverage of LGBT issues on wikipedia (provided this is done in the correct way). And I have experienced a great deal of hostility in the past from editors motivated by religious enthusiasm. I don't like the accusation that I am "clearly on a mission to show that the Catholic Church has been mean to gay people" - I'd like some evidence to support that claim. I'm not going to be drawn into that and as aside I'll note the fact that it is an established fact that the Catholic Church has led the execution, exclusion and torture of homosexuals for centuries (so I have little to prove in that space).

I have provided material on articles which both sets out the teaching and practice of the Catholic Church in a way that can be seen as both supportive and critical - in fact it is neither, just a desire to be even-handed and neutral. Therefore it is disingenuous to suggest I am partisan or bias WP:Tendentious editing. Instead I would suggest that an examination of BrianCUA's edits will reveal not one single edit that could put the Catholic Church in a "bad light" (it is not up to me to enquire as to whether BrianCUA is a practising Roman Catholic or an employee of the Catholic Church - although if it's the latter then that would imply bias). Instead BrianCUA has been keen to include only material that suggests the Church is "kind" to people that are gay and "loves" them (which I think distorts the historical reality if one is to be truly even-handed). I happily engage with other editors in a constructive manner if they present genuine workable ways forward. None of the issues raised above suggest violation of the rules; and I'd like examination of any faults I have committed to be taken alongside those of BrianCUA - who can, regrettably, "give as good as they get". Contaldo80 (talk) 14:01, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Does the reported party have a response that isn't a wall of text? The reply above is too long, didn't read. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:12, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Without commenting on the validity of the complaint, I observe that the wall of diffs is from Briancua ([272]), the initial complainant, and not the respondent. Contaldo80's response is just the two paragraphs above. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:43, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

"User:TenOfAllTrades - Thank you. That just illustrates how walls of text do not clarify the issues and are hard to read. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:21, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

• I have mixed views on this. Contaldo80 is in many ways a good editor in the Catholic-sphere on the project: he is able to call out the whackjobs we get in this area (which I definitely appreciate. Our Catholic historical content is really bad and helping it not get worse is a good thing.) At the same time, I do find his style overly aggressive and he isn't trusting of anyone who he thinks may have a bias in the area (for example: me, even though I think anyone who is familiar with my editing on the topic knows that I generally stick to the 17th century and do my absolute best to get rid of the POV stuff sourced to crap sources. I have also never revealed my religion or lack thereof on-wiki, and my interest in this topic area is purely historical on-wiki)
  Nick and I have also had to warn him on this article about violations of the harassment policy by demanding users out themselves: making demands to know their employers and and religious affiliations. He eventually stopped that, but it shows I think a pattern of defensiveness and ownership of the article in question.
  How do we deal with this? Maybe an IBAN, though I don't like those. I wouldn't like to see a TBAN, because he does do good work, but that may be needed because of the aggressive behavior here. I'd personally prefer we close this with a warning to him to have a bit less zeal and be more civil, but that depends on how he responds to this thread going forward. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:00, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Also, BrianCUA, I haven't looked at anything specific (I have that page on my talk mainly in case a slow-burning edit war breaks out so I can use request protection at RFPP), but for any topic this contentious, and on a talk page that is effectively populated by three people (you being one of them), I'd highly suggest treading with caution and taking this to WP:NPOVN or a similar dispute resolution venue to get more eyes, rather than just make bold edits and revert. So, that's a warning to you as well. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:20, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Tony. It's a fair comment, and I'm sure there have been times when my actions and edits have not been what they should be. I have requested outside voices on several occasions (see here, here, and here, for example.). Unfortunately, there has been limited response from them, which lead to this complaint. Your warning is well noted. --BrianCUA (talk) 19:15, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks TonyBallioni for making some kind comments in suggesting I am generally a "good editor". That's actually much appreciated. Often I wonder if my work is noted or appreciated at all, so it's nice when someone says I have made a difference - even if it's in a small way. To be honest you've hit the nail on the head in that I can be "defensive". This is not generally the case with most articles I edit but it can rear its head when dealing with articles that align homosexuality with religion. Why you may ask? Because we know that in this world religion and gay rights don't mix well. Over the years I have come across a number of editors who get carried away with "religious zeal" (and some of them I have strong grounds for believing were clergy and thus suggesting a genuine conflict of interest). Mostly these individuals mean well but are obvious because they edit out material that can be seen to be critical of a religious organisation, teaching, or individual and that speaks too openly about homosexuality (a topic that has suffered for centuries from being pushed into the corners for fear of causing awkwardness). Personally I think it's right to include material in an article which can be regarded as presenting religious thought or practice in a "positive" light (provided that the approach is neutral), and to avoid material that is derogatory, misleading or unfair. And I can point to many instances where I have done that - look back at my edits. But at the same time there has to be a genuine desire to work towards a balanced and accurate picture - and where that is evident in the approach of editors then my record shows that I happily engage. Therefore yes I can see that religious organisations often talk about "love" and "respect" for people that are gay - and it's right for articles to refer to this where appropriate. But at the same time if the reality (backed by the evidence) shows a less than ideal picture then it is right to make this clear. You cannot begin to count the number of articles where an editor has come in and removed material relating to homosexuality (despite it having supporting and verifiable evidence) simply because it doesn't fit into their world view. The endless vandalism with spiteful homophobic comments - everyone will have encountered these. So I think it's unfair to say my style is "aggressive" - as that suggests I am being unreasonable. I don't think I've ever knowingly included inaccurate material nor shown deliberate bias. And I like to think I have helped to improve the quality of articles. BrianCUA and indeed other editors don't like that I challenge inclusion of material (rightly in my view) that is too "rose-tinted" in terms of the official position of the Roman Catholic Church on this issue. In terms of the current complaint I can't see that I've violated 3RR or have been abusive - perhaps you can argue I've lacked civility in some instances where I've lost my patience. If that's the case then I am contrite and accept the appropriate discipline. Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:32, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Incidentally I'll give one recent example of where I think BrianCUA is keen to present a narrative overly sympathetic to the official position of the Catholic Church. In the article on "Dissent" I - and another editor - have questioned the over-emphasis on protests by gay people against the Church - disrupting Mass etc. BrianCUA has been determined, however, to suggest this activity has been significant and to give it a profile I simply don't think it deserves in relation to more notable material. But in the spirit of compromise I have gone along with this to a degree, leaving the material in. However I questioned a source cited that was by a gay activist group called ACT-UP whose website had recorded a testimony by an individual that they had thrown a Eucharist host to the floor. BrianCUA has been determined to say that a gay activists therefore committed "desecration" in doing this (a highly loaded term and presenting the idea of a Church under attack). I asked for a second neutral source to provide better comfort with the ACT-UP source as I had reasonable concerns about bias - is there another source that says the eucharist was thrown to the floor? BrianCUA has simply added back in the contentious material that had been questioned and added a second source from the New York Times as justification. This does not, however, mention the host incident at all - and suggests that some parishioners saw the invasion of the cathedral as an "act of desecration". Now this is where I start to worry that we are slipping into partisan editing, and failure to address genuine editorial concerns. I would normally challenge this point but won't for the time-being while a complaint is being formally investigated against me. The edit can be found here: [273] Contaldo80 (talk) 10:10, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

• Back in May, this editor accused an IP user of being my sockpuppet without any evidence here. They also reverted edits by different users to the same content on this same article a total of 5 times. It was not all within 24 hours, and therefore not technically a violation of 3RR. But it still shows a very aggressive style and a total lack of concern for consensus. Throughout early 2017, he deleted massive amounts of information on Salvatore Cordileone 5 times without even a substantive edit summary, three times not bothering to write on at all. See for yourself in the edit history. Display name 99 (talk) 21:00, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Is it a violation to accuse someone of being a sock-puppet? In any case my comments were "I would encourage user 32.218.32.56 to set out their arguments on the talk page in a mature way - particularly to address concerns that they are not acting as someone else's sock-puppet". I did not accuse that anonymous IP or being a sock-puppet - I raise the point about having concerns that they suddenly appeared out of no-where to intervene on the article. I most certainly did not accuse you of being the sock-puppet - unless you think this was an obvious link to make? Regarding the Cordileone article I did in fact engage on talk. You will recall we got a third opinion that agreed with me that the material you were trying to include was not appropriate. If you had a substantive complaint to make against me at the time then you should have made it. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:35, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it's a pretty obvious link. Regarding whether or not it's a policy violation, at the very least it's a poor tactic to substitute ad hominem commentary for substantive argument. IPs often edit sporadically and frequently don't show up on the talk page. That doesn't mean they're socks. For the Cordileone article, yes, we were eventually able to reach a compromise on the talk page. But it first involved multiple highly inappropriate reverts by yourself followed by admin intervention. Basically, what we are responding to here is a pattern of high-handed aggressive editing and talk page discussion, which I think evidently exists based on the material that I and others have brought forward. Display name 99 (talk) 12:49, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Display name 99 - a look at the interactions between you and me shows that you have behaved no differently than me. I regarded your edits as no less "inappropriate" and your approach determined to push forward a particular perspective. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:09, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

