Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

Aspersions at ARS

• 7&6=thirteen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron – Rescue list (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User is continuing to re-insert personal attacks at WP:RSL#Lessons learnt after they were reverted by me. Another editor reverted my removal and advised me to simply redact the offending portion, which I did, but 7&6 once again undid my redaction to reinsert the personal attack. In this case, the attack was the casting of aspersions on "the usual suspects" who showed up to "stealth delete" an article. This was an assumption of bad faith on all the participants of the various AFDs (three in total I think; the actual situation was a bit complicated).

This further goes against the general principle of focusing on content (or even process) rather than contributors. And it's not in line with the ostensible purpose of the project page it was posted on, which is for improving articles at AFD to the point where they can be kept, not for kvetching about an outcome you missed and didn't like.

I'm requesting that the attack (and yes, it's an attack) be removed, and for this to be kept in mind in case there are any similar problems in the future. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:54, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Simple statement of facts with appropriate links. This should not be a secret, and should not be kept that way. That they were able to accomplish this is a defect in the deletion process. No one is mentioned by name.

If the shoe fits, you must be Cinderella. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:05, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Or it could be argued it is a good thing about the process as it allows fresh views/consensus to emerge. - Sitush (talk) 18:12, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Don't make WP:POINTy comments and not own up to it when challenged. I don't even care about the underlying issue but all this pointless inflammatory comments you make like "agenda fulfilled" and "stealth deletion" is what gives ARS a bad rap. --qedk (t 愛 c) 19:35, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

@Sitush: It only works one way - for deletion. You can put an article up for deletion often- I have seen 12 AfDs on one article. However one recreation of an article brings a G4. Lightburst (talk) 18:52, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

But 7&6=13 was talking of deletion, so recreation isn't the issue here. On the other hand, G4 won't apply if the article is significantly different. The bar for deletion is pretty high usually, and that "no consensus" defaults to "keep" increases the sense of that and is contrasts weirdly with the spirit of BURDEN etc. - Sitush (talk) 19:19, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Calling people the usual suspects to push an agenda in secret is a personal attack. You have now added yet another with these edits, alleging that people are trying to act in secret. As I attempted to do with the redaction, a simple notification of the events is one thing, but assigning nefarious motives to the "usual suspects" is not. Please revert your personal attacks. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:18, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

• I don't understand what happened. The article Yoast was nearly a SNOW keep with lots of participation. Then someone moved the page to Moz (marketing software). Followed by a new AfD just months later with a unanimous delete result by a small number of participants (no Keep voters from the original AfD were there). It is strange. How did this happen? It's not like consensus would change that radically in a few months, or so many Keep voters would suddenly all loose interest in participating. -- GreenC 18:27, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

  @GreenC: Trying to figure out what happened is fine. We also have WP:DRV for reviewing in case something went wrong. The personal attacks are not fine, and this is why I brought this up, not the odd sequence of deletion/move events. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:50, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: This is a big nothingburger, in that there is not a PA to be seen. It does seem like Deacon Vorbis has been edit warring over the comment in question so perhaps a boomerang is warranted. DV made 4 refactoring edits regarding the comment (here are the four: One, two, three, four). Additionally, GreenC is correct about the article's somewhat-stealthy deletion. If it walks like a duck... Lightburst (talk) 18:39, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

  For the record, I made 2 full reverts and one redaction; I undid a third revert of my own to err on the safe side of 3RR (which frankly should be granted a little leeway for personal attacks anyway, but that's another story). Accusing people of behaving stealthily and to promote an agenda is a personal attack. Canvassing for like-minded editors at WP:RSL for a purely behavioral issue as 7&6 did is problematic as well. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:50, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

  Not accurate, I listed four times you refactored. Your fifth edit was a refactor of your fourth refactor of the comment, after you were warned for edit warring. Lightburst (talk) 18:55, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

  You don't get to count a fourth when someone immediately reverts himself. I reverted the fourth one of those immediately, before any warning was made (check the timestamps, I reverted myself 13 minutes before any warning was left, and even if it were after, that's still usually good enough). That leaves me at 2 or 3 (depending on how you count the {{rpa}}, which was even advised in place of a full revert). –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 19:06, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

• Meh. I don't see much different from something like I'm still baffled at your obdurate refusal to acknowledge policy and the present state of the article....I WP:AGF and your befuddlement (or deliberate blindness) is irrelevant, or No thanks to you and this wasted exercise, Keep your mask on and your head down (while at the same time reprimanding another editor for an ad hominem). All in a days work. ——Serial 18:41, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

  Not sure why you'd "meh" after finding more examples of similar problems. Maybe some sort of (partial) topic ban? Just spitballing, maybe something like "no personal comments at ARS/AFD/other deletion-related venues"? This would allow 7&6 to still list articles at RSL and participate in AFDs as long as they don't get personal about anything. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:58, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

I talked about process only.

There was no WP:PA.

Unlike User:Deacon Vorbis who has been blocked three times for them, and know what he is talking about.

He just wants to stifle any dissent from his choochoo's progress. Bad policy; slippery slope. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:38, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Statements like He just wants to stifle any dissent from his choochoo's progress are uncivil. That you don't understand that is mind-boggling. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 19:40, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Levivich That you don't understand Prior restraint seems to befit you. So my mind is not boggled. But I am bothered by the policy implications. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:44, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

IMO the "worst" part is that you make your uncivil comments, which are sometimes outright personal attacks, in separate edits, and you just keep on compounding them. These are nine of your most-recent fifteen edits:

1. "Stealth deletion is for real. "
2. "The usual suspects voted delete."
3. "An agenda fulfilled."
4. Restoring the above, twice (with an assist)
5. Describing the above as "Simple statement of facts" and asserting "This should not be a secret, and should not be kept that way. That they were able to accomplish this is a defect in the deletion process.", while excusing it because "No one is mentioned by name.", and then ending with "If the shoe fits, you must be Cinderella." - You're contradicting yourself: are you exposing a secret, or was no one mentioned by name, or does the shoe fit?
6. "There are those who want this series of transactions kept secret. The Star Chamber will brook no contempt."
7. "He just wants to stifle any dissent from his choochoo's progress."
8. "That you don't understand Prior restraint seems to befit you." - That doesn't even make sense. I'm complaining about things you've already said; that's not prior restraint (which is stopping someone from saying something before they say it). It would be good if you exercised some restraint though, prior or otherwise. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 19:53, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

• Just another example of the ARS types being allowed to say what they like about other people, while everyone else has to walk on eggshells. Let's be clear: when you badmouth someone and everyone knows who you're talking about, it's still a personal attack even if you don't mention their name directly. Reyk _YO! 20:22, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Do you have any examples of this? For years you have insulted the ARS everywhere you get a chance to. And no one knows who he was talking about, no one went there to look at all the names and try to figure out who these people were. Dream Focus 22:31, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Right...^ like that time Reyk called me a pathetic loser. you have been quite insulting. Why not post an article on the ARS page and lets work together? This animosity is quite uncomfortable. Lightburst (talk) 23:04, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Here are four recent examples of AFDs in which (1) 7&6, LB, and DF all !vote keep (twice joined by AD), and (2) at least one or more of them accuse the nom and/or delete !voters of violating policy in one way or another: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beer hall, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Henderson (pilot), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hamilton McWhorter III, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tolulope Arotile (2nd nomination). There are many, many more like this. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 23:51, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

  (edit conflict)The first one has ten keeps and no deletes but the nominator. The second one has 9 people voted keep, not just us. The third had six keeps and no deletes and the nominator withdrew their nomination. A lot of people voted in the fourth one. What's your point? Where exactly did someone accuse someone of something that wasn't true? Post some links. I certainly don't do that. Dream Focus 23:57, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

OK, let's just talk about one behavior: accusing noms/delete !voters of, e.g., not understanding policy, failing to perform a WP:BEFORE search, etc.:

1. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beer hall
   • 7&6: "No compliance with WP:Before."
   • DF: "Please remember to do a brief check for sources WP:BEFORE nominating something for deletion."
   • LB: "obviously a WP:BEFORE fail. WP:TROUT to nominator"
   • 7&6 again: "Get involved with the WP:TAFI (Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement) project ... This would be a much more fitting way to resolve this outcome, rather than this misbegotten nomination to delete a clearly notable subject. That's my gentle suggestion, FWIW. Cheers"
2. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Henderson (pilot)
   • AD: "The nomination seems to misrepresent the content of the article." and "The fact that this is not understood, further demonstrates the invalidity of the nomination." which aren't uncivil or personal attacks, but are still comments directed at the nominator.
   • 7&6: "And there is an obvious and obdurate refusal to read the sources and the article and references, so that WP:Before is being flaunted."
3. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hamilton McWhorter III (I'm thinking of changing my username to this)
   • 7&6: "Proving WP:Before ignored."
   • LB: "Strong Keep WP:SNOW WP:PILEON Ouch! WP:BEFORE yields a notable WWII Ace." (If a pile on is "ouch" then why are you piling on?)
4. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tolulope Arotile (2nd nomination)
   • 7&6 (emphasis in the original): "WP:SNOW Wikipedia:Speedy keep broke a 55 year old record of the Nigerian Airforce to become THE FIRST NIGERIAN FEMALE COMBAT HELICOPTER PILOT ... Given the present sourcing, this AFD is a travesty. Clearly no compliance (pretended or otherwise) with WP:Before."
   • 7&6 again: "But it won't satisfy the die hards. We will have to agree to disagree, and let the process play out. She should be in WP:ITN as a recent death, but we have this wasteful sideshow going on."
   • AD: "So, [delete !voter's] case rests on a complete misunderstanding and misrepresentation of WP:1E. Essentially it's WP:IDONTLIKEIT with a veneer of flawed Wikilawyering."
5. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul R. Gregory
   • 7&6: "Rather than doing the AFD wrecking bar/crowbar — AfD is not cleanup, and this subject rather clearly meets GNG — you might try a different tool I suggest that this would be a good candidate for this week's article for improvement. Get involved with the WP:TAFI (Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement) project ... This would be a much more fitting way to resolve this outcome, rather than this misbegotten nomination to delete a clearly notable subject. That's my gentle suggestion, FWIW. Cheers."
   • 7&6 again: "Proving there was no compliance with WP:Before. The article creator's WP:SPA status is now an irrelevancy. Argumentum ad hominen fallacy."
6. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Recreation room
   • 7&6: Same stock line about TAFI, "misbegotten nomination", etc.
   • 7&6 again: "Q.E.D., no compliance with WP:Before."
   • 7&6 again: "And not even pretended compliance with WP:Before."
7. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suparatana Bencharongkul (2nd nomination)
   • 7&6: "Not the article it was when we started this AFD. See WP:Before. Further, the alleged WP:COI of the article's creator is an irrelevant fallacy; Argumentum ad hominem."
8. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meadowbrook Country Club (Chesterfield County, Virginia)
   • 7&6: "Not the article it was when we started this AFD. See WP:Before. Further, the alleged WP:COI of the article's creator is an irrelevant fallacy; Argumentum ad hominem."
9. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Life Mel Honey
   • LB: "[delete !voter] was canvassed to this AfD." - this is an amazing statement, given that in every one of the AFDs on this list (and many more), LB, 7&6 and DF voted !keep, often joined by other ARS members.
   • DF: "you deliberately canvassed someone you knew would agree with you on this" <-- that's what ARS does!
10. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Freimann Hotel Building
    • LB: "I always find it to be bad form for a nominator to constantly diminish the article during an AfD. Please stop. and allow the AfD process to complete. It is clear that you favor deletion so diminishing the article to favor your desired outcome is not good form."
11. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cary S. Cox
    • The closer, Spartaz wrote, "I see this was listed for rescue by a COI editor and a bunch of rescue regulars voted to keep with assertive arguments. I'm not going to give those votes much weight."
    • Followed by User talk:Spartaz#Cary S. Cox:
      • LB: "You had a disturbing statement in your close. ... I am not going to leave a slap like that unchallenged. ... I did not just turn up and reflexively !vote. the other ARS members did the same, ... If you have a problem with the ARS and feel like publicly dismissing their participation perhaps you should recuse yourself from the AfD. I ask that you relist or back out the closing and allow an uninvolved admin to deal with the AfD."
      • 7&6: "Oh yes. You've admitted your bias. WP:ARS takes articles and improves them. ... You need to rethink your bias. ... I've been the subject of personal attacks, which claimed I "always" voted Keep. I know that isn't true. ... But if you are thinking about discounting my votes in the future, you might bear that in mind. You ought to choose your jockeys, not just your horses. ... And there are those who habitually start WP:AFDs without an effective WP:Before; half-assed observance (I WP:AGF) is often found. You need a list? In short, it is easier to delete articles than it is to create and improve them. There are those who actually brag about their body count of deleted articles."