I reverted fewer times than you, and all of my reverts were accompanied by relevant edit summaries. Many of those reverts simply involved undoing reverts made by you which weren't explained at all. Display name 99 (talk) 12:35, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

He has made similar accusations against others. --BrianCUA (talk) 00:14, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Individual hat boxes

-EEng

That's hardly an accusation. But it was odd as that anonymous IP appeared from no-where to make a number of edits to revert material (without justification or engaging on talk). Then disappeared back into the ether. That to me is questionable and disruptive behaviour.Contaldo80 (talk) 09:37, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Comment I've taken the liberty of collapsing the wall of diffs into individual hat boxes. No comment on the substance of this report. Blackmane (talk) 00:12, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Additional example:' In addition to the wall of text above (I apologize for that - I wanted to be comprehensive), here is one discrete example of the type of behavior I am talking about. Contaldo was bold and edited Political activity of the Catholic Church on LGBT issues to take text out of one section and combine it with another. He was reverted, however. Even after being asked to follow WP:BRD multiple times (here, here, here), he continues to revert and insert his preferred version. In fact, he has challenged other editors to explain why the original version should remain before any edits can be made to his preferred version. This has happened on multiple issues. In addition, if you look at the talk page, you will notice there are multiple sections in which he discusses this. Again, this is a common practice. --BrianCUA (talk) 14:05, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I was reverted by you. I then asked you repeatedly why you thought the suggested changes I made were problematic. You never responded. I raised reasonable concerns that you had created a section up-front which veered towards polemic, and looked extremely odd in an article that concerned politics. It also lacked balance. I moved related material together to provide a stronger narrative and better contextual flow. I don't think you liked it because it "muddied the waters" and suggested the issue was more nuanced and less up-beat than originally presented. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:09, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

It is not true that I didn't explain my reasons. --BrianCUA (talk) 14:30, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Potential solutions: There is some evidence that Contaldo80 might be beginning to learn a lesson. He was recently reverted on Raymond Leo Burke. Instead of rereverting the entire edit with an irrelevant or snarky edit summary as he would have been accustomed to doing, he made a compromise edit with an explanation and then opened up a talk page discussion. His edits there and in this separate section have been civil. Personally, I'm hovering between two potential options. One involves giving him something like a provisional restriction lasting 6 months stating that he cannot revert the same content more than twice, no matter how much time has passed. The second is a warning that future repeated and aggressive reverts could result in this action or a block, and that more uncivil talk page commentary in the future (like this comment from less than a month ago, not sure if this was already linked or not) could result in a block. Basically, this would give him another chance before imposing any major sanctions. This would be consistent with WP:Rope. I myself am leaning towards it. Any thoughts? Display name 99 (talk) 15:56, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm not so sure he is. He must be monitoring my contributions because just yesterday he weighed in on an AfD discussion regarding an article I wrote with a "Strong Delete." I went back 1,000 edits and the only other time he has been active there was when an article he wrote was proposed for deletion. (See also the taunts in my userspace.) --BrianCUA (talk) 17:44, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

"The important component of hounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason. If "following another user around" is accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, it may become a very serious matter and could result in blocks and other editing restrictions." It's not obvious to me that on the article you refer to (and on which I have been previously active) my contributions have been partisan, a personal attack on you or designed to disrupt the discussion. Can I also express serious concern that displayname99 has actually now gone into that article and removed my contribution - despite the fact that he is not an administrator and I have not been found to have done anything wrong in this instance. I am starting to feel harassed and I think a number of editors are going well beyond their remit. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:41, 9 August 2018 (UTC)Contaldo80 (talk) 10:09, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Contaldo80, I have not removed your contribution. You obviously haven't looked carefully enough. I made a contribution in favor of Keep. I removed that largely because I didn't want to be accused of being canvassed or of having bias. Your edit is still there and I did not remove it. Display name 99 (talk) 12:35, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Actually I have to make an apology. And a complaint. You're right you didn't delete my contribution this article. You did, however, evidently follow my edits to that article page and argue for "keep" (presumably to counter my argument for delete). You then came onto this page to insinuate that I am hounding BrianCUA, when in fact you have arguably been hounding me. This is all becoming rather depressing. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:24, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

As I said, I eventually deleted my own contribution out of concerns that it could be seen as improper. The only questionable decision I made was to vote Keep, which I rectified. There is nothing left for you to complain about on that article. Display name 99 (talk) 12:03, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

That does show evidence of WP:Hounding. It's not smart for him to do because it obviously doesn't help his case. I'm not quite as interested in the taunts on your userspace because I'm primarily interested in seeing if his behavior has changed at all in the last day or two as a result of this discussion. In that case, the AfD comment is what's important. TonyBallioni, do you have an opinion here? Display name 99 (talk) 18:18, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

With all due respect we seem to have ended up in a situation where two editors (neither of whom are administrators) are both deciding how contrite I am and discussing what discipline I should receive. Both of whom have clashed with me in the past and are hardly sympathetic - and both of who have displayed questionable editorial activity on a number of articles themselves and which does not place them "on the side of the angels". One is the complainant and the other describes themself on their talk page as a "traditionalist catholic" and has previously been sanctioned with an indefinite block that was only lifted after appeal. I do have a sense that I've ended up in a kangaroo court. I appreciate BrianCUA has bought a series of complaints/ grievances against me - these are wide ranging and mocking in parts ("righter of great wrongs" - presumably because I've made edits so improve coverage of LGBT issues?) I'm starting to feel that I am being picked on. I would value a proper charge (specific and serious violation of wikipedia editorial standards) being bought against me and then consideration of whether I am innocent or guilty of the charge based on an independent and impartial reading of the evidence. It is only fair then if I am found guilty of a violation that appropriate and proportionate discipline is administered. Thank you. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:59, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Not sure yet on where my read of this takes me, but I will say that complaining that the report here is mocking in parts is a fairly audacious statement, given the diffs that were provided of you taunting BrianCUA on his own talkpage about this. While my limited experience with you has shown you to be thoughtful and even-handed, I find those diffs especially damaging to the notion that you have been taking the high road and aren't being treated/viewed fairly here. Grandpallama (talk) 13:16, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words about my being thoughtful and even-handed. Much appreciated. I try and accept I don't get it right. I think what especially wounds me about the language above around "righting great wrongs" is my sensitivity to homophobia. It feels like making contributions that ensure even-handed representation of LGBT issues is challenging the "mainstream" and that it's me taking on the world. I'm probably wrong in feeling that way (and I'm sure that's not how it was intended) but that's how it is. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:37, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Again, without really weighing in on the dispute here, I'm going to comment on your approach. To say that you sometimes feel like it's me taking on the world is a nice piece of succinct introspection. If you recognize that you feel that way, I also think maybe that means you need to give yourself a bit of a breather. Not quit, not "retire," but maybe take some time off, even if only just from topics that are clearly so close to your heart. I work in a field where people are pretty passionate, and I sometimes have to remind my staff that they not only do themselves a disservice when they allow stress levels to max out, but they also do a disservice to their projects. The same may be true here. Again, that's not a comment on your contributions, but rather a friendly attempt to point out that if you are feeling the way you described, you need to give yourself some time and space to breathe until you feel centered again, but for your own mental health but also for the betterment of topics/issues that are of such great importance to you. The only other thing I'll say on this topic is that while most other editors might not have such strong personal feelings about this particular topic, I can absolutely guarantee that you are not alone in your desire to see even-handed representation. Grandpallama (talk) 13:38, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

I have never proposed a sanction against you. The various types of difs I provided are examples of WP:Tendentious editing. I didn't make up a category to mock you. --BrianCUA (talk) 14:34, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

In your complaint about me you have referred to me as someone "Righting great wrongs/ The editor on a mission to combat POV". I do not see how that relate to any existing editorial guidance. I am being mocked for "righting great wrongs" e.g. adding LGBT related material to articles. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:15, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

It's not just that you want to add LGBT material. That's all fine and good. It's that you give it undue importance. For example, take your insistence that a section heading include the phrase "gay" or "same sex" in the section on marriage. You argue that somehow readers will understand the word "marriage" to include "divorce, fatherhood and family," but they won't understand marriage to include gay marriage. Somehow, to say otherwise, is dishonest (a frequent charge of yours) and you accuse me of "trying to hide away?!" something when I point out that WP:MOS calls on section titles to be concise. This is what I mean when I say that your arguments often amount to I don't like it.--BrianCUA (talk) 16:06, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree that's a fair assessment. Contaldo80, we aren't against you because you add information about homosexuality and the Catholic Church. The problems are aggressive reverting, talk page incivility, biased language on articles (in my opinion), and undue importance. You also don't get to delete sourced information simply because it isn't part of your pet topic. See here. Display name 99 (talk) 16:58, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Given the number of people who want to define "marriage" as "a man and a woman", I can certainly see where including gay marriage could be useful. Still, I think it would help if the user in question was a bit less fighty, and took the time to state their arguments in a calmer manner rather than lashing out. Icarosaurvus (talk) 22:44, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

219.88.78.221 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

The following discussion is closed. 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 spotted this message on the recent changes list earlier today. Didn't understand it at first but it looks like ongoing harassment by a vandal attacking site members including Spike 'em and Blue Square Thing. Seems to be the same as 203.97.172.144 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) a couple of weeks ago and probably 111.69.91.170 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) too (on Blue Square Thing's talk page).

1726 English cricket season was vandalised by 203.97.172.144 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) but Blue Square Thing did some work on it afterwards. I think it still needs attention, certainly for a loose link, but I'd prefer an admin to look at it first as I'm not sure what should be restored and what shouldn't. Don't know if anything can be done about the IP addresses except perhaps block the one in use today. Thanks. Izzat Kutebar (talk) 12:57, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

In general the edits on cricket season articles by the IP are reasonable in my view. A lot of these articles are really weak in terms of the ways in which they are written and are often no more that a bunch of stats. I've worked on a few of them, but it would be more likely to be a case of what should be removed rather than restored. Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:00, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

@Blue Square Thing: okay, that's fair enough if you're happy with the end-result. The one thing I'm not sure about is this removal of text which has left the source name in there as a loose link. The text was sourced so should it be restored or should the name be removed too? Just out of interest to me as a history buff, is that piece true about the Riot Act being read at a cricket match? How reliable is the source? Thanks. Izzat Kutebar (talk) 15:19, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

We've fixed that article now. Buckley is apparently a good source but the Dartford CC site wasn't good for that article. This leaves the question of vandalism by the IP, even if some of his edits are acceptable. Can an admin please take the necessary action? Thanks. Izzat Kutebar (talk) 18:21, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello again. Surprised to see this is still open with no action against the IP who has twice been active again since this case was opened. Please see this and [ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kent_County_Cricket_Club_in_2018&diff=prev&oldid=854711168 this]. He has even resorted to "outing" by naming his target. I'm a little concerned that the target is so tolerant here and not taking direct action to protect himself and the site. Can someone please intervene and block the IP? Thank you. Izzat Kutebar (talk) 10:35, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

 Done, blocked 48h.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:42, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Q

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

---

After the user ignores the decision on the talk page and keeps reverting, how to proceed? Cornerstonepicker (talk) 21:54, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

I have reviewed the history of User:PsychopathicAssassin and have blocked that person indefinitely based on a pattern of disruptive editing including edit warring, obnoxious insults, adding Good article tags to unreviewed articles, copyvios, use of unreliable sources, and so on. Several previous short term blocks did not end the disruption. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:41, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Massive ongoing page-move vandalism

The following discussion is closed. 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/AirplaneHijackHacker

This account has already been reported to AIV, but this is urgent because there is a massive mess ongoing. This account is going on a spree of page-move vandalism at the Damned disambiguation page (which I fixed) and Bad words and Bad words (disambiguation) (ongoing at the time of this post). Can an admin please help with the ongoing Bad words page-move vandalism cleanup? Several pages left behind from redirects from all of this have been tagged for speedy deletion as well. — MRD2014 ^Talk 00:43, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

I noticed this user while using Huggle. First off, I reported his username at WP:UAA because it may be seen as offensive. Second, he is in WP:AIV. Third, he is a suspected sock of User:SpicyCrazyJerk. I request an indef block. Abequinn14 (talk) 00:47, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Blocked by User:TonyBallioni. I think I've cleaned up the page-move vandalism that was happening at Bad words. Would like someone to check for me. — MRD2014 ^Talk 00:50, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Should I start a Sockpuppet investigation to see if the user is related to SpicyCrazyJerk? Abequinn14 (talk) 00:51, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

No, there is one already at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PornSexAssButtPiss. You can comment there. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:53, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Social Democratic Party (Romania)

The following discussion is closed. 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 take a look. – Kaihsu (talk) 11:10, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

I've added temporary semi-protection to the article due to the ongoing vandalism and disruptive editing. Kaihsu, what other issues need to be looked at specifically? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:15, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Apparently, @Oshwah: and me protect-conflicted, and I gave a one day longer protection. I can shorten it if judged too long.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:17, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Ymblanter - Nah, your duration is fine. No big deal :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:24, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Ok, great, thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:26, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Failure to communicate while keeping up questionable 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.

---

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

This editor has been editing only astrology related articles but have been at it since September 2017 without ever responding to messages of other editors. The edits are often problematic. A block might be the only way to obtain their attention... Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 15:15, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

It does seem like the editor has a habit of making substantive changes in the guise of grammar fixes. Simonm223 (talk) 15:50, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

I have reverted all of this users' edits, because most had misleading edit summaries (like this[274]) and one lacked a summery. Tornado chaser (talk)

Personally I prefer a wintry or vernal edit to a summery one any day of the week. EEng 03:43, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Would User:MER-C/payattention.js be useful here? MER-C 17:04, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

@MER-C: I imagine it would be and is a useful tool I might use in the future when cases arise. It has been added. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 17:23, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

The misleading edit summaries are continuing [275] [276] [277] [278]. Tornado chaser (talk) 23:08, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

I have left a final warning and clearly stated that they are being disruptive [279]. Tornado chaser (talk) 23:17, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Hmm yes, edits have resumed and still no sign of communication... —PaleoNeonate – 04:04, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. Bishonen | talk 12:33, 13 August 2018 (UTC).

Looks like this editor's moon was in klutz. EEng 03:44, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Deletion of article and profile page

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

---

Hello,

I wrote a translation of an article about the Spanish philosopher Marina Garcés, from Spanish to English. The article was deleted for containing quotations that apparently didn't meet standards, the same administrator also deleted my user profile because I had some links stored there. I find this to be quite an abuse of power, there was no consensus needed for him to delete the article or the user page. Of course, as a new editor I fully accept that some content might not be suitable but surely the point should be to improve it not to delete it! I believe that until experienced, mainly white male users start helping their fellow wikipedians instead of just deleting stuff the English version of Wikipedia will be biased. I am reporting this since I feel this administrator did not act in a collaborative way.

Thanks for you comments.