These are just some examples, and I'll note they have much in common. What's my point? My point is this ANI report has merit. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 01:35, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

You should write some articles. You have only written a few and from what I see you spend all of your time doing this ^ and casting aspersions against the ARS. You should look closer at the McWhorter article. I WP:HEYd that article. After that I wrote about three articles for other aces - and other notable articles about organizations related. What have you done? Following and poking people and gathering diffs of nothing - sending up walls of text. I wrote these articles after McWhorter was improved... Cecil G. Foster, Clayton Kelly Gross, Dean S. Laird, Distinguished Flying Cross Society, American Fighter Aces Association, and an article about an acrobat Andrii Bondarenko. Also after my talk page discussion with Spartaz, they had this to say about me. You really should edit the encyclopedia instead of following and lurking around the drama boards. You have also AfDd some articles that I started out of spite. Honestly...edit the encyclopedia...look at my edits from the last two days, I was on vacation last week so my productivity fell off, but since then I have been an editing fool. One might say....as was discussed in this ANI about you...that you are tendentious. Now lets get to work on the encyclopedia Lev. And quit following and harassing, and typing walls of texts. This is going nowhere. Lightburst (talk) 02:32, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

and from what I see you spend all of your time doing this ^ and casting aspersions against the ARS. Considering how frequently I see Levivich's edits on my watchlist on a variety of topics (which often disheartens me, because their arguments are typically civil and well-written and in complete disagreement with my stance politically), I am very puzzled how one can claim they go on wikipedia solely to harass ARS editors. The rest of this comment is a pretty unambiguous PA. JoelleJay (talk) 04:05, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Probably thinking of the many times he's done this in the past such as at Template:Did_you_know_nominations/S.W._Randall_Toyes_and_Giftes in the hatted section. Dream Focus 04:13, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

That AFD follows the same pattern as the previous 11:

12. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S.W. Randall Toyes and Giftes (2nd nomination)

• LB: "... misleading characterizations of the RS by the nominator. The nomination is vexatious ..."
• 7&6: "Snow keep for reasons already decided at the first AFD. YGBSM! This is just serial disruption, akin to WP:Vandalism. Indeed, this nominator User:Levivich chose not to participate in the last AFD. He slept in the weeds and now uses an ambush. Instead he wants a do-over. The alleged sock made one edit amounting to a short paragraph. Essentially, this is an argumentum ad hominem and is irrelevant. There is no "guilt by association" recognized in Wikipedia. And there is nothing other than coincidental editing of the same article; and no proof of anything beyond that. Moreover, he ignores the WP:RSsourcing of this article, including the books" - I discussed every source in the nom statement.
• 7&6 again: "Hopefully this nominator will internalize this lesson for future use and stop wasting our time on pointless exercises." Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 04:22, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

• You did nominate an article for deletion the same day the previous AFD closed as KEEP. Most people in the AFD who said KEEP this second time around weren't from the ARS. That should be taken into context with their statements there. Dream Focus 04:27, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

  13. The first AFD followed the same ARS pattern: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S.W Randall Toyes & Gifts, with 7&6 writing, "Q.E.D., no compliance with WP:Before". Here's another more recent one:

  14. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ratonero Murciano de Huerta - Stuff 7&6 said:

  • "WP:Speedy Keep WP:Snow Keep Keep Lots of sources here and there. Meets WP:GNG. This is an example of language-based systemic bias in Wikipedia. No compliance with WP:Before. WP:Not paper and WP:Preserve."
  • This exchange is great:
    • Cavalryman (the nom): "As opposed to casting aspersions can you indicate any of these sources? ..."
    • 7&6: "These dogs have similar make up, disposition and mission. ..."
    • Cavalryman: "That sounds a lot like WP:Original research, do you have any source indicating these dogs are in any way related beyond your statement that they have similar make up, disposition and mission?"
    • 7&6: "Do you have anything that says they aren't?" <-- I mean, seriously? It's notable because you don't have any sources that says it's not notable? What do you call that kind of an argument? "Ninedentious"? "Elevendentious"? I don't remember. Back to stuff 7&6 said:
  • To a delete !voter: "I assume you read the article, but maybe not."
  • To Cavalryman, another statement that shows incredible lack of self-awareness: "You are attempting to pollute and dictate a result by purging legitimate sources. Let the article stand or fall at AFD on its merits, not your wrong-headed analysis. Your response also appears to be a breach of WP:Civil. It is a curious blend of stereotyping WP:Personal attacks and Ad hominem fallacy. It appears you are unfamiliar with WP:Civil; can I suggest you take the time to correct that."
  • "That "the AfD nominator eviscerates the article to favor deletion" is a fact. It is happening here. You make it your practice. If you are right that the article as it stands should be deleted, then your point is made. But if not, what you are doing is poisoning the well and skewing this process up."
  • "As I predicted earlier, you don't like Spanish sources, and can't read them. Wikipedia systemic bias. I know you won't withdraw this misbegotten nomination; and I know there is no pleasing you. We will have to let the process play out. Walls of text and nattering won't make this clearer."
  • "Glad that the nominator has withdrawn this. His serial edits are self explanatory, and deserve scrutiny. Res ipsa loquitur"
  • To another delete !voter: "Here's a novel suggestion. Fix the articles yourself. You have time to delete them, but not time to improve them. Or get involved with the WP:TAFI (Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement) project. You can: Nominate an article • Review nominations This would be a much more fitting way to resolve this outcome, rather than this misbegotten nomination to delete a clearly notable subject. That's my gentle suggestion, FWIW. We are supposed to be building an encyclopedia; not tearing up the tracks. It's on you; it's your moral choice"
  • "CM, Your opinion is duly noted. For what it is worth. My opinion stands. No thanks to you and this wasted exercise"

  That's all from just one AFD in July. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 04:49, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

  One take-home message is that if a delete voter participated in a previous AfD that's bad and wrong. If they didn't, that's also bad and wrong. Reyk _YO! 07:54, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

• • (edit conflict) Out of context. What I said was: "KEEP Reliable sources have been found proving it passes the general notability guidelines, and the article has been massively expanded since the time it was nominated for deletion. Also click Google news at the top of the AFD, and the first page of results has a New York Times article discussing first a single Beer Hall, then the Beer Hall in general. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/06/world/europe/germany-beer-halls.html Please remember to do a brief check for sources WP:BEFORE nominating something for deletion." That was not rude in any way, just pointing out how easy it was to find sources for that particular one, and politely asking them by saying the word "please". Dream Focus 02:35, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

"Easy" is relative. Eg: despite what some people in the US seem to think, not everyone in the world can access the NYT in quite the same way and it is this sort of arrogance that can really piss people off. - Sitush (talk) 05:01, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Many US newspapers are inaccessible online in Europe because of US concerns about the effect of the EU General Data Protection Regulation - link. Searching is not as easy as you might think. Narky Blert (talk) 11:40, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

@Sitush and Narky Blert: I have just written Wikipedia:How to access US news websites for this. As the title is impossible to remember I also created the shortcut WP:EVADEGDPR. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 13:13, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Alexis Jazz, and I will take a look. However, my point still stands: the arrogance of assuming everyone has access to everything is bloody annoying. There are loads of sources and repositories that are not universally accessible. - Sitush (talk) 13:46, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz: Thanks. Your #1 is my standard trick; it's especially good if you have a headline. I'll have a look at the others. Narky Blert (talk) 14:53, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

• I have been pinged so I will give my 2c, the above mentioned AFD was a particularly robust discussion, but I wasn’t particularly concerned by any insults thrown at me. What I have observed is during an AfD (or Merger) discussion, Thirteen bombs articles with clearly self-published and unreliable rubbish sources as well as clearly irrelevant or erroneous information cited to reliable sources. If another editor raises this issue or removes these sources, Thirteen reverts then either refuses to respond to any discussion meaningfully or denies what is clearly articulated to them, this can clearly be seen by their interactions with me during Talk:Livestock guardian dog#Livestock guardian dog and Mountain dog, the above linked AFD and Talk:Ratonero Murciano#Quality of the sources as well as Thirteen’s interactions with Peacemaker67 at Talk:Hamilton McWhorter III#Unreliable sources which they chose to take to User talk:Peacemaker67#Fix it Hamilton McWhorter III. I am unsure what the solution is, but this kind of behaviour is clearly not constructive. Cavalryman (talk) 11:52, 3 August 2020 (UTC).

As a touch point, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yoast SEO has been relisted. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:25, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

• People have been raising issues about ARS for literally more than a decade. The page has been MfDed over and over again, there have been RfCs, there have been noticeboard threads. Sometimes it's about one member that inevitably turns into a discussion of ARS; sometimes it's about ARS and then focuses on one or two members. There's always evidence of battleground behavior, assumptions of bad faith, and canvassing, and there's always evidence of articles improved and sources found. There are fingers pointed back at the "deletionists" and the discussion always sprawls to be about deletion process, notability, behavioral issues of several different people, and eventually the purpose of Wikipedia. The most common outcome goes something like this: "The fundamental ARS idea is good, there are good outcomes, and there are also problems. Knock off the battleground stuff and be more careful about how you use the project or someday something might happen." Then we're here again. At this point I'm doubtful any of these threads will result in any sort of action. It'll probably require an arbcom case to do a full accounting of evidence. That's where complicated, sprawling behavioral issues can be separated from good projects. The problem (problem?) is, I don't know if it never quite gets bad enough to merit an arbcom case, so I'm torn. An arb case could probably help this years-long constant low-level issue, but does arbcom want to be involved with relatively low level issues? I don't know (and to be clear, I'm not actually suggesting anyone open a case at this time). For historical context, there was actually a case request in 2013 which was declined. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:05, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I participate in a lot of AfDs, and only vote when I think an article should be kept, so I'm sympathetic with the goals of ARS, although I'm not part of that group myself. That being said, the quotes listed above are pretty shocking. There really isn't a good reason to talk that way in an AfD — it's nasty, it promotes an unhealthy environment, and most importantly, it doesn't actually make you any more successful at achieving your goal.

I don't always live up to that myself; I've had moments of frustration and posted snarky personal things that I wish I hadn't. If someone were to go through my AfD contributions and pick out my worst moments (note: please do not do this), then I would have to look at them and say, yeah, that was unhelpful and unproductive — and most of the time, it didn't work and I lost the argument anyway. I would apologize, and I would say that I'm going to try to be better than that. That's the kind of mature self-reflection that I would expect to see from someone confronted with a big list of borderline-mean things that they'd said. I'm surprised to see people looking at those examples, and saying that it's someone else's fault. — Toughpigs (talk) 17:28, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Proposal: Topic ban

Given the overall WP:BATTLEGROUND-mentality of the original comments that prompted this thread, as well as the subsequent ones listed by Serial and Levivich, along with the general WP:IDHT response to a behavioral complaint with not only a refusal to admit that something might be wrong, but also making more of the same kinds of comment, I propose:

7&6=thirteen is banned from commenting on anyone's behavior (explicitly or implicitly, broadly construed, including, but not limited to, speculating on motives) in any discussion or edit summary involving article deletion. They may still contribute to deletion discussions, WP:ARS, etc., as long as comments are focused on articles, sourcing, and so on.

• Support as proposer. Tweaks to the language are certainly welcome. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 20:12, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support- this user's snide and erroneous aspersions are becoming habit. Reyk _YO! 20:22, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:POT and WP:SAUCE. It is easy to find cases of DV getting into slanging matches with other editors such as this. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:43, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose There was nothing uncivil and there was no PA. This is Deacon Vorbis getting all worked up and engaging in an edit war. DV is upset that there was a warning for their edit war. Lightburst (talk) 21:51, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose No basis for any sanction. No personal attacks. Simple statement of fact. Indeed, the emperor has no clothes.

Indeed, that they are characterizing some of my defenses at this very proceeding as 'misconduct' shows the paucity of their argument and their desperation. There ought to be an evidentiary privilege against use of such arguments.

If such a rule does not exist, and the statements are used, the compilation of such an accusatory list should itself justify a WP:Boomerang. WP:SAUCE.

The proposers of this are simply carrying on AFD discussions (which they generally lost) in a new and different forum. That they did not like those results is no reason to let them rule here. And they have been hostile to me for years. I could cite to these, but Ad hominem arguments are irrelevant on both side of this proposal.

No reason for a Prior restraint. Bad policy. We ought to be able to comment on AFDs, and artificial, ambiguous and evanescent lines won't help. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:16, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

• OPPOSE Someone was upset that an article they worked to save got deleted without anyone noticing. This happens all too often. This time none of the people who voted to delete it voted in the previous AFD for it, so it is not the same people gaming the system, as does happen quite a lot. Was the AFD mentioned on a wikiproject discussion for company articles? Anyway, no reason to blow things out of proportion here. No one should edit war to erase someone's comment though. If you have a problem with it then enter a discussion about it. Dream Focus 22:20, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose: Per Lightburst and Dream Focus. Darkknight2149 04:36, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
• Comment - all the !votes above seem to be very tribal. If you don't like ARS, support; if you're part of ARS, oppose. Not sure they have anything much to do with the person or proposal terms. - Sitush (talk) 04:59, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
• When this type of sanction was tried with other editors, it caused more trouble than it cured. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 05:06, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

• To clarify, are you suggesting that we get rid of topic bans? Darkknight2149 05:13, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

  No. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 05:17, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support per my diffs above. I also support the closing admin dismissing out of hand the comments and/or !votes here of ARS regulars (they have self-identified through the WP:BLUDGEONing of this discussion which is microcosmic of many of the AfD discussions they pile in to). ——Serial 13:21, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - I agree with Lightburst. And please...the t-ban proposal is ridiculous. A behavioral issue (and in this case, one that doesn't exist) cannot be a topic ban. Topic banning is for topics. Our admins can make much better use of their time than wasting it here. See WP:Thicker skin sanction. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 16:57, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

−

• Am I the only one amused that in an discussion accusing ARS members of voting en bloc that a group of ARS members vote en bloc to oppose a sanction? More seriously, its not entirely the case that the ARS is a canvassing page for keep votes but there was a serious attempt many years ago (IIRC correctly and I can't be bothered to do any research to back up my assertion with evidence) to close it down because of that concern and as a response ARS members adjusted their approach and made a real effort to make more detailed & policy based arguments that defused the concern to a large degree. I have a sense that recently some votes from ARS members responding to rescue requests have drifted away from this. While I had some thoughts about this after the discussion cited above it hadn't felt like we were anywhere near the point where we needed to look at this. I do agree that some of the personalised comments need to stop and I would ask ARS members and those opposing their mission to step back a bit. It would be a good thingb if there was a bit less righteous indignation on both sides and a bit more remembering that everyone here is a volunteer with the aim of making the encyclopaedia better. Maybe its time that AFD closers simply discarded votes from users ascribing motivations to other users instead of discussing the merits of the article? Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:16, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

• If we did that, then there would be a tonne of comments that are just repeats of each other. Sometimes other people either beat you to the punch, or say what you were going to say in better or more concise terms. It's not just one "type" of user that does this, it's basically everyone in any discussion - people who want it kept, people who want it deleted, people who want chocolate, people who want vanilla, people who want pink, people who want yellow, etc. Selectively discarding votes just makes it easier to game discussions and I don't think that's a precedent anyone wants to set. (For the record, I have absolutely nothing to do with ARS. Most of my time on Wikipedia is spent helping out with comic-related topics, getting horror articles to GA or FA quality, monitoring articles and removing chunks of original research/uncited material, and occasionally dealing with disruption or vandalism). Darkknight2149 05:35, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

• The bloc/tribal voting is kind of helping prove Deacon Vorbis's case for him. I don't think that qualifies as "irony", but it's still pretty amusing. --Calton | Talk 12:09, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

• There is nothing nefarious here. I follow those I respect - and I respect those who work on content...7&6 is just such an editor. My interests are in content creation and improvement and the ARS and 7&6 have the same interests. If we take those who are snarly to ANI there may be quite a few among you here in the soup. I could jam up this ani of diffs of Levivich casting aspersions, following, pooping on DYKs, AfDing articles of mine, and !voting to delete articles out of spite...and serial# often cosigning. Reyk - I do not understand the extreme dislike of those who improve articles. Reyk had an editor friend who was recently indeffed and I think that they blame the ARS. I think Reyk is a fine editor - unfortunately Reyk thinks I am a pathetic loser. These discussions are brutal and they can be cathartic - yet they are also time wasters. We have articles to write and improve. Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Cheers. Lightburst (talk) 14:02, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

• There is nothing nefarious here. Nothing, other than the standard bloc voting that has always been ARS's stock in trade since it has existed.
• Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass Coming from you and the other ARS tribalists, that's pretty hilarious. Thanks for helping me make up my mind here on how to vote. --Calton | Talk 03:08, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

• I believe we all noticed the edit warring Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron – Rescue list and came here. Dream Focus 16:04, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Which, as you well know, is one of the reasons why ARS gets so much bad press: you work as a team through that list. Perhaps not co-ordinated as such but nonetheless it is like a honeypot. It is why all the accusations of gaming canvassing restrictions have flown around for years and it is showing again in this thread. - Sitush (talk) 16:54, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

It was already shown previously that some things on that list get no one to go there and vote keep. Someone even did a comparison chart for everything listed and how many people from the ARS showed up each time and what the result was, and how many made improvements to the article or found sources to mention in the AFD. There is no canvassing, it nothing different than all the other Wikiprojects who list things in them. Dream Focus 17:52, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

It is very different. No other project is centred on AfD participation. As an example, again from my experience, the delsorting that goes on for the India project only rarely seems to attract experienced contributors from the project. - Sitush (talk) 18:07, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose I wouldn't exactly call this a topic ban. WP: TOPIC BAN states that topic bans relate to pages on a certain subject, so they have nothing to do with making comments about other Wikipedia users. That would be an IBAN. In this case, I could support a warning to both sides for mutual personal attacks, but this strange, fake "topic ban" is quite unnecessary. Naomi.piquette (talk) 18:57, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
• Reply I stand by what I said. WP:Before is something that can and should be implemented before making an AFD and before deleting an article. The various quotations are taken out of context; and what I said was fair appropriate comment and argument at an AFD, as verified by the results and the comments of the closers.
  

1. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S.W Randall Toyes & Gifts Per the closer: "The result was speedy keep."
2. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ratonero Murciano de Huerta Per the closer: " The result was keep; withdrawn by nominator."
3. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meadowbrook Country Club (Chesterfield County, Virginia) Per the closer: " The result was no consensus. No further comments after the article was improved"
4. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul R. Gregory Per the closer: " The result was Speedy Keep. Nominator has withdrawn, unanimous consent to Keep, helpful advice has been given, no reason to keep this up any longer."
5. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tolulope Arotile (2nd nomination) Per the closer: " The result was no consensus. I'm not seeing obvious evidence of mass canvassing here to discount opinions from experienced and long standing editors."
6. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beer hall Per the closer: "The result was speedy keep. The German Wikipedia also has a couple useful sources."
7. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Henderson (pilot) Per the closer: "The result was keep."
8. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hamilton McWhorter III Per the closer: "The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn."
9. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Recreation room Per the closer: " The result was keep per WP:NOTCLEANUP and WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure)"
10. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suparatana Bencharongkul (2nd nomination) Per the closer: " The result was keep."
11. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Life Mel Honey Per the closer: " The result was delete."
12. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Freimann Hotel Building Per the closer: " The result was keep."
    

They don't like the comments because they were true and effective.
This is all about sour grapes by persons who were on the losing side in these discussions. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:14, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support based on the above "what I said was fair appropriate comment and argument at an AFD" and "They don't like the comments because they were true and effective. This is all about sour grapes by persons who were on the losing side in these discussions." I'm still not sure this sanction will be effective though. ^Lev!v^ich 15:07, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support. Gosh, @Lightburst:, maybe someone should drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass, don't you think? --Calton | Talk 03:08, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. It is bed time for me. Zzzzz. Apologies I find it difficult to have so much animosity directed at the ARS, and 7&6 does as well. Constant accusations, and even an admin calling us ARSHOLES... it is not your fault and you have never been WP:UNCIVIL so apologies to you if I offended. Have a good night, I am going to unfollow this sh&t show and edit articles. Makes me happier than this thread. lol. Lightburst (talk) 03:17, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Constant accusations? This thread has dozen of quotes of accusations by 7&6 and their response -- just above -- was that because the articles were a keep, "what I said was fair appropriate comment and argument at an AFD, as verified by the results and the comments of the closers ... They don't like the comments because they were true and effective. This is all about sour grapes by persons who were on the losing side in these discussions." And you're saying it's ARS that is the target of the accusations? Where in those 14 AFDs in which 7&6 makes accusations against the various noms does anyone make any accusation against ARS? Nowhere. ^Lev!v^ich 03:23, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I am sure 7&6 is defensive just like I am tonight. Remember when you thought I gave you a PA and I struck it? But you will not...says a lot about you Lev. You rub your hands with glee when drama starts. Maybe 7&6 is spoiling from a bunch of "jerks" or "a&sholes" not doing their due diligence before AfDing. 7&6 is a net positive to the project. I have been a part of many saves and dyks with him. He may be a acerbic but he makes policy and guideline arguments and he is an expert at improving the articles. If you want an article whipped into shape, ask him to help. check out Bertha Boronda I did this a while ago and asked him t help. It is a winner now from his editing. Anyway...you guys talk amongst yourselves....I am out. I will go write some more articles. The project needs 7&6 - not sure it needs...? Lightburst (talk) 03:43, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Go to bed Lightburst, you're not helping anyone or anything, even with your coy .... ——Serial 03:49, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Gracias (Personal attack removed) Lightburst (talk) 03:51, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

(ec) You mean this one from January? I'd forgotten all about it. Must've been distracted by the recent ones: ☹ ☹ ☹ ☹ ^Lev!v^ich 03:59, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Lightburst, I am finding your claims that your being here is distracting you from building the encyclopedia hard to swallow. You and Thirteen teamed up in the above mentioned AfD to fill the article with completely unreliable sources, as well as utterly irrelevant information and equivocation intertwined with a little original research to blatantly WP:REFBOMB. And you did it together, working as a team. Most charitably it could be described as attempted WP:GAMING, I would argue it was WP:NOTHERE. Neither of you did a single thing to establish the subject’s notability, when called out both of you refused to discuss the issues, instead you chose to cast aspersions.

You wonder why there is so much animosity directed at the ARS? It’s because some of you deliberately disrupt legitimate attempts to improve the encyclopedia, and you do so as a team. As Thirteen’s comments in this thread attest, you see some AfDs as contests to win. Such an approach detracts time from those that ARE HERE to build an encyclopedia. Cavalryman (talk) 09:46, 5 August 2020 (UTC).