My user page: User: Maryleblaireau

Administrator page: User:Jimfbleak

Article page: Marina Garcés https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marina_Garc%C3%A9s Maryleblaireau (talk) 13:58, 14 August 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maryleblaireau (talk • contribs) 13:57, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Maryleblaireau, there was no abuse of admin rights there. The article as you created it had large amounts of text that appeared to be copyright violations. As such, it is appropriate to delete the article immediately: Jimfbleak explained this to you at length on your talkpage. As far as your userpage goes, that's a bit iffy. Jim, why did you delete links to wikidata and wmflabs on the grounds of "not a web host"? After all, you have a Toolbox section on your own userpage! --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:10, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

SarekOfVulcan (talk), fair enough. I'd offered to restore in a sandbox, but I'll put back as was Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:19, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Jimfbleak, I'm with User:SarekOfVulcan on the user page. I see you restored some, but it seems clear to me that these are links the user collected in order to help write articles. Drmies (talk) 14:20, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

ec: ah, ok. Drmies (talk) 14:20, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Thanks, Jim! Maryleblaireau, do you have any remaining concerns that haven't been explained to your satisfaction? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:22, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

This is fine. thanks a lot. Maryleblaireau (talk) 14:26, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Shackleton edit war

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

---

My decision to lock Ernest Shackleton until consensus is demonstrated on talk, rather than blocking an edit warrior, is being called into question at Talk:Ernest Shackleton#July 2018 - Infobox wording edit war. Could another admin take a look at the article, and the EWN discussion I closed, and see if you think it's better handled differently? Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:04, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

• IMO, you should have issued an edit warring block to Mike Galvin and been done with it, instead of protecting the page against a single edit warrior editing against consensus. (Edited to add that a month protection is truly over the top here. If you wanted ot go the protection rather than blocking route, 24 hours to get people's attention would have done the trick, at which point you could liberally block edit warriors. Courcelles (talk) 15:24, 13 August 2018 (UTC)) Courcelles (talk) 15:19, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

  I would say protection is not unreasonable given that there were IP edits as well last week. I would probably still block the editor for overstepping 3RR and not protect the page at this point, though I am surprised nobody issues a warning to the editor.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:27, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

  They were warned over this issue, last month. At this point I'm willing to issue a NOTHERE/CIR block to Mike Galvin. 30 edit accounts should not be causing this much disruption. Courcelles (talk) 15:29, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

  Yes, you are right. It is a pity since they probably intended to contribute to encyclopedia, but CIR seems to be a serious issue.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:36, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

  If the consensus had been clearly defined on talk, instead of hammered out through long-term edit warring, I could have enforced that, but there was no single place I could point to and go "See, it was discussed and decided here". Lacking that, I was hoping we could settle it now, instead of leaving it open edit warring in the future. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:01, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Sorry if I'm in the wrong place. There was no intention to start an Edit War or to offend, but the word Ireland followed by the ridiculous qualifier, "then part of the United Kingdom" is not used in connection with, say, Oscar Wilde or Beckett, Swift, etc, etc - men largely associated with the UK/ Europe, despite being born in Ireland. The fact that pre-Independence Ireland was "part" of the UK (the term, Ireland, United Kingdom was not used, even then) is irrelevant to the subject matter, surely. Shackleton was an explorer, not a Prime Minister. Duncan Hill accuses me of being an "Irish nationalist".(?). Nothing could be further from the truth, but I do dislike blatant politicisation, which is all this is. The term has no correlation anywhere else on Wikipedia. With good reason, I imagine.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike Galvin (talk • contribs)

@Mike Galvin: you should post that to the article's talk page. If other people agree with you, you'll have consensus for your edit. Repeatedly reverting people is against Wikipedia's rules. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:14, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

There's an RFC going now on the talkpage. Hopefully that will settle things. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:24, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Constant distortion of Sikhism 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.

---

Constantly articles related to Sikhism are being degraded and referenced content with large amounts of information removed like here by a select group of people. This account be people mixed up in the scheme. They try to keep any articles that progressed back to a previous "stable" state they say. All I would like is to either ban them straight or put a warning to no longer remove any referenced content if done again they will be banned. If they have opposing views to the content they are free to add them but this constant removing of referenced content with no punishments is unsettling.

Overall the simple history of Guru Arjan is being told as something complex and unagreed upon which does not match with any of mainstream British, Punjabi, Arab, or modern sources of Guru Arjan's simple martyrdom for the past 300 years. The user has made many degrading contributions to articles on Sikhism if more evidence is needed I can pull up more tell the pattern becomes clear. Jujhar.pannu (talk) 19:52, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

• Since the title of your ANI notification thread on Ms Sarah Welch's talkpage is Hope to ban this account soon, I submit that your edits and your behavior is going to be heavily scrutinized in this ANI thread. See WP:BOOMERANG. -- Softlavender (talk) 20:05, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Jujhar.pannu, I can see that you had some interactions with Ms Sarah Welch going back two years, but I don't see any evidence that you have tried to resolve any recent disputes before bringing the issue here. In fact, you've hardly edited at all recently. Am I missing something? Cordless Larry (talk) 20:56, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

• The complaint is at two levels. One apparently generic and long term, with "Constantly articles related to Sikhism are being degraded and referenced content with large amounts of information removed". Another is the specific allegation about the Guru Arjan article. I briefly address both and add a note from history:

• To the generic part, if I remember right, my first interactions with Jujhar.pannu go back to the Sikhism section of the Bhakti movement article about 2.5 years ago. As explained therein, Jujhar.pannu was removing scholarly sources such as here and showing a pattern of disruptive behavior. During a week of discussions, newly created accounts such as "Kigman fs" jumped in and started supporting Jujhar.pannu (some of these accounts got blocked or have been dormant since). I repeatedly asked Jujhar.pannu, with edit diffs, why they keep deleting peer-reviewed scholarly sourced content. I received no constructive replies, received only vague claims. The admins may wish to seek @RexxS: input as well, and he intervened, tried to understand and help the article with multiple posts back in March 2016. FWIW, RexxS reverted to my sourced version, concluded that Jujhar.pannu was indeed deleting sourced content, and expressed his concerns about the "edit-warring and sock-puppetry". After RexxS's comprehensive reply on the talk page, the article returned to an older stable scholarly sourced version. In summary, during the older dispute, Jujhar.pannu behavior was disruptive.
• To the specific part, i.e. the Guru Arjan article. It underwent a series of 22 edits in recent months by hopping IPs 2001:569:7cb2:7c00:*:*:*:* (from this to this) most without any edit summaries. These edits were also unusual in their rapid pace with some edits showing 1 to 2-minute gaps. I, therefore, reviewed the edits more closely. The edits re-arranged some long-standing content, added content from questionable advocacy group SPS-type sources such as SPCK, Delhi here. The substantial changes ignored the consensus reached previously on the talk page for the Martyrdm section with JimRenge, Apuldram etc participating. The IP's edits also added content such as "The Guru was made to seat [sic] on a hot plate, boiling water had hot sand poured on him" here which is inflammatory and unencyclopedic. There is abundant peer-reviewed scholarship on Guru Arjan's torture, and the article already summarized that aspect after talk page discussion, along with content in the quality sources such as this. But, we need to think a bit before summarizing gruesome inflammatory content and be confident that multiple peer-reviewed scholarly sources are stating something before we make an attempt to be WP:Comprehensive. The changes the IP made seemed not to reflect quality peer-reviewed scholarly consensus such as the fact that we do not know "how the Guru died" after he was arrested by the Muslim emperor (see Pashaura Singh (2005), Understanding the Martyrdom of Guru Arjan, JPS 12:1, page 39, Quote: "(...) early Sikh sources do not tell us much about the manner in which the Guru died and the causes of his death (...) whether it occurred by torture, execution, or drowning in the Ravi river"). For all such reasons, I reversed the edits in good faith.
• FWIW, admin Bishonen gave the following final warning to Jujhar.pannu in March 2016.

I am baffled by Jujhar.pannu complaint given their editing history since RexxS intervened in early March 2016. Jujhar.pannu made a total of 11 edits in 29 months including this ANI complaint (more if they have editing using IPs or other undisclosed accounts). Jujhar.pannu has not provided edit diffs and no recent attempts to discuss anything on an article's talk page with me or whoever is referred to with the "a select group of people" phrase in the opening lines of this complaint. I do not understand why Jujhar.pannu would "hope to ban this [my] account soon" or worse, "ban them [whoever along with me] straight". Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:58, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

@Jujhar.pannu: You would do well to realize that content creation is not privileged over content removal. Getting rid of bad content is just as important to building an encyclopedia as adding good content. Generally, administrators police editor behavior, and do not care whose version of an article is superior, or has better sources. Requesting that administrators use their powers to enforce your preferences and ban people who disagree betrays a deep misunderstanding about how Wikipedia functions. If you continue to edit with this attitude, you are going to have a bad time. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:48, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Main issue is removal of referenced high quality content not only by me but dare I say it hundreds of others.