Very strange claim @Cavalryman:. You are a difficult person. I see you turned the article in question Ratonero Murciano back into a stub when your AfD failed. Nice. You generated no consensus do so...and thanks to you unilateral move, the article sucks again, just like when we found it. A clearly notable subject that you nominated without a before... and after the article was referenced, and built, up you withdrew. Next you waited a short, while and stripped out everything - going against talk page discussion. You removed: origin of the breed, appearance section, health, the See also section, the further reading, and 12 of the 14 references. Such a shame... and again, it does not serve the readers. So is there animosity directed at ARS? yes - and quite a bit comes from you. The article was a keep in that form - the talk page generated consensus not to make those changes, and you destroyed the article anyway. Congrats. Oh, and I see you changed the name of the page - also unilaterally. We saved the article because it was notable, you made a mistake..yet now you are still grinding over it, even after you have ruined it. congrats. Lightburst (talk) 21:19, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

As to the Ratanero article, it was "The result was keep; withdrawn by nominator. BD2412" and the nominator was User:Cavalryman. And after he does that he maligns the sources, and removed them. Doing that by indirection he could not do by direction. And y'all thinks this is fine behavior? 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:55, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I made this comment when Cavalryman was deleting things during the AfD: Comment every once in a while I came to an AfD. I improve the article, and then the AfD nominator eviscerates the article to favor deletion. I did quite a bit of work to the article, and the work of editors should stand until this AfD completes. If anyone disagrees lets discuss on the talk page. Lightburst. And it looks like I was being prophetic... the evisceration happened after the AfD concluded and the article was name changed. I am sure none of this makes those who refer to me as some sort of problem and or (Arshole) will think better of me, however it should raise your eyebrows. I mean, what are we doing here? Are we building an encyclopedia-or diminishing it. Lightburst (talk) 21:42, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Can either of you point to a single thing you added to the article that does not fit the above description? I note Thirteen is continuing their belligerent attempts to introduce clearly unreliable or irrelevant "sources" [1] whilst they still have not responded to any of my very clear attempts to discuss their & Lightburst's unreliable and irrelevant contributions, both during the AfD [2][3] and afterwards [4].

Further, as I clearly stated multiple times during the AfD, if reliable sources could be presented I would gladly withdraw the nomination, Neodop did so [5] and I immediatly withdrew the nomination [6]. Cavalryman (talk) 23:11, 5 August 2020 (UTC).

And now Lightburst is continuing the BATTLEGROUND behaviour [7] after again being called out above, I await the arrival of Thirteen's !vote. Neither have given any response in the preceding TP section about their "sources". Cavalryman (talk) 23:50, 5 August 2020 (UTC).

Getting consensus is the opposite of battleground, - here is an idea, which I do not think is my own. Lets not display WP:OWN behavior. We do things by consensus, like we do during AfD. You are acting alone in opposition to consensus. Consensus is a policy. It may be messy and not as quick as doing as you please, but it is policy. Lightburst (talk) 23:53, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose, with a caveat If there are repeated personal attacks, they can be dealt with via normal sanctions. I do not see much rising to that level here (although I do see evidence of BATTLEGROUND behaviour, even in this discussion - "The proposers of this are simply carrying on AFD discussions (which they generally lost)" If you're seeing AfD as winning and losing, you're not treating it for what it is - a method of improving Wikipedia by both saving articles which are worthwhile, and deleting those that aren't). Any admin who is experienced in closing AfDs will know that there are certain users whose comments at AfD can generally be taken with less weight; without mentioning names, there is one long term user whose entire AfD modus operandi is to find any Google reference to the subject and say "Keep - it's been written about", but then equally there's another one whose votes are inevitably "Delete - not notable". AfD is not a head-counting operation, and any admin who treats it as one should not be closing them. Black Kite (talk) 03:30, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support The examples provided by Levivich and Reyk illustrate a pattern of assume-bad-faith accusations that are not positive contributions to the consensus-building process. There are occasionally AFDs that should not have been nominated in the first place, but "SNOW KEEP" and "should not have been nominated" !votes should not be showing up in discussions that have already received a range of responses. Likewise, "No WP:BEFORE Compliance" is thrown around way too much; perhaps the nom didn't have access to all sources, wasn't impressed by the sources they found or maybe they just overlooked something. It's also concerning that 7&6 uses "Keep" outcomes to justify this behavior "They don't like the comments because they were true and effective" (they're not) as if that makes it all OK. Regardless of the good work done by ARS, we need to address the battleground-style personal attacks, conspiracy theorizing and refbombing. Articles that have been improved should speak for themselves with no need for these aggressive tactics at AfD. –dlthewave ☎ 15:22, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

These were keep votes because the articles should be kept. And the unwillingness of editors to do their homework before trotting out an AFD is problematical. Additionally, most if not all of those articles I helped build and source; and if the sources were available to me, and resulted in keep, the ends and means are coextensive. We were building a better encyclopedia. And as debates go on, it becomes apparent that they are a WP:Snow candidate, which I might note. Indeed, the AFD nominators withdrew several of the articles complained about above.

As to the perception that this is a battleground mentality, I only used the word "losers" to make plain the conflict of those who appear here, and acted in an outwardly hostile and unbending manner at the AFDs. Indeed, there are those editors who boast on their talk page about the number of article the helped delete.

The primary goal at WP:ARS for me was and is always article improvement. If I didn't think that the article should be a keep: I would have said so, or I would not have participated in the discussion.

That you can blink away an Admin telling an editor that he is an "ARShole", with the support of others, says a lot. We are all volunteers here.

The confluence between my votes and the outcomes is because the articles deserved to be kept, and should not have been nominated in the first instance. I choose my articles to improve carefully. I have been told that I had an 87% rate where I was with the majority and the outcome. I do not personally know if that was (or is) true, as I do not scoreboard.

Finally, I have managed to take many articles from AFD to DYK and appearances on the main page.

Thank you for you consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:44, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. I recommend all parties involved get away from the keyboard for a while & clear their heads. Wikipedia will still be here while you're gone. It's Summer in the Northern Hemisphere, a good time to do something else for a while. -- llywrch (talk) 18:44, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

This was the beginning of this brouhaha.

Yoast

It may be kept; it may be deleted later.

Kept. Per the closer, "the outcome was is now inevitable."

Think about it. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:20, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Don't take my words out of context to justify your battlefield approach and to purport a view to myself that I do not ascribe to. Dial it down. It's rude and childish and should really stop right now. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:58, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I accurately quoted you and put in the context. Spartaz I was not trying to make you take sides here. You ought to consider carefully the use of your attack adjectives, as I don't think I gave you cause for that reaction; but I have broad enough shoulders that I can bear the weight. Sorry for any offense given; it was not intended as such. Cheers. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:07, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

I accurately quoted you. Except you didn't. Spartaz said "the outcome is now inevitable". You transformed that update into something that was always the case, "the outcome was inevitable". BTW, though I'm sure this will just be filed under "sour grapes from losers", perhaps a promotional article about a search engine optimization product kept on the basis of a download count and coverage in how-to books is not a stellar example of ARS's benefit to Wikipedia. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:51, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

I have corrected the quote. Sorry for my error, as you are right about the timing. It should have read the Keep "outcome is now inevitable" File this under good faith errors and apology tendered. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:04, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose, there’s a lot of blame to be shared and little to gain by blocking everyone who’s stepped over the personally abusive line. ARS would be wise to caution its members about staying cool and not focusing on other editors, BUT the deck does seem stacked against them for dealing with tendentious editors and accusers who constantly poke at their efforts to identify and “rescue” articles on notable subjects. If anything ARS seems to hone in on problematic patterns of deletion that do need further attention. And BTW, it’s all largely thankless work done with a deadline. Gleeanon409 (talk) 02:03, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. You hit the nail on the head, there is a lot of muddy water stirred up in this discussion but this is clarity. -- GreenC 02:34, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: Watching this circus play out, I am strongly considering changing my vote to support sanctions on both sides of the fence. There is plenty of WP:BATTLEGROUND to go around here (some of which is bleeding into other sections), and the deletion/re-creation topic area in general seems to breed a lot of toxicity. Here we have the works - battleground/tag-teamy bickering, uncivil back-and-forths, personal attacks, WP:LAME edit warring over someone quoting a personal attack in a civil context, people using alleged tribalism to try and get certain votes dismissed, etc etc. There are a few individuals here that have replied persistently (and forcefully) enough that they would be better off leaving the conflict and doing something more constructive. Darkknight2149 00:14, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support topic ban and sanctions. While I think that the "inclusionists" or ARS people sometimes save articles that probably shouldn't have been nominated, most if not all of the time they (including 7&6=thirteen) treat AfDs as a WP:BATTLEGROUND and unfairly attack nominators. Whatever their percentages are, it doesn't justify the constant personal attacks. Which they have been repeatedly asked to desist in. I don't see any of them, including 7&6=thirteen, taking responsibility for their bad behavior or doing anything to curb it. Maybe 7&6=thirteen apologized in this ANI, but I don't think it means the behavior will stop. Especially since he has mainly blown the whole thing off at the same time. Although I think we could look through anyone's AfDs edits and find instances of them attacking someone, the problem with 7&6=thirteen and other "inclusionist"/ARS people is that it's a specific, targeted, and tactical way of doing things, like Darkknight2149 points out in the comment above this one, and needs to be dealt with as such. So, I think a topic ban/sanctions is appropriate. Since I don't really see it changing otherwise. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:54, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

To clarify, my "tag-team" comment was referring to people on both sides of the aisle. I have seen a lot of deletionists that are equally guilty of this sort of thing and there is even an entire essay on it. I have seen radical deletionist use tag-teamy tactics, intimidation, dishonesty, and accuse anyone who opposes them of being on the "other side," just to delete as much stuff as possible for deletion's sake (telltale signs - these users will have a history and are generally aggressive, one-note, always assume bad faith, and never oppose a deletion for anything). And yes, there are also people who are vehemently against anything being deleted for any reason, and I think we're seeing some of that here. I wish there was an easy way to weed out people with battleground tendencies, because the deletion/article creation area in general attracts a lot of this. Darkknight2149 05:12, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support- The sanction is actually quite mild and is tailored to specifically address the problem (and not be punitive), so I don't really see why anyone would oppose it. This has gone on far too long. While I'm of the position that the ARS needs to be disbanded since it is nothing more than a canvassing club, I find at least some of its members to be civil. This not the case with 7&6=thirteen, who is clearly the worst offender. I have been subject to his personal attacks in the past (see Canvassing and other disruptive behavior by 7&6=thirteen). One of my first interactions with the user is when he staunchly defended keeping an article that everyone else agreed was pure plagiarism (see William Foster Nye). When you are start an ANI discussion over a plagiarized article being speedy deleted, that shows a pure lack of judgement. Its this keep at all costs, no matter how bad an article is attitude that is harmful.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:38, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support an extremely mild sanction that is well-tailored to address genuinely problematic behavior. --JBL (talk) 00:18, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose These don't really rise to the level of direct personal attacks requiring sanctions per Black Kite. Most of his comments do cite policy and even if some of the insinuations were wrong, they don't really interfere with editing and can just be ignored. Patiodweller (talk) 03:09, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
• Proposal: Maybe 7&6 and Deacon need to step away from ARS for a little while (say, a couple of months?). They both seem to have gotten over-invested it and overheated. A little rest and editing elsewhere could restore perspective. Softlavender (talk) 09:43, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - Tempest in a teapot. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:22, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Proposal: Boomerang

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

---

User:Deacon Vorbis made 4 refactoring edits regarding the comment on the ARS page: (here are the four: One, two, three, four). Then DV reverted their fourth edit with a fifth edit. DV was warned about their edit warring and then came to ANI, to complain about this comment that does not rise to this level. We have now all spent valuable editing time about this nothingburger. Lightburst (talk) 21:58, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support as proposer Lightburst (talk) 21:58, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose- silly retaliatory nonsense. Reyk _YO! 22:01, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose- Banadea and B@nadea user names have some issue.advised to change this user name.Its a religion username.

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

Some suggestions

ARS seems to be a reasonably fertile breeding ground for battleground behaviour, and a current nexus for the perennial inclusionist / deletionist wars. I think ARS could materially improve their image if they were to refine the process for selection of articles. Am I alone in that view? Specifically, if there was some kind of gate that excludes articles with promotional and likely paid contributions, prioritises under-represented subjects (in the style of Women In Red), and includes a rationale for rescue, which some of the better nominations do (e.g. Roger Treat: "American sportswriter, mainly in newspapers. Wrote a monumental history of American football and was an advocate for racial integration in sports").

I'm concerned that right now anyone who has a pet article that's at AfD can just list it, and have a reasonable hope of attracting a group of editors who will only vote one way. A refinement to the selection criteria would make this less like an end-run around WP:CANVASS, which is how ARS is often perceived right now.

The constant lameness obscures the fact that parties on both sides of these perennial disputes are sincere and committed Wikipedians who are trying to improve the project. I see little evidence that the partisans are spending much time trying to understand each other's perspectives, which is a shame. Guy (help!) 09:52, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

AFD is a "reasonably fertile breeding ground for battleground behaviour, and a current nexus for the perennial inclusionist / deletionist wars." :FWIW, your concerns about WP:ARS is not supported by the facts. Thousands of articles come up for repeated deletion. Few get listed at ARS, and even fewer still get a response from members. And when I participate, it is to improve the article. And the correlation of any success I have at AFDs is related almost totally to those efforts.

You are quick to stereotype ARS members. If criticism is warranted, you need facts. And if such generalizations are to be indulged, you ought to consider looking at both sides. WP:AGF is sometimes suspended or unevenly applied. Just look at the above discussions.

Serial AFDs are a real and overlooked problem. It is hard to create an article; and it is far easier to delete it, especially when it is a rigged game. In fact, the AFD proponents only have to succeed once. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:50, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Well, as I intimated somewhere above, if "no consensus" didn't bizarrely mean "keep", there would probably be far fewer serial AfDs. If ARS are involved and something scrapes by because of a "no consensus" then it would probably be worthwhile for those involved in the project to bolster that article there and then but in my limited experience what tends to happen is the thing gets left more or less as it was. - Sitush (talk) 13:04, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

As a touch point, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yoast SEO has been relisted. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:15, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

And in connection with that AFD, we now have an article about the company's founder, Joost de Valk. Almost all of the sources are completely unreliable, it's pure advertising. ^Lev!v^ich 05:13, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Levivich, A subject with which I am familiar - and I agree. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:55, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

7&6=thirteen, your reply is a perfect exemplar of the problem.

I am minded to move a topic ban from deletions based on this obvious paranoid behaviour. It is bringing out the absolute worst in you, when normally you are a decent person to be around. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:50, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

"No consensus" just means "no consensus for change." If you are trying get an article deleted and there is no consensus, then it would stay deleted as well. I don't really see an alternative other than not closing the discussion. It's not like we can send articles to purgatory and keep them there indefinitely until a consensus arrises. Darkknight2149 23:02, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Darkknight, your comment makes no sense to me. I'm guessing you mean that if someone goes to DRV for an undelete and there is no consensus then it stays deleted. But it would not have been deleted in the first place unless there was a clear consensus to do so, so the situations are not comparable. My point has always been that we have things such as WP:BURDEN but the spirit of these does not apply at AfD in a no consensus situation and, in many cases, the article does in fact end up in a state something like purgatory because it is neither one thing nor the other. That is why I suggested above that if the ARS people are particularly frustrated with serial AfDs then surely a reasonable course for them to take would be to actually make substantive post-AfD edits to "no consensus" keeps in order to minimise the chance of re-submission to AfD. I've lost count of the number of articles where I have revisited the AfD to locate the alleged sources that satisfied GNG etc but which were never actually inserted into the article itself even years later: sometimes they were valid, sometimes not, but in either case it really doesn't help matters and does increase the risk of a further AfD. - Sitush (talk) 05:42, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Yep, that's been my finding over the years: that ARS is far less about bringing articles to a viable standard than to Thwart The Nasty Deletionists By Any Means Possible. Quite aside from those who obviously don't believe that notability standards should exist, it's too often a matter of throwing up obstacles, or complaining about more prods/XfDs than their numbers can oppose. What I see far less often is the surest way to shut the deletionists up: source the damn articles. Ravenswing 00:24, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I am puzzled by your aspersions. Collaborating to improve the encyclopedia is the mission of the project. And your efforts are decidedly in the other direction. Your statement is an aspersion ...apparently aspersions only matter if they are not leveled against the ARS. This whole wall of unrelated text should be hatted. The ARS have saved a few articles that you have wrongly tagged, and you should thank us. Here is another notable subject that you failed to investigate before tagging. Getting mad that ARS improves the encyclopedia and saves content with RS is outrageous, indefensible and ridiculous. Lightburst (talk) 00:54, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

You accuse Raven of casting aspersions and {{rpa}}'d Iri's "ARSholes" comment below, but you have yet to say anything about 7&6's aspersions and personal attacks, which are the subject of this thread. ^Lev!v^ich 01:25, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I am puzzled by your aspersions You misspelled "accurate and concise history". --Calton | Talk 03:12, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

It's a very simple rule. Criticism of inclusionists = personal attacks. Criticism by inclusionists = devastating truth bombs. Reyk _YO! 11:27, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I have no love at all for the ARS—I believe I was the first person to use the term "ARSholes" to describe their tag-team—but I'd strongly oppose any attempt to deem particular classes of articles more worthy of saving than others. (The most important article is the article on whatever topic you happen to be looking up; it's not for us to condemn readers for not reading more or writers for not writing more about topics we happen to consider under-represented.) FWIW I think their impact is minimal and at most a slight nuisance; every admin who works the deletion backlogs knows to disregard all comments from the ARS regulars unless they're making an actual valid point rather than the more typical variations on "keep, it exists", in the same way we all know to disregard the usual "delete, I haven't heard of it" regulars like TPH. ‑ Iridescent 15:25, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Iridescent, I think the problem is that it's open to gaming. Any spammer can list their article for ARS to "rescue" and have a squad of obsessive inclusionists mob an AfD to protect what is in the end often advertorial. I am also extremely disappointed in the quality of sources that are sometimes being added: the result of ARS efforts are often to provide superficial referenciness that doesn't stand up to any kind of scrutiny when you're familiar with WP:RSN.

As currently constituted, ARS gives an extremely strong impression of believing that nomination for deletion is prima facie evidence that the article should be kept. And that contributes to the drama. If they want the drama to stop, they could show signs of being less inclined to go to bat for obvious spam. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:02, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

• Hundreds of articles are nominated for deletion every day by multiple processes including speedy deletion, prods and AfD. The ARS gets involved in very few of these -- only about 1 article per day, I reckon. It would be good if the articles nominated for rescue were those with the most promise but there's a chicken-and-egg problem with this – you often can't tell how promising a topic is until you've done a fair bit of work on it. Consider a topic like Burry's, for example – my most recent nomination. I had a quick browse for sources and my intuition was that the topic had promise. But it's an American topic, while I'm British, so I listed it for rescue in the hope that American editors would pick it up. This seems to be working out reasonably well. In other cases, a comparatively no-hope topic will be listed in desperation, hoping that the ARS can perform some magic to save it. I usually ignore these myself as I have better things to do. But you really can't tell till you try and I am often surprised what a thorough search for sources will turn up.

Anyway, if Guy or others think they can do better then they are welcome to try. The ARS has hundreds of nominal members but few of them show up up to do anything at all. The real problem with AfD and related activity such as AfC is that they are dying for lack of attention and effort. The bickering doesn't help. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:18, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Andrew Davidson, I am happy for AfD to run its course, I don't see a need for a flying squad of militant inclusionists to rescue articles based on zero selectivity. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:18, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I spend a lot of time in AfDs and in article rescue, Here is my record. Lightburst (talk) 17:20, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

• That's been my observation as well, Guy. What I would love to do is be able to trust the work of ARS regulars, but I can't: just in the last week, I've seen a myriad of "Hah! You lazy bastard, you didn't follow BEFORE, here are several sources!" that turn out to all be namedrops and casual mentions ... when they reference the subject at all. See enough of them, and you just can't help but feel that the editors who resort to that are acting in deliberate bad faith, hoping that no one actually examines the evidence. Beyond that, a couple have made clear their belief that the entire deletion process is illegitimate and that notability guidelines are optional at best. As may be, but sorry, this is the encyclopedia you've got. Ravenswing 22:00, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

• Ravenswing is the editor who proposed that Burry's be deleted without any discussion or examination of the evidence. That's not working out well for them ... Andrew🐉(talk) 22:39, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

• (scratches his head) That's not working out well for me? Since when was this a competition? I did my research, I found no sigcov (using Burry's as a search term instead of "Burry," which other editors seem to have done), and other editors made the save. This is a win all around. But if you insist on keeping score, according to AfDstats, a full forty percent of your votes at AfD go against the consensus result. (I've got a 93% match rate, by contrast.) Sounds like you could stand to better familiarize yourself with Wikipedia standards, and not view AfD/prod as a war zone. Ravenswing 14:59, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

User: Ravenswing Apparently you do not accept that whether (or not) there was sigcov is a judgment call. Indeed, going back into the history of 137 year company (well before the internet) has its own unique set of problems. The subject matter an intrinsic relationship with the ability to find WP:RS. To be sure, these can lead to WP:AGF disputes on that issue. And Your mileage may vary. That you think that a statement that you got it wrong WP:Before is a "personal attack" — and not a defense to an AFD — suggests you need to reevaluate your perspective. To be sure, this is about improving the encyclopedia, and we ought to recognize that goal in everything we do. But silencing those who have a different analysis and conclusion is, IMO, bad policy. See you next time, I am sure. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:36, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

That "I think a statement that I got it wrong is a personal attack" is entirely in your own head, not in mine: obviously I did, in that AfD. That I'm somehow "silencing" those who disagree with me is also entirely in your own head: if I somehow have supernatural control over what you and your cronies type, I'm sure mucking that up. I've nominated several hundred articles for deletion at AfD, and even with a match rate around 94% on that, 6% failure means I've gotten some of those wrong, or that I'm simply outvoted. This has happened before, and it'll happen again. The nature of a consensus-based encyclopedia is that sometimes you're going to be on the wrong side of consensus. I'm comfortable with that. Perhaps you're not. (Sorry that the argument you were wanting me to make wasn't the actual one I was making, but eh.) Ravenswing 19:34, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

• A suggestion that would forestall any claims of not following instructions to perform searches for sources before nominating articles for deletion would be to link to such searches and comment on the results in deletion nominations. I don't see what would be so difficult about that, as it only involves copying and pasting a few URLs that the nominator would have to hand anyway. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:29, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

That would become ridiculous and time prohibitive with anything that has more then a few search results. AfDs aren't about Google hits anyway. It's also worth mentioning that doing a search for a term in the Google search bar will sometimes give complete different results then if you search for something by clicking on the search links in AfDs. I've had it happen a few times myself with Google Scholar. I think search results can be different depending on the users location and their prior search history also. It's not the job of the nominator to provide sources showing why the article should be kept anyway. That's on the "voters." It's not like the same personal attacks wouldn't occur if nominators did what your suggesting anyway though, because it's just a tactic that isn't based on anything already anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:57, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Needless to say, asking people to prove a negative is unreasonable. Reyk _YO! 14:49, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

I didn't propose that anyone should prove anything, just that they should say what they have done so the discussion can be a consensus-seeking exercise rather than a battleground. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:30, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

How is it time prohibitive when it just needs the nominator to say what they have done, which we are asked to believe is to follow the instructions for nominating an article for deletion? The time-consuming bit is following the instructions, which I am sure every deletion nominator already does, not saying how they have been followed. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:30, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

It’s AfD that is the fertile battlefield not just ARS, and this idea is worth implementing in some way. It would help confirm that the Nom did indeed follow Before, then if a pattern of bad noms surfaced maybe they would get coached in more successfully adhering to Before. Gleeanon409 (talk) 16:55, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Saying what was done in general terms might not be too time-consuming, but logging every step can be tedious. I've searched archives via my local library web site and while of course I can write all of the details down regarding archive names and search criteria, it is definitely additional overhead. isaacl (talk) 19:52, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Whoa, there, cowboy. You lost me with “fertile battleground”. We have policies for that. Kleuske (talk) 21:33, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

This section’s first sentence tries to lay the battlefield mentality at ARS’ door when AfD itself is a contentious area filled with strong opinions. Anything that might make the process more smooth is likely worth consideration. Gleeanon409 (talk) 22:17, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Like Isaacl said it would be time consuming because saying what steps the nominator took is tedious and nothing is good enough for the ARS people anyway. Even if you say you did a before they attack you for not doing a before. You say you did a before that involved a Google search and a Google scholar search, and you point out specific sources that you found and they still attack you. That's what they do. The nominators shouldn't have to bend over backwards by saying what they did just to be treated with a little decency. There should always be a presumption of good faith that the nominator did their due diligence. If someone isn't willing to grant them it, then that's on them. Just like it's on the people who call nominators sexist for doing an AfD about a women or a racist for doing about a person of color, etc etc. We shouldn't do anything to bend over backwards to accommodate the ARS people's cynicism anymore then we should do it for those people. It wouldn't matter if we did anyway though. We'll still be accused of things. So screw that. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:46, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

You ask for their good faith while simultaneously accusing all members of the group of acting in bad faith.