Even the talk page of the article is filled with examples of these few who hold up progressing article changes. Easy for any true moderators out there anyone basically who supports Ms Sarah Welch should be scrutinized. The comments above here seem to come from people that link to Indian and Sikh Articles but besides Ms Sara Welch are not the main accounts responsible.

I am very open to discussing with anyone who has a positive outlook, is truthful in their editing, does not have a obviously distorting nature, is open to discussing points rather than criticizing me however sorry but I refuse to talk to such people how make false claims as it is a waste of time nothing they say is true. Eg look at the above quote that Ms Sarah Welch wrote where it says I wrote this "The Guru was made to seat [sic] on a hot plate, boiling water had hot sand poured on him" and compare it to what I wrote in the the article "He was made to sit on a hot plate, and had boiling water and hot sand poured on him." I did not add such content I know how to spell sit. @Softlavender: your tone of voice here is not acceptable. It is pointless arguing with people who should be banned. Wikipedia has a clear policy on people who remove referenced content. Administrators please do aid in this it would be a massively good deed and help out Wikipedia a lot. Jujhar.pannu (talk) 03:27, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Jujhar.pannu, please read Ms Sarah Welch's post above more carefully. She was talking about an IP's edit -- not yours, and she provided a WP:DIFF for proof: [280]. -- Softlavender (talk) 04:09, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

• NOTE: Jujhar.pannu is currently edit-warring on Guru Arjan. -- Softlavender (talk) 03:52, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

• I looked a little deeper. The style and substance of Jujhar.pannu reply to Softlavender and Someguy1221 parallels those of the CU confirmed sock accounts of SiddharthSunny and AkhtarHussain83 of sockmaster KahnJohn27. The CU checks came after EdJohnston had already blocked AkhtarHussain83 and Boing! said Zebedee had blocked SiddharthSunny for disruption in the Sikhism-space articles. Their appeals and all the drama is here and here (caution: long, but they do discuss the Guru Arjan article). Similar "reappear suddenly and restore the old edits" then claim "I didn't add it" though they repeatedly restored or added it (a, b), "make allegations without edit diff" (c, d), block Ms Sarah Welch, @Omni Flames: and others "already" and "She deserves to be blocked" approach (e), run to admins for admin action (f, or threatening an admin that they will be desysopped g), etc. To be fair, there are nuanced differences between Jujhar.pannu and the KahnJohn27-accounts, and there are links of Jujhar.pannu to Js82-accounts per @Bishonen: past note that "something is clearly going on" given Jujhar.pannu's "mysterious claims to know what Js82's blocked sock Kigman fs". Even if we generously grant the benefit of a doubt and also presume no meatpuppetry, neither of their behavior helps build wikipedia, nor is it helpful in maintaining the quality our articles in accordance with our content guidelines. Their eagerness to run to admins, file complaints, attack admins (see Js82's old comments to SpacemanSpiff etc), deny they added content when they either clearly did or repeatedly restored or both, cast aspersions with "but dare I say it hundreds of others" and "anyone basically who supports Ms Sarah Welch should be scrutinized" as done above by Jujhar.pannu without edit diffs, all of this just a time sink for everyone. I felt reluctant yesterday to support WP:BOOMERANG, assuming in good faith that it is better to take blows than revenge, but after further review, I agree with Softlavender given the history. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:04, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

• Okay:
  1. I have warned User:Jujhar.pannu that they are skating on thin ice.
  2. Sockpuppetry concerns would be best discussed at WP:SPI
  3. The concerns about Guru Arjan are ultimately a content-dispute, and need to be decided through the regular talk-page discussion → inviting more eyes → RFC/DRN process.

Unless another admin wishes to impose sanctions on Jujhar.pannu at this moment, I think this ANI report can be closed now. Abecedare (talk) 13:26, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

How am I skating on thin ice I have not done anything wrong and always stuck to the rules. This is my only account and what basis can you say that I am a sockpuppet? Reverting an edit without discussion is edit warring all this discussion is related to that article. Other people on the same article page referred to Ms Sarah Welch as someone with "You are the one who's doing it and holding this article hostage...I'm going to straight away complaint about you. I'm tired of your harassments and your frivolous edits. Besides what we are talking about is sourced content, not what others think of it." Anyhow I can take care of that problem on the talk page. I just wanted to make notice of this sort of disruptive cycle and maybe put a stop to it. - Unsigned added by Jujhar.pannu, 17:21, 14 August 2018

• I add a brief response below to each, but am collapsing this because this does not belong in ANI. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:00, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Extended content

Examples of removed content by Ms Sarah Welch: Here ====Conversations with the Siddhas==== Like Guru Nanak many aesthetic shaivite yogi Siddhs had discussions with the Guru those Siddhas that Guru Nanak visited in the Himalaya mountains, and then at Atal Batale and had his Sidh Gosht discourse with, came and visited Guru Angad at Khadur Sahib after hearing the passing of Guru Nanak. They had discourse with Guru and were pleased with him. Another yogi by the name Daya Nath who pushed that purity can only be obtained by abandoning the world but, like Guru Nanak, Guru Angad convinced him that you can remain pure amidst unpurity amongst other discourse. Prominent Yogi Hari Nath also visited the Guru. Removed because the prose is garbled English and more importantly, these are all questionable sources. For example, one is by the author Ajit Singh Sikka who writes about Complete Poetical Works Of Ajit Singh Sikka. Others are by Himalayan International Institute of Yoga Science and Philosophy of the U.S.A and the Discovery Publishing House, both with peer-review issues. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:00, 14 August 2018 (UTC) Here ==Interpretation== The Indo-Greek king Menander I. The Yavanarajya inscription, together with numismatic, literary and other epigraphic evidence, suggests that the Indo-Greeks had control over Mathura at some time, especially during the rule of Menander I (165-135 BCE). The control of Mathura seems to have continued for some time under the successors of Menander, with Strato I, Antimachus and Apollodotus II, where they were facing the territory of the Sungas. Coins of Menander and Strato can be found in the area of Mathura, and Ptolemy records Menander as having ruled as far as Mathura (Μόδουρα) in Book VII, I, 47 of his Geographia. Replaced with this after source checks. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:00, 14 August 2018 (UTC) Here ====Compiling the text==== The Guru received texts from various locations and with his scribe Bhai Gurdas began to compile the granth at Ramsar Sarovar, Amritsar in 1603. He collected and received the prior Guru's writings from many places rejecting those writings going against basic philosophy of the Gurus and obvious fakes. Some supposed saints also bought their writing to the Guru but the Guru rejected them as well based on their writing's merit, of it for example being advocating of self deification, being derogatory to woman, advising concealing God's message, and also disparaging life. The compilation was complete on August 30, 1604 with the Adi Granth containing thousands of hymns and within are compositions from Hindus and Muslims saints going beyond marking boundaries of religion as well as writings of the five Gurus are a small section of historical writings from Bhatts (Bards). The Adi Granth was written in special ink and had been bound by Bhai Banno. After completing the Adi Granth it was wrapped in silk and placed on a pedestal where the Guru would sleep on the floor next to as a sign of respect and mark of reverence. ===The Guru's arrest=== The Guru was arrested and brought to Lahore on May 1606. Emperor Jahangir ordered a heavy fine of 200,000 rupees for the release of Guru Arjan and in addition to erasing some supposed derogoatory lines of the Gurbani from the Adi Granth. Guru Ji strictly refused to change any Gurbani and the Sikhs were willing to pay the fine however the Guru refused and said that the fine was unjust therefore should not be paid. Refusing to pay the fine the Guru was ordered to be executed. Some say Jahangir had harsher demands and penalties but due to Mian Mirs influence they were subdued. References Some of the sources such as SPCK are questionable and inappropriate. A few are better sources but the actual summary and the alleged support needs some discussion on the talk page. ANI is not the right place for content discussions. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:00, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