I think a simple step somewhere in the process confirming Before was done is needed, especially with some editors who seem to struggle with identifying sources that others point out. Then the issue becomes helping serial misusers of the process in finding sourcing rather than being frustrated by process. Gleeanon409 (talk) 04:15, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm not accusing all members of the group of acting in bad faith. I'm accusing the ones that have acted in bad faith of doing so. Which is who this discussion is about. This discussion is not and never has been about every person that has ever had anything to do with the group, no matter how minor their role in it is. Everyone here knows who the bad actors are. I'm not going to list all of them every time I want to say "ARS." so some random member, who isn't a part of this discussion or at fault, won't feel like I'm talking about them. Thanks though.

Anyway, more importantly there's zero way to "confirm" a nominator has done a BEFORE. Except for the nominator to say they did one. Which, as I've said before, they are already doing and no one from ARS is ever satisfied with. So, making it obligatory for us to say we did a BEFORE isn't going to deal with this. having consequences for badgering users like Andrew will resolve it though. Things have calmed down quit a lot already since this incident report was opened. Whereas, there's tons of AfDs where Andrew and his cohorts (obviously I'm not talking about every damn member of ARS)have accused nominators of not doing a BEFORE when they explicitly said that they did one. BTW, their the only ones that ever bring up a BEFORE or accuse nominators of not doing one. It's a non-starter IMO to make a policy about something just because three users have a chronic personal problem with it. Instead we should deal with the three users who have the personal problem. Seriously. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:24, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

+1. It's not about AFD and it's not about ARS, it's just about a few editors. ^Lev!v^ich 16:42, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

+1. Yeah, there's a bad actor or two whose accusations of bad faith are chronic, who are plainly operating off from an agenda that the whole deletion process is illegitimate, and for whom it seems that any tactic, stunt or reversal of tack in its service is justified. (Except, of course, gaining general consensus for their extremist philosophy.) Ravenswing 06:19, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

+1, particularly per Levivich. This is not a systemic issue with either AfD or ARS, in my view. It's a specific issue with a few AfD regulars. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:02, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

• Update As an update, note that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Burry's, which was highlighted as an example above, has now been closed as Keep. The subject is a maker of biscuits, especially Girl Scout Cookies. The topic was listed for rescue and got good attention. For an independent view of the topic, I suggest consulting Eddie891 who contributed good comments and article updates during the AfD. As it happens, this is the same Eddie891 that is currently to be found at RfA.

My own view is that this example demonstrates the value of prod patrol and article rescue. If I had not intervened, this topic would probably have been deleted without discussion. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:53, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

And yet that is completely irrelevant and doesn't excuse any of the problems raised in this thread. That you think the AFD's outcome is relevant is the problem itself. Lev!vich 03:44, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Burry's was cited as an example because it was my most recent nomination and, at the time, unsettled. It was relevant then and it is relevant now that the AfD has now been closed and we can see the outcome. It is also topical in that one of the main participants is now at RfA. The claim that Burry's is "completely irrelevant" seems to be completely false.

My most recent nomination for rescue is now Hasdeo Arand. This topic is the second in an attempt to innovate. It occurred to me that topics in the news often need timely improvement because they are getting lots of attention by our readers but often need citations to help them through the formalities at WP:ITN/C. This hasn't achieved much because the real problem with the ARS is that few members do anything. While Eating Out to Help Out recently I saw a sign. It's an old chestnut but seems relevant still:

That's Not My Job!
This is story about four people named: Everybody, Somebody, Anybody and Nobody.
There was an important job to be done and Everybody was sure that Somebody would do it.
Anybody could have done it, but Nobody did.
Somebody got angry about that, because it was Everybody's job.
Everybody thought that Anybody could do it, but Nobody realised that Everybody wouldn't do it.
It ended up that Everybody blamed Somebody when Nobody did what Anybody could have done.

Andrew🐉(talk) 07:16, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Somebody might be angry, but Everybody couldn't care less, because while Anybody could have done it, Nobody had to do it, and now it's done. Lev!vich 05:29, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I think it’s fair that the issue is the longstanding tension between deletionists and inclusionists, and that AfD is a relatively easy system to game.

ARS looks to be the only real watchdog that looks for systematic corruption of the process. And it’s truly thankless work.

Unfortunately the burden is to prove someone is abusing the deletion process which seems at best to be an uphill battle. Maybe someone can think of a way to help ensure that AfD isn’t abused, I’m not so sure. Gleeanon409 (talk) 07:41, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

No. There are no deletionist. There are no inclusionists. Nobody needs a watchdog. We need people to work on articles and we need people to evaluate notability at AFD, but that is not "work" (thankless, necessary, or otherwise), it is a hobby, and no articles require "saving" because nobody is attacking articles. This whole viewpoint is just in the heads of a few ARS members who perceive themselves as fighting a war. Well, WP:Don't be a hero. Lev!vich 14:52, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I sharply disagree with that assertion. An easy look at the list of AfDs at ARS suggest there are articles on notable subjects that editors have been attempting to delete, for whatever reasons. If there are serial deletions I have no idea. But it’s hard to argue that no watchdog is needed when it’s obvious ARS is doing at least some good work on article building. Gleeanon409 (talk) 19:02, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Levivich, that is patently untrue. There are clear deletionists on Wikipedia. It is also a fact (particularly in recent years with AfDs being automated via Twinkle) that most articles get AfDed without the nominator having done any WP:BEFORE; they generally have only glanced at the existing citations in the article's current iteration. It is also a fact that cogent and thoughtful participation (checking carefully and thoroughly and at length for coverage) at AfD has lagged way behind the speed and ease with which the glut of articles are AfDed. Articles are not rescued from "attack" (your word); they are rescued from deletion. Cullen328 for instance, is a world-class article rescuer. Softlavender (talk) 06:09, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

I am not sure that I am a "world-class article rescuer", Softlavender, although I take some pride in improving and thereby saving articles listed at AfD. If I had more time and stronger motivation, I am sure I could have saved many more. Thanks anyway for mentioning my work in that area. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:17, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

@Gleeanon409: I'd love to know how 7&6=thirteen saying I was thin skinned because I asked him not to write personal messages in his votes, or ToughPigs calling me incompetent multiple times is just you guys being "watchdogs that are looking for systematic corruption." I'm just some random volunteer that does this shit in my spare time as a way to deal with insomnia and I started doing AfDs because I felt like some articles weren't notable. There wasn't anything more to it. I've been attacked by you guys since I started doing AfDs though. You guys can't claim your just being "watchdogs against corruption" when your indiscriminately attacking anyone who does AfDs. Even if the user hardly does them and they aren't using Sparkle. I'm not personally using it and most of the people you attack aren't either. So, putting things on Sparkle is kind of a straw man.

Also great that you guys save a few articles sometimes, but that doesn't make you some kind of noble crusaders against a corrupt system as your acting like it does or justify how you behave in AfDs. It's not like there aren't processes for saving articles that shouldn't be deleted (closing admins reading the votes, REFUND, article recreation, etc etc) that your completely unnecessary to either. You all must have zero faith in the system. Otherwise, you'd put your collective energy into improving the notability guidelines so less articles get deleted. If you really think to many articles are being deleted, changing them would be the way to solve it. Personally, I think they could be a little more moderate sometimes. Especially for companies. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:21, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

I feel this is more we vs. them mentality which seems unconstructive. We are all volunteers but if things are getting heated or personal then disengagement might be helpful.

It’s also worth repeating that the ARS folk still have the deck stacked against their efforts, they have to prove notability in a system designed to remove articles.

Hopefully everyone will take some of the constructive comments on and apply them. Gleeanon409 (talk) 08:20, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

How do you say "this is more we vs. them mentality which seems unconstructive" and then follow that up with "ARS folk still have the deck stacked against their efforts" and "a system designed to remove articles"... aren't those "us vs. them" statements? And then you say, "Hopefully everyone will take some of the constructive comments on and apply them". This thread is about 7&6's comments, quoted and diff way up at the top... anything in here give you the feeling that 7&6 "will take some of the constructive comments on and apply them"? This thread has been open all month, let's see if there's been any change in behavior: Aug 5: User:Cavalryman is simply gutting the article for reasons extraneous to the worth of the article. Aug 12: This version of the Wikipedia article (before it was expurgated by Cavalryman establishes that. Breed denial does not make it so. Aug 15: this ill-conceived nomination to delete a clearly notable subject ... that last one is one of 7&6's "copy-and-paste" AFD comments; I quoted that copy-and-paste comment in this very thread weeks ago, but they're still using it. To my view, nothing, nothing, has been taken on board by 7&6. I'd like to see a close of the proposal above, personally. Lev!vich 16:42, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

I’m sure most everyone has said things in heated moments that don’t come off well, ANI seems to be about seeing people at their lowest moments. Given the general context of AfD I’m not surprised that quotes showing someone acting undiplomatically are found. In context they might be more tame.

It doesn’t seem likely that any action will be taken at this point. I agree though it may be time for a close. Gleeanon409 (talk) 17:10, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

I think you get a couple "heated moments" for free, but if you're getting heated and posting things that others find aggressive and unproductive on a regular basis, then you can't claim "heat" as an excuse anymore. People who regularly participate at AfD shouldn't have "lowest moments" three times a week. At AfD, being polite and focusing on sources is more effective anyway; getting aggressive makes it less likely that you'll achieve your goal. It's unnecessary. — Toughpigs (talk) 22:06, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Late Comments

I haven't commented until now on this discussion that has gone on for more than two weeks. At this point, I think it is clear that there isn't a consensus to impose sanctions on 13, and there isn't a consensus to impose boomerang sanctions. There is a vague consensus that deletion discussions are unpleasant, and often uncivil. The questions are whether anyone should be admonished about their conduct in deletion discussions, and whether anything should be done to maintain civility of deletion discussions.

Conduct during deletion discussions has been a problem often enough that the community or the ArbCom might choose to look into it. I have previously proposed general sanctions for deletion discussions, which are similar to MOS discussions and infobox discussions in having stubborn editors. Other editors have disagreed with this idea.

I would suggest that the community has the following options:

• 1. Close this thread with no consensus, but with a recognition that civility is the second pillar of Wikipedia.
• 2. Close this thread with no consensus, and with the understanding that editors can request ArbCom to conduct a full evidentiary case, which would identify and sanction editors who have disrupted deletion discussions or disrupted the deletion process, and which could determine whether discretionary sanctions are required. An ArbCom case would also review whether the Article Rescue Squadron is disruptive, and whether sanctions on it and its activities are needed.
• 3. Close this thread after authorizing community general sanctions for conduct in deletion discussions.

Robert McClenon (talk) 10:42, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Unresponsive, incorrigible editor Examplar and Michigan IPs

We have an editor who has been using Michigan IPs and the username Examplar for ten years, with thousands of edits in total. The person has been warned dozens of times for problematic editing, and has never once responded. The style of this person is to add unreferenced detail to articles, very often irrelevant, often poorly written, sometimes non-neutral.

• Examplar (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 2601:404:CF00:9B70:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

It's always difficult discussing an editor who crosses over into WP:CIR areas, and this case is no different. Sometimes this person makes decent edits, but many times they are reverted as irrelevant, or unreferenced, or poorly written. I'm sure we all can agree that communication with others is one way to help an editor grow into their proper niche on Wikipedia. Examplar has never responded to a comment from another person on Wikipedia. Examplar has edited their talk page twice, merely to make tiny changes to code.[8] The Michigan range Special:Contributions/2601:404:CF00:5750:0:0:0:0/64 has not made a talk page at all. The Michigan range Special:Contributions/2601:404:CF00:9B70:0:0:0:0/64 has not made a talk page edit unless you count this outlier edit request which was denied.[9] There was one time that Examplar reached out to me in 2014, with a baffling note,[10] but there was no follow up.

One persistent problem article is Pope John Paul II (miniseries) which has been the target of Examplar and Michigan IPs since 2010 when Michigan IP 68.62.5.67 added some details. The main problem in that article is that there are no references at all, and no description of the making of the miniseries, or its reception, which makes the large plot section overbalance the article. I have reverted our Michigan/Examplar friend about 40 times at that article. In 2012, Michigan IPs 68.62.104.173 and 69.87.144.216 added tons of plot detail to the article, effectively making it a WP:POVFORK of the actual biography of Pope John Paul II. The accumulation of detail continued through 2013. In December 2013, the Examplar user account was registered, but the IPs continued to add detail through 2014 despite multiple warnings from me. (Sometimes these IPs made a talk page entry, for instance this and this, both of which may be other people using a dynamic IP.) In May 2014, I had been reverting the Michigan IPs pretty regularly, and then Examplar came in to make the same edits.[11][12]

Examplar created the article Survival_of_Dana (no sources), A Friendship in Vienna (one source added by someone else), The Littlest Victims (a few refs added by someone else), Of Pure Blood (unreferenced) and Final Jeopardy (1985 film) (a few references added by others.) Examplar has been asked to cite sources but never responds or improves.

Recently, JNW and Larry Hockett have been reverting Examplar's very poor additions to Los Angeles political history, including the articles about Mayor Sam Yorty, Mayor Tom Bradley (American politician), and Los Angeles. New York Mayor Ed Koch got the same treatment from Michigan IPs and Examplar, which was the addition of irrelevant details unconnected or peripherally connected to the topic – alway unreferenced. Examplar was reverted in every case. I could go on and on with this editor, adding more diffs of poor contributions combined with a virtually complete lack of communication. Instead, I invite comments from others about what can and should be done here. Binksternet (talk) 07:35, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

• Give him time to respond to this thread but if he resumes editing without response then a short block per WP:ENGAGE would be appropriate. I'm imaging that he just ignores that purple notice indicating that he has messages.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 12:13, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

• • The ambient hum of persistent incompetence that degrades the project. Binksternet beat me to the punch; I was going to report this today, but my entry would have been far more terse, having just come across this editor and some of their IPs. An ocean of unsourced and off topic original research, often poorly written. Recent history as an IP at Richard Riordan is standard: edit warring to include banal and irrelevant content, much the same as I reverted at Sam Yorty, Tom Bradley (American politician), Los Angeles, Abraham Beame and Ed Koch. The registered account could have been indeffed years ago, with consideration given to rangeblocks of Grand Rapids IPs. JNW (talk) 13:03, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

• Seems to have ignored notices so blocked for 48 hours. Hopefully, he starts communicating.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 00:58, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Berean Hunter, I saw that, and was about to comment here. Thank you, and keep a eye open for Michigan IPs. JNW (talk) 01:01, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

• I am having similar problems with two Michagan IPs, as described here. Possibly the same guy? If so, I propose a range block. --66.244.121.212 (talk) 18:08, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I don't think it's the same person. Your person is from Portage, Michigan, which is a 15-minute drive from Kalamazoo, the location of the topic you are fighting about. Grand Rapids is where my person is from, which is about three times farther from Kalamazoo in the opposite direction. The simplest assumption would be that your person is involved with the topic, which is why they keep fighting you on it. Binksternet (talk) 07:06, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the analysis! --66.244.121.212 (talk) 14:56, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Riku maina and WP:NOTHERE (again)

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

---

I reported this user less than a couple of weeks ago for editing with no obvious intent of collaborating with other editors. They refuse to engage in a dialogue about their edits, simply returning every so often to restore various articles related to Manchester United F.C. players to their preferred version. Attempts have been made to communicate with them, but their limited responses have been tantamount to accusations against other editors and questioning our motives. In the absence of any legitimate attempt to collaborate on this project, surely it's about time this user was blocked from editing? – PeeJay 15:31, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

They're still doing it and no one here seems to give a shit. Am I barking up the wrong tree here? If so, please let me know so I can put my effort towards more productive ways of removing that parasite from Wikipedia. – PeeJay 05:59, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Adding links to make it easier to look up their Talk page and contributions: Riku maina (talk · contribs). Clicking on the Manchester United article didn't get me anywhere… :-) Robby.is.on (talk) 07:13, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, adding "diffs" will enable people to see the specific problems you have noted.Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 07:17, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough. Five of their last seven mainspace edits have been to the same article, moving content from a logically sensible place in the lead section to a less sensible place. Admittedly I've only done this through edit summaries, but I have attempted to explain to this user that it doesn't make sense to split a paragraph about the subject's plaudits into two separate locations. They have made no edits to article talk pages, none to any Wikipedia-space talk pages, two to their own talk page and none to anyone else's, and the two they've made to their own talk page have been a spurious claim about having added reliable sources to an article and a character assassination of myself with no attempt to actually address the issues at hand. They clearly feel these articles are their own private abode since they just keep coming back to make exactly the same change every three days or so without any attempt to engage fellow editors. This has to stop. – PeeJay 13:58, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

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

Disruptive and entirely non-communicative user

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

Hello, I've been recently needing to fix plenty of quotations over at All That (season 11) because user Robert Moore continues to entirely disregard MOS:CURLY, even after multiple warnings on the user's talk page. However, as of their latest editing to the page, they continue to do the exact same thing and go against MOS.

However, as the header of this suggests, this user is entirely non-communicative as well. They've been editing since 2005, and since they've begun editing, it seems they have never decided to user edit summaries a single time, even 15 years later. Even after a previous ANI report in 2010 and 2 week block for this exact behavior, it seems like nothing has been learned from that block 10 years later. They've even stated then that they know their editing was disruptive there, and yet continues it to this day. It seems like the only time they use an edit summary is from when they create a new page (Ex: "Created page with 'Infobox television | name = Kung Fu | image = | caption = | genre = Plainlist| * Action (genre...'")- and yet, it's even noted that they are automatic. The only times they've ever actually edited their talk page was removing old discussions in August 2015, and replying to the previous ANI notice on their talk in late October/early November 2010- everything else has not been responded to or acknowledged whatsoever.

Even just taking a look at the current state of the talk page, you can just search "edit summary" and you'll see multiple things over the years asking to use edit summaries, which has obviously not been heeded. (I'd honestly love to see what this bot would say now in regards to the percentages...) Hope this can be resolved, thanks in advance. Magitroopa (talk) 16:08, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Magitroopa, for numbers like the bot would give you, see the xtools page. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 16:54, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. Sadly, even more telling about how non-communicative they really are... Magitroopa (talk) 17:12, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

The user has not written a message in the Talk or Wikipedia namespaces since 2016,^{[13] [14]} and has not edited any User Talk page since 2015.^[15] Their response to the last block was "error in judgement", "unfairly blocked", "uncalled for". The ANI thread that led to the 2-week block by MuZemike can be found at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive645#User:Robert_Moore.
I have now added a stern request to join the discussion or at least to listen to other users' complaints to their talk page. Let's see what happens in the next 48 hours or so. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:02, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) MOS:CURLY and MOS:' are there for a reason. As anyone who has come across a failed WP:ITALICS link like ’'Game of Thrones and all possible variants knows. (Italicisation error deliberate.) Narky Blert (talk) 20:07, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

@ToBeFree: And they've resumed editing- still no edit summaries whatsoever and hasn't acknowledged the ANI discussion here or on their talk page... Magitroopa (talk) 16:23, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps a block is required to encourage them to WP:ENGAGE. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:42, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

This editor shows lack of communication in its purest form. They have continued to edit Wikipedia while not replying to the warning that User:ToBeFree left on their talk page three days ago. The last block was for two weeks and had no effect. This time an indef seems reasonable. After that, if they change their mind and agree to start communicating the block can be lifted. EdJohnston (talk) 16:51, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not compulsory and theoretically, no communication is required for unproblematic, non-disruptive edits. However, there have been consensus-/guideline-based concerns about the edits (currently MOS:CURLY), and the community's minimum expectation is listening to other users' concerns and warnings before continuing to edit.

The issue is chronic:

• Complete lack of communication ([16] [17] [18])
• Previous ANI thread (2010), blocked for 2 weeks, warning about the same issue (2018), diff / cleanup / warning (2020);
• This thread, Special:Diff/973846284, Special:Diff/973470216/973848113, blocked indefinitely.

There seems to be no other way than an indefinite block to enforce communication, and there is sadly a need to enforce it, as legitimate warnings by multiple users have been persistently ignored. There is a difference between completely ignoring and just "not directly answering" messages on Wikipedia; if there had been no further MOS:CURLY-related problems, I would not have made this decision. The two new diffs made it easy, on the other hand. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:04, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

KellyKelly2013

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

---

• KellyKelly2013 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Could I please get some help convincing this user that changing "United States" to USA is against consensus? I explained it to them on their talkpage [19], they appear to be ignoring it and other users. Even adding comments to the contrary inline [20]. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:32, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

• I've blocked them for a week, with a note saying that they may be unblocked if they agree to stop ignoring consensus. Black Kite (talk) 15:03, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

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

Patrisse Cullors edit request

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

---

Patrisse Cullors has been fully protected twice now. There is a BLP edit request with full support awaiting action for days.

Could an admin please act on it? It’s at Talk:Patrisse Cullors#Edit Request. Thanks in advance! Gleeanon409 (talk) 15:15, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

•  Done. Black Kite (talk) 18:03, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! Gleeanon409 (talk) 22:26, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Resolved

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

Editor David Gerard and the Daily Mail

• David Gerard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Bedfordshire on Sunday (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The issue WP:DAILYMAIL has been long-discussed, and it seems a good thing to remove references to the unreliable Daily Mail with more reliable references. Several editors seem to be involved in this, which is a project which should lead to more reliable citations. However, a dispute has arisen over a reference in Bedfordshire on Sunday which illustrates how stories in this newspaper would end up in the national press. This is quite an important part in the article to establish the notability of this newspaper. One of those references is to the Daily Mail.

I have this particular article on my watchlist, meaning to improve it at some point but in general to keep an eye of vandalism and unconstructive editing. Such an unconstructive edit was (in my opinion) made by editor David Gerard to remove the Daily Mail link when it was extremely pertinent to the article - i.e. that stories would often be picked up by others, and edit originally made in 2008 by some other editor. Unhelpfully the link was removed with no attempt to find an alternative source, I reverted this and requested that it be taken to the Talk page, however my reversion was undone and the request ignored. It was only when I posted a warning on the editor's page about unconstructive editing that he engaged on the talk page. While looking at the user talk page I saw many other complaints over reference removals relating to the Daily Mail and the manner in which they had been handled.

David Gerard asserted that the Daily Mail fails WP:RS but there is an exception for WP:SELFSOURCE which would seem to apply. Furthermore, links to the Daily Mail are not banned in any case. The discussion on the Talk page did seem to establish that the link was allowed, but instead the editor challenged them on the extremely thin grounds of WP:OR, which he criticised me for not knowing. I believe that article asserts a fact that is clearly supported by the evidence, and this is a mis-used of WP:OR in an attempt to remove the link to the Daily Mail at any cost, even at the price of removing a significant part of this article.