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

WP:IDHT and threats of escalation by User:Redfamilyuser3

The following discussion is closed. 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:Redfamilyuser3 has been placing and reactivating edit requests at Talk:Swaminarayan for over a week. For example - [281] The requests have now been declined as unencyclopedic and against consensus by four different editors so far. The last couple of requests have threatened "I WILL ESCALATE", among other things. [282][283][284] I'm not sure what they plan to escalate, but this user is not paying any attention to what's being said on their requests or on their talk page. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 17:30, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Looks like a NOTTHERE case to me.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:40, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

72 hour block for disruptive behavior. If they continue with similar behavior after the block, I think we can consider blocking for WP:NOTHERE. -- The Anome (talk) 17:50, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

I would have indeffed, but ymmv. I've revdeleted their racist screeds from the talk page, anyway. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:28, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Update Ah. I've just noted the racism in the revdel'd revisions. Indeffing per WP:NOTHERE. -- The Anome (talk) 19:26, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Is this a legal threat

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

---

Do the comments at User talk:Sjacksonn01#Please stop moving the draft in particular this and his follow up remark. Either way I'm off to throw a few thunderbolts around. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 18:24, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Oh I meant are they close enough for legal threats. It's hard playing God and typing at the same time. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 18:28, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Yes, that looks like a legal threat. Tornado chaser (talk) 18:30, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Even if they don't rise to the level of a legal threat (they're awfully close, I have to say), they are still indicative of the generally confrontational manner that this user has chosen to interact with most other users on here. Based on their username and the name of the article they're editing, this is either an autobiography situation or a conflict of interest one where someone associated with the subject is editing in their name. The draft they created has already been move-protected. I think it may be time for some other sanction to be placed. If there is even one further comment about legal consequences or WMF counsel, that probably needs to be an outright block. Otherwise, I might consider a topic ban so they can work on other articles and gain experience while they are restricted from all articles about Jackson and the Black Republican Caucus of Florida, broadly construed. —C.Fred (talk) 18:32, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, that was an attempt to use pseudo-legal language as a chilling effect against editing. Blocked. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:35, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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:Unbannable king of 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.

---

Unbannable king of editing (talk · contribs)

Red flag username and first edit is either vandalism or a serious WP:CIR case. Pinging @Funplussmart and Salvidrim: who started discussing this at WP:RFCN already. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:46, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

I think we should keep the discussion at WP:RFCN since the user has not edited since the discussion began. Plus the Admin noticeboard is not the place to discuss username violations. funplussmart (talk) 22:51, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I don't think this is a username violation; I think this is a bored 15-year-old. I actually kind of like their username, and can't wait to screencap their block log when they are inevitably indeffed. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:55, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

• That's definitely vandalism, and this could be a block evasion or returning vandal. Pinging Sagaciousphil if she's still around. Softlavender (talk) 22:54, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Hmm Sagaciousphil to identify the dog-rapper vandal? I don't know, this isn't their usual MO, and with just the one edit I don't see much of a warranty for running CU (plus I don't have a record, though I remember a few characteristics and I imagine there's some IP ranges on the SPI). I say we wait. Drmies (talk) 23:02, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Drmies, I agree. I didn't realize the whole LTA thing until now. But the user has made only one edit thus far. For now, we should go back to WP:RFCN and discuss the username. We can come back here if the user makes another problematic edit. But for now, the username is the primary issue. funplussmart (talk) 23:10, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, dog rapper has been at it a long time, and I don't think it's him, based on behavior. That username--well, I block people for usernames every day (hmm only three today), and this, I'd let this pass. I think it's kinda funny, and if they turn out to be an editor who actually wants to contribute (I know, it's asking a lot), power to them. We'll see! Drmies (talk) 23:14, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

I am hoping that the unbannable king of editing becomes a productive contributor, eventually passes an RfA, and then by popular acclaim gets elected to Arbcom. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:13, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

...With a clean block log and a lengthy record of being reported at ANI. Yes, I would find that just as awesome as an indef after two or three edits. Also, thanks to funplussmart for notifying the editor, which I stupidly forgot to do. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:08, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

MjolnirPants, you're welcome. I was just making sure proper procedures were being followed. funplussmart (talk) 16:05, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

• There's a lot of noise right now for a user with one edit, which ClueBot reverted and already warned them for. Probably just leave it? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:55, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• As I suggested at RFCN, leave it for now, and block indef for a second vandalism edit, considering the username. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:31, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Ten'll get ya twenty there will never be a second edit. Which is fine by me, though I'll be mildly disappointed that Guy's prediction didn't come to pass. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:35, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Continued abuse by User:Philblue7

The following discussion is closed. 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:Philblue7 was reported to this noticeboard a couple months ago. He seems that he is back with his edit wars and unnecessary advertising. Recent diffs follow:

Edit warring: 1 2 3 4 5

Unnecessary advertising: 1 He seems to be a fan of this project "RiiConnect24" and has even created an article about the project, though it got speedy deleted twice (see his talk page.) Abequinn14 (talk) 02:14, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

I reviewed the many warnings on that editor's talk page, and noticed that they never respond. I looked at their pattern of editing and saw many serious problems. I have issued them an indefinite block but made it clear that the block can be lifted if they fully commit to our policies and guidelines, and also commit to communicating with other editors who raise legitimate concerns. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:35, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Thank you for bringing this to ANI @Abequinn14:; their insistence on including a source that proved incorrect on KidsClick (an article which they've tried to WP:OWN and turn into a promotional playground) has proven tiresome enough; I did not know the RiiConnect nonsense was of their own creation and previously deleted, so I'm glad I removed that before it caused further pain to the WiiConnect article. Nate • (chatter) 20:31, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Admin WOSlinker's bot-like editing

People with older pages on their watchlists will probably have noticed WOSlinker (talk · contribs) making a larger number of bot-like edits fixing incorrect HTML tagging. Their contribution history is full of such edits, rapidly making repetitive edits to a lot of pages. I asked them on their talk page on July 17 to get a bot account and SmokeyJoe did so as well on August 4, but they did not address these concerns but rather continued unabated, so I'd like some more input. I know WP:MEATBOT does not consider fast editing itself a problem but this has been going on for weeks now and is becoming really disruptive because I cannot filter out these edits like I could bot edits. Regards SoWhy 17:00, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

• It’s true. Mentioned here: User_talk:WOSlinker#Human_or_bot?. User:WOSlinker is doing a lot of bot-like edits. Fixing old bad fixes to signature html tags I checked in some cases. He should use an alt-bot account to do these things. We can ask him to. Next a sledgehammer to crack a nut? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:25, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
• Noting the (recently) approved Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/Ahechtbot covers many of the signature fixes WOSlinker does, and the at BRFA Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/Galobot fixes similar errors for <s>, <b> etc, the same as WOSlinker does. WOSlinker probably should get a bot account for many of the fixes.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 21:32, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
• Agreed. He should stop editing and either create a bot himself or have one of the many available bots handle it. If he continues to ignore requests, he should be blocked, admin or not, until he decides to participate with the rest of the community. Nihlus 23:07, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
• I don't have much of a problem with this FWIW, and would oppose a sanction that would require WOSlinker stop editing without a more thorough exploration of what's going on/what the options are. This thread only caught my eye because I've seen these edits recently, too. I've also had occasion to look at some old archives recently and find massive blocks of text struckthrough, smalltext, italicized, colored, etc. because of broken signatures. It's dreadful to try to read, so I consider these edits an unambiguous help. Yes it would be ideal if he/she created a bot, but that's pretty far outside of a lot of people's comfort zones. And if there's already a bot that could do this, then it's a non-issue. There are a whole lot of people that make tons of AWB edits or other kinds of semi-automated edits that many of us would rather not see in our watchlist, but as long as they're positive contributions I say just let them be. WOSlinker does tick the "minor edit" box, so anyone looking for a way to filter out inconsequential edits like those do have a way to do so, just like one could filter out AWB that way. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:07, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
• These are utterly and totally non-controversial housekeeping edits, and I consider this report to be a triumph of WP:BURO over WP:COMMONSENSE. I think this rhread should be closed without action, with the exception of a "Well done" to WOSlinker for improving theencyclopedia and mini-trouts to SoWhy and SmokeyJoe. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:29, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

  @Beyond My Ken: No one is arguing that the edits themselves are problematic. In fact, they are quite helpful. What is problematic is the way they are done, as I explained. Many people, myself included, use their watchlist to monitor pages for problematic edits. The more edits the watchlist displays, the harder it is to spot such edits. At the time of this comment, my watchlist displays 403 non-bot edits, 83 of which were made by WOSlinker. That means 20.5% of all edits I have to check on my watchlist are not worth checking (or, phrased differently, WOSlinker increases the size of my watchlist by 25%) but I have no easy way to filter those edits out because WOSlinker, despite multiple editors expressing concern, is unwilling to use a secondary account with a bot-flag to make those edits (which, as Nihlus points out, is quite possible). So no, this is not a WP:BURO violation because one of the reasons we have a dedicated bot-fag is that mass edits of the same kind should be relegated to bot-accounts because they can be filtered out, thus making editing easier for all involved. Regards SoWhy 08:53, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

  Your fellow editors who happen to be LGBTQXYZ robots would appreciate your avoiding use of such terms as bot-fag. EEng 12:29, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

• People may not be aware of the massive WP:Linter project regarding a change to how pages are rendered and the need to make thousands of repairs. Is anyone suggesting WOSlinker's edits should not be performed? Johnuniq (talk) 05:20, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

  @Johnuniq: I was one of the few people who began fixing linter errors, so I am aware myself. That being said, I used a bot (NihlusBOT, Task 2) because that is WP:COMMONSENSE. No one is saying these edits shouldn't be made; that actually hasn't been said anywhere in this thread. Nihlus 05:37, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

  If they are running a bot, sure. If they are doing it especially manually or even semi-manually, then I do not see a problem unless the changes themselves are inappropriate (which no has claimed). Editors are not required to use a bot to make these kind of fixes nor should they be. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 05:45, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

  The problem is explained above by SoWhy. This is often a situation that comes up with the users who have 500,000+ edits. They feel compelled to make thousands upon thousands of edits that could be easily handled by a bot. Using a bot allows people to ignore the bot like edits in their watchlists without sacrificing the ability to view other edits. Additionally, these users have a tendency to ignore concerns brought up to them by the community, and even then, feel that others should merely accept what they do. I mean, there are reasons cases like this have reached Arbcom's desk. Nihlus 05:52, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

• Likely related to mw:Parsing/Replacing Tidy. This work needs done and their fixes seem good. No objection from me due to the circumstances. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 05:29, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Cluttered watchlists do not concern me and I do not find generalizing user characteristics (and arguing a slippery slope to a certain extent) to be helpful. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 08:12, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
    • Cluttered watchlists obviously concern some people as demonstrated here. Just because you don't see it as a problem doesn't mean it isn't one for someone else. Nihlus 08:35, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
      • The tangible benefit of the fixes in question, by whatever means, far outweighs superficial lists. Furthermore, the concern of cluttered lists is on the same level as the inconvenience of having one's contribution history split between multiple accounts, except that the former is temporary while the latter is permanent. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 11:28, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
• My edits are either fully manual (mainly the ones that are not editing font tags) or are using some search and replace (mainly the ones editing font tags) followed by manual checking to see if the page looks ok. I have reduced the volume of edits after the messages on my talk page. -- WOSlinker (talk) 06:54, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

  @WOSlinker: If the edits are mostly search and replace, why can't this be handled by a bot? Regards SoWhy 08:57, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

  Possibly "followed by manual checking to see if the page looks ok". Johnuniq (talk) 09:13, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

  To reduce watchlist issues, I could edit just the archived pages for the next few months (which are generally not watched as much) and then look at the other pages after that if they still need doing. -- WOSlinker (talk) 09:27, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

  @WOSlinker: Can you answer his first question? If the edits are mostly search and replace, why can't this be handled by a bot? Thanks. Nihlus 09:33, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

  Because it does not have to be. Editors are free to spend their time editing as they wish, without regard to efficiency, as long as it does not conflict with established guidelines or policies. Bots are complicated (e.g. they require some technical knowledge to set up) while the editor running the bot still bears responsibility for edits made that they have less control over and likely, at some level, ability to scrutinize. I would encourage WOSlinker to continue fixing as many of these nasty errors as they desire however they wish, and, in fact, I may join in on the endeavor. Those who feel this sort of work should be done by bot are free to complete it that way before those doing it manually get to it. They will likely outpace those doing it manually manyfold and clear the backlog quickly, hopefully, but doubtfully, with as much accuracy. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 11:28, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

  Yes, a number of those edits can be done by a bot. -- WOSlinker (talk) 12:07, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

  Then maybe you can agree to leave those edits to a bot to handled? Maybe Nihlus can help you with that seeing as they already have knowledge of similar tasks and a bot account? Regards SoWhy 12:38, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

  Just because something can be done by bot, does not mean it should or has to be. Alternatively, you could simply learn to cope with a more crowded watchlist or, if it truly bothers you enough, de-watchlist some pages. Quite frankly, the more and more I ponder such a complaint the more ridiculous it becomes to me; perhaps it can be chalked up to us all using our watchlists in vastly different manners. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 13:03, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

  @Godsy: De-watchlisting pages kinda defeats the purpose of having pages watchlisted, doesn't it? The question I posit is instead this: If the same task can be done by a bot with the added benefits of the bot-flag, i.e. the ability to hide those edits from NPP and watchlists, why not do it? Or, asked another way, if one knows that a certain kind of editing bothers other editors and there is a way to make those edits that does not bother other editors, what is gained by not using that way? Regards SoWhy 18:33, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

  Beyond My Ken and Nigel Ish make good points semi-regarding that question below. Additionally, if we start requiring traditionally appropriate edits to be carried out by bot, when will the "bot creep" end? — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 20:47, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

  We should never sacrifice accuracy because somebody complains about their watchlist! Such an idea undermines wikipedia. Close the thread and salt. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 12:32, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

  @RichardWeiss: Where is accuracy being sacrificed? Nihlus 19:13, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

  In not checking each edit. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 20:57, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

• WOS should not be discouraged from fixing old font problems. Today I have only five such edits on my watchlist. WOS should be asked to create and use a WOSbot account to do these many rapid near-identical edits, even if they are done manually. These edits choke watchlists, and no one is seriously going to check them, which is why there is the Bot Policy, is it not? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:37, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

No, the bot policy exists to regulate automation, not manual (or some semi-manual actions) at high speed or volume. That aside, I doubt the bot flag would be granted the alternate account of someone who does not wish to run a bot. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 12:49, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Wants to do bot-like editing, but without bot policy compliant rigor, checks and justifications? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:30, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Manual or semi-manual work is not vetted that way. There is universal agreement so far in this thread that the fixes themselves are correct. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 02:31, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

• WOSlinker is to be commended for contributing so much of his time and effort to fixing errors. DuncanHill (talk) 13:09, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

  And I'll add that I've got over 18,000 pages on my watchlist and I haven' been overwhelmed by his edits. DuncanHill (talk) 13:12, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

• While I also commend WOSlinker's contributing to WP's accuracy, I looked at a very small sample of edits and saw that the missing closing font tags were in other users' sigs, presumably entered with four tildes. @WOSlinker: Do you alert those users? If not, the infection will continue. David Brooks (talk) 15:21, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
• My understanding of the purpose of having a bot policy is that (1) It helps to guarantee that bots work, (2) It helps to guarantee that the bot operator knows how to use the bot without causing disruptions, and (3) It approves the task that the bot is intended to do. I don't recall that part of its purpose was to force editors who have no interest or expertise in running bots to run a bot when the edits can be done manually. If, for instance, it was myself making the edits that WOSlinker is making, I couldn't write a bot to save my mife, and am not certain that I would be comfortable even running a bit if someone else was to write one -- this is why 99.99% of my edits are manual ones, and not even semi-automated. (I've been here for 12 years and I just added Twinkle about a month ago.) I really don't understand why the complainants would want to force someone to use a bot who doesn't want to run one, at the cost of not having the useful edits they are making being done. It's only COMMONSENSE for the task to be done with a bot if one is competent or interested in running a bot, otherwise, common sense says it's better to have the edits made rather than to enforce rules for the sake of enforcing rules. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:50, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Mife noun. A man-wife, common in rural Ireland and Scotland, also India, although most of India is rural anyway.[285]

So after all this time I finally understand when they say "I now pronounce you man and wife." EEng 05:34, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

• WOSlinker should be commended for the work that they do and they certainly have my blessing to continue with this, I will admit I do dislike edits like this purely because I see it as "meddling" with old stuff but on the other hand from my understanding in years to come unclosed tags do, can and will cause a lot of problems so whilst I'm not a fan as such I'm still all for them doing this much needed work, Carry on I say. –Davey2010^Talk 15:48, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

• I'm willing to suspend my editing of lint errors for a couple of months so that bots can do the work. After that, I'll come back and look at the ones which the bots have not done. -- WOSlinker (talk) 17:06, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

  Thank you. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:22, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

• @Godsy and Beyond My Ken: You realize that WOSlinker uses a fairly advanced script, right? Writing the code like that is 90% of setting up a bot, so comments such as Bots are complicated and It's only COMMONSENSE for the task to be done with a bot if one is competent or interested in running a bot seem out of place and show a lack of understanding on your part, not WOSlinker's. Additionally, people have complained about a bot clogging up the watchlist, so I can assure you that having a normal user clog up watchlists is problematic. Again, we have bots for a reason. Nihlus 19:11, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

• I was going to close this with mostly this comment, but leaving it as a note for discussion instead. As WOSlinker has "suspend[ed] ...editing of lint errors" this should be closed. WOSlinker should continue to edit freely and making these types of edits in general incidental to other edits or at low speed/low volume are in no way an issue. WOSlinker, I suggest you register User:WOSlinkerBot and file a BRFA for "manual" operations - assuming your task is "manual", "using webui" I'd be fairly supportive of a wide scope such as "High Priority Special:LintErrors" (of which there are currently over 4 million). Running with a bot flag basically eliminates the "flooding recentchanges/watchlists" arguments. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:22, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
• Many of these Lint errors make talk pages and the like unreadable - we should be doing everything to fix these errors as soon as possible - not whinging and complaining about it. Discussion on Village Pump Technical indicates that it is very difficult to get permission for a bot to fix these errors.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:33, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
  • @Nigel Ish: Can I have a link to that discussion? Because I got my bot to make about 30,000 corrections, and it took no time at all to get it approved. Thanks. Nihlus 19:38, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
    • See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Section_break_for_continuing_bot-centered_linting_discussion - note the statement by one editor that they tried to get Bot approval and gave up and from another editor that nothing moves fast with Bot approvals.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:59, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
      • So it's basically anecdotal and a task that was approved within a week. That is hardly a difficult process. Nihlus 22:35, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

So we had a user willing to do the tedious task of fixing a bunch errors, and willing to do an awful lot of it. But he/she did too much work fixing those problems (5 hours just yesterday, from the looks of it), so rather than ignore those edits or suppress minor edits on a watchlist until that job is done, we ask that the process be terminated so that we can watch those pages without fixing them, in the hopes that someone else will do the work in a way that makes it so we don't have to suppress minor edits or just ignore the edits. I get being frustrated when power users full a watchlist, but this is actually important stuff WOSlinker is doing. He/she isn't "fixing" hyphens and em dashes or removing spaces at the end of paragraphs, but making old pages usable. Unless someone is prepared to propose a sanction somehow, I would encourage WOSlinker not to slow down unless he/she wants a break for other reasons. If a bot comes along to do the same job, then there would be no need for WOSlinker to, but until then fixing pages is better than not fixing pages. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:34, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

fixing pages is better than not fixing page Better watch it, friend, that kind of talk can get you in deep, deep trouble in these here parts. I mean, it's not like we have a policy that says that improving Wikipedia outranks following rules, is it? Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:35, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

I concur, though that is probably obvious from my comments above. WOSlinker deserves praise both for the work they have done and the outstanding level of civility they have maintained throughout the course of this discussion. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 02:00, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Aye, I feel the same. The people complaining about this seem to have forgotten that one can simply suppress minor edits, and WOSlinker is undeniably improving the encyclopedia. I feel that those irritated by someone not using their preferred method to improve things (bots) should be invited to take time off, drink a cup of tea, and think about the fact they are complaining about someone making pages readable. Icarosaurvus (talk) 02:08, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

• Perhaps (assuming there's no real urgency) if he/she could just slow down and spread the fixes over the next month or so, people wouldn't feel flooded. EEng 02:24, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

  The sooner the pages are rendered readable, the better. I think we should accept as much of this work as they are willing to contribute; open the floodgates! — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 02:28, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

  But are all the issues "readability" issues? I'm guessing the issues range from critical to mere formalisms. Why not prioritize them and spread out the lower priority ones at suggested. EEng 02:36, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

  When I checked, I say yes, they are readability issues, but they are readability issues on pages without pageviews. It can wait a day or two. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:41, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Above, User:Xaosflux, 19:22, 12 August 2018, offers what I think looks like the most on-point suggestion. Create a bot account. Get it flagged. Do all the excellent edits without further bureaucratic delay. The compliance with bot policy, which includes for high speed assisted bot-like edits, is important for a number reasons. These include: double checking that the massive amounts of edits are indeed a good idea; not swamping old page watchers watchlists; providing a good example to other editors who may choose to follow WOSlinker's example. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:40, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
    • I think that may be the core of this issue. Do the actions in question conflict with or fall under the prerogative of the bot policy? Some users seem to think so while others do not. If WOSlinker wants to voluntarily do what you suggest, that is fine. But they should not be compelled to. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 03:27, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
      • It seems to me this is approaching it from the wrong way. Wikipedia:BOTASSIST specifically says

        "Assisted editing" covers the use of tools which assist with repetitive tasks, but do not alter Wikipedia's content without some human interaction. Examples of this include correcting typographical errors, fixing links to disambiguation pages, reverting vandalism, and stub sorting.

        While such contributions are not usually considered to constitute use of a bot, if there is any doubt, you should make an approval request; see Approval above. In such cases, the Bot Approvals Group will determine whether the full approval process and a separate bot account are necessary. In general, processes that are operated at higher speeds, with a high volume of edits, or are more automated, are more likely to be treated as bots for these purposes.

        Contributors intending to make a large number of assisted edits are advised to first ensure that there is a clear consensus that such edits are desired. They may wish to create a separate user account in order to do so; such accounts should adhere to the policy on multiple accounts. Contributors using assisted editing tools may wish to indicate this, if it is not already clear, in edit summaries and/or on the user page or user discussion page of the account making the contributions.

        No where does it say there needs to be consensus that there is doubt. It seems clear however that there is doubt, but enough editors that an approval request "should" be made. The BAG will determine whether the approval process is needed. I don't understand the point of the BAG if we don't trust them to make the decision whether bot approval is needed and are instead going to waste our time arguing on ANI whether it's needed. Especially when we are already telling people to seek approval when there is doubt, and there clearly is doubt even if there is no consensus whether there is doubt or whatever way you feel is the right way to express this situation. Nil Einne (talk) 08:50, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

        • I'd note that I agree with what someone said above that while this opposition to seeking approval seems to be because it's an onerous process no real evidence seems to have been provided of this. In the discussion highlighted (now Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 167#Section break for continuing bot-centered linting discussion) the editor who is making these edits suggested it would not have been allowed in the past even though this goes against what the policy actually says. No evidence has been provided that I've seen of anyone actually tried before.

          The only evidence of someone trying seems to be recently and while I can understand that editor's frustrations, I also agree that one week and the evidence required doesn't seem that onerous. Maybe most importantly, AFAICT it remains unclear that the BAG will even feel this needs approval.

          Don't get me wrong, I am thankful for everyone involved. But at the same time, this doesn't mean I should accept stuff claimed without evidence. If someone actually tries and the process is unreasonable, I think we have major problems that need to be fixed so it would be good if this can be brought the communities attention since it's a major problem.

          But in the absence of evidence, I suspect more likely it's just a misunderstanding, like it appears the view that this would not have been allowed prior to RemexHtml replacing HTML Tidy is also AFAICT a misunderstanding. It would be better if anyone who wants to help realises that it's a misunderstanding since it means now and in the future they can help without this dumb fuss since they can avail the processes we have already created including to decide whether BAG is even needed.

          Nil Einne (talk) 09:07, 13 August 2018 (UTC)