It appears to me that what started as a good-faith effort to improve the quality of the encyclopaedia has turned into a WP:OWN of the policy itself, and a desire to remove all the Daily Mail links at any cost, without seeking alternative citations and references, and without regard to the context that those references are in. Furthermore, complaints are often ignored until made forcefully at which point this editor becomes aggressive in tone and borderline uncivil. I believe that a look at the user's talk page and edit history will bear this out. This behaviour does not add value to the project in my opinion. Shritwod (talk) 19:29, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I have stated in past conversations (not at AN) related to David Gerald and DM refs that DM is deprecated and should be replaced in all uses (though I still have put forth questions on RSOPINIONS when it comes to their tv/film critics but that's a separate issue), but that does not mean "banned", except for BLPs where it should be obviously removed on sight for the reasons given in the DM RFCs. There are plenty of ways to tag a DM ref as needing replacement without being disruptive, including {{Deprecated inline}}. But yes, I agree that flat out removal without attempt to resolve with another source is more disruptive given that the DM decision was only a deprecation and did not set any time scale for outright removal. --Masem (t) 19:35, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

So, what's happening here is that Shritwod is trying to put OR into the article. His claim is that a story from Bedfordshire on Sunday was run in multiple national newspapers. The claim was previously in the article cited to the DM and the Times; I removed the DM link.

Shritwod insisted on edit-warring it back in. Checking the DM source, it doesn't actually say the story came from BoS - it clearly fails verification. And the Times link is dead and unarchived.

I'm not the only editor to question Shritwod's OR here - see discussion at Talk:Bedfordshire on Sunday. dlthewave concurs that the sources just don't support the claim. We have both asked Shritwod to back up the claim (that the story was copied from BoS to multiple national newspapers) with an RS that clearly says so - and not just linking primary sources and then writing Wikipedia text based on them, i.e. prima facie synthesis.

Shritwod appears not to understand WP:BURDEN, WP:SELFSOURCE or WP:NOR, let alone WP:RS and the finding that WP:DAILYMAIL is not an RS.

If you wonder at the substance of this claim, go look at the discussion at Talk:Bedfordshire on Sunday - David Gerard (talk) 20:24, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

It is not my addition to the article. Why do you keep insisting that it is? I added citations and altered the wording of the claim slightly. However, this is a dead cat strategy because the substance of my complaint is repeated disruptive edits across the encyclopaedia of which this is one example. Could you please address the issue? Shritwod (talk) 21:18, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

You re-added it, and kept re-adding it, and defended it at length repeatedly. That makes it yours. In any case, WP:BURDEN - which I assume you read when it was brought up - starts: All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material - that's you. You re-add it, that's the same as adding it - David Gerard (talk) 22:59, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Untrue. You did not remove the claim, I did not add it. I re-added the reference because your reasons were removing were invalid. Shritwod (talk) 18:10, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

• I agree with David Gerard's assessment. Although the initial disagreement at Bedfordshire on Sunday involved his removal of the Daily Mail source, there is a deeper WP:OR issue at play. The claim that a story was first published by Bedfordshire on Sunday and later picked up by Daily Mail needs to be supported by one reliable source that says exactly that. Using the stories themselves as sources would be WP:SYN, and replacing/adding a reliably-sourced version of a story doesn't solve that problem. And, for the record, please do carry on removing Daily Mail cites wherever they are found. –dlthewave ☎ 21:26, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

There are some issues with removing DM links that are opinion pieces, but this ANI seems somewhat pointless if you ask me. Govvy (talk) 21:59, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

• Just an observation; Shritwod, regardless of who or when the edit was originally made, once the content and/or references have been challenged with a valid argument, and then you revert (edit-war) the content/references back into the article, you are then responsible for it. Also, this is ANI, where everyone's behavior involved in a dispute can be looked at. Isaidnoway (talk) 22:23, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

• I've had a couple of run-ins with Mr Gerard over more clear-cut cases, such as this edit to Castleton, Derbyshire, where he removed a statement that was sourced only to the Daily Mail but the material he deleted removed all mention of a relevant and significant subtopic (Castleton Garland Day) which had its own well-sourced article from which reliable sources were easily found. I have no argument with the policy of removing questionable or controversial claims supported only by unreliable sources, but object to Mr Gerard's modus operandi of casually deleting unobjectionable content that he carelessly determines to be unimportant or unreliable, but often turns out to be valid and accurate, on the grounds of sourcing (rather than seeking a better source, citing a more relevant policy, or marking it as unreliably sourced). I would also add this edit (a reference to the Sun for which I found a third-party source, and which could be defended as WP:ABOUTSELF) and this where I was able to find numerous alternative reliable sources. I have found Mr Gerard to be dismissive and hostile in my dealings with him, and his default response seems to be to assign bad-faith motivations to those questioning his behaviour. Dave.Dunford (talk) 12:10, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
  • See below re: removals of bad sources, and why this is always in accordance with policy. But I would add: if you're casting about for reasons to justify using a deprecated source in Wikipedia, you're doing it wrong - David Gerard (talk) 14:33, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
    • What was I just saying about hostility and bad faith? I'm not "casting about for reasons to justify using a deprecated source". In each of the three cases I've cited, I was able to find a third-party source for a piece of uncontroversial and worthwhile content that you removed wholesale on the grounds of unreliable sourcing. Also, my objection is not to your removal of bad sources, it's to the removal of the content that the source is attached to. Dave.Dunford (talk) 15:47, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
      • Given your next edit was to reinsert a reference to The Sun that was redundant with the RS following, at this point your actions are either in bad faith or incompetent. Please stop adding gratuitous deprecated sources to Wikipedia articles - David Gerard (talk) 16:45, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
        • No, it was not gratuitous, and nor was it redundant. Had you assumed good faith, and looked at my edit carefully, you'd have noticed that I added a comment within the reference reading <!--reference retained purely for verification of the date-->. Furthermore, had you read the Independent source carefully (which you accused me on your talk page of not doing), you'd have found that the date of the Sun's Turnip Prize is not explicitly cited there. The Independent mentions "Martin Creed’s controversial Turner Prize winning piece from 2001" and that "The Sun launched its own Turnip Prize, off the back of that year’s shortlist", but it doesn't explicitly state that the Sun's version of the Turnip Prize was in 2001. I would normally agree that there is enough information to make that assumption, but you're the one handing out lessons about WP:OR and WP:SYN and requiring citations to explicitly support every tiny detail of the information they accompany. I would also argue that a link to a Sun article is acceptable to verify the existence and date of that very same Sun article – and my reading of WP:ABOUTSELF gives some justification for that argument – but your fundamentalist application of WP:RS apparently does not permit any such nuance. Dave.Dunford (talk) 18:34, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
• Comment: thinking back to the outcome of the DM RFCs, shouldn't "removed on sight" really be "removed and replaced on sight, if at all possible"? i.e. at least a modicum of looking for an alternative? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:30, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I certainly do frequently replace it, though it's not an absolute requirement simply per (policy) WP:V, which includes WP:RS by reference - and there can't really be greater requirement to keep deprecated sources in an article than there are for ordinarily unreliable sources, which can be replaced or removed per the editor's judgement. As you know from previous discussions of dealing with deprecated sources in practice - David Gerard (talk) 14:18, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
  • For a detailed discussion of the philosophy of deprecated source removal, see Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_164#On_the_use_of_deprecated_sources - I note in particular Aquillion's noting that WP:V / WP:RS will always allow editors to remove unreliable sources on sight with an edit reason of "unreliable source" - no consensus here can change that. Even a consensus on the talk page for WP:V / WP:RS cannot allow the continued usage of a definitely reliable source. We can disagree over whether a source is usable in a particular context, or how to handle it if it is, but once it's established that a particular usage of a source is not reliable W:RS always means users removing it with a reason of "unreliable source" are correct to do so. WP:RS is included by direct reference in WP:V, so this follows directly from hard policy - David Gerard (talk) 14:33, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Um, Even a consensus on the talk page for WP:V / WP:RS cannot allow the continued usage of a definitely reliable source.?? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:53, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
      • This is the whole point of what I am raising. Your editing is unconstructive, and your removal of sources is usually not followed up by the addition of more reliable sources. Shritwod (talk) 18:10, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

• The paragraph in question has just been removed by another editor as OR and trivia - David Gerard (talk) 14:22, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

• Ah shucks. The Daily Mail was always so good for trivia, too! Martinevans123 (talk) 14:27, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

• Although you are free to examine my editing history, please remember that the question in point is the repeated disruptive editing by David Gerard across multiple articles which is evident from his editing history and talk page. References are removed without an effort to seek reliable sources, and it would seem to me that his actions are to expunge any reference to the Daily Mail in particular from the encyclopaedia rather than to improve overall quality. When challenged he is rude and patronising, and this is not just my opinion. Shritwod (talk) 18:10, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
  • When challenged, I pointed you at the policies you were violating and misreading. I am not the only person to note that you are misreading them. There are many Daily Mail and Sun fans who come to my talk page, because they think the Sun and Mail are good sources actually, and not deprecated sources that shouldn't be present in Wikipedia. Like you, they resort to abuse when their favourite deprecated source is challenged. I see you're trying to jam a Mail reference into Bedfordshire on Sunday again as a primary source, even though you also added a third-party RS that supports the claim and makes the Mail reference redundant. I urge you to contemplate the words of WP:DAILYMAIL1: its use as a reference is to be generally prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist. As a result, the Daily Mail should not be used for determining notability, nor should it be used as a source in articles. Your edits fail this, and I don't see how you can misunderstand this, and WP:BURDEN and the rest of WP:V, so glaringly - David Gerard (talk) 20:40, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
    • You quote WP:THIS and WP:THAT quite widely in arguments, but you are still failing to add value with your edits, which continue to remove citations that are relevant even from a deprecated source. I'm curious for example, when you chose to edit Walter Mosley (US lawyer) did you read the article at all? You claim to be an experienced editor, but I'd say that most inexperienced editors might question that article since it was only created a few minutes earlier about a most likely non-notable source. If you are intent on patrolling the encyclopaedia then perhaps your time you be spent more usefully actually looking at the articles rather than your personal crusade to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. See, I can quote WP:THISANDTHAT too. Shritwod (talk) 21:45, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
      • You even left a bogus warning notice on my talk page to try to support your continued edit-warring the Daily Mail in. To quote your own words from it: Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. And stop blustering - David Gerard (talk) 21:49, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
        • There was nothing bogus about that warning page, you ignored a request to take it to the talk page and your attempt to cite WP:DAILYMAIL was invalid. That is unconstructive and disruptive editing. You have also completely failed to address any of the points raised about your editing, and instead attack the person making criticisms - which is what you do continually on your talk page. WP:DISRUPT is the issue at hand, and I must also say WP:CIVIL. Shritwod (talk) 21:57, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

comment: I stumbled across this discussion and thought I should weigh in since I also had to fix an article damaged by user:David Gerard's overzealousness on this topic. A few weeks ago, he removed a Daily Mail citation at Jose Gaspar, an article that I've long been working towards GA status. Just like in the incident which prompted this discussion, the DM article was not really a source of information but simply backed up the assertion that a local story about the mythical pirate Gaspar had garnered international attention. Mr. Gerard removed the citation along with half of the sentence it supported and left a "citation needed" tag on the remaining half, eliminating pertinent information and casting doubt upon the rest. His edit summary said that he'd "removed claims sourced entirely to deprecated source", so I fixed the issue (or so I thought) by restoring the sentence and the DM citation, adding a good citation to another news outlet, and explaining my actions in the edit summary. That wasn't acceptable to Mr. Gerard, who quickly removed it again and left a snarky edit summary: "If you really want GA for this, then deliberately inserting unreliable sources won't help." Having neither the time nor the desire to get into an edit war over this, I found a different international source to make the point and let it be.

Now that I see that Mr. Gerard has been repeatedly doing this sort of thing, however, I think a talking-to is in order. If he doesn't want to take the time to find alternative sources in his quest to excise all references to the DM from a wide variety of articles, he should drop in a depreciated / dubious source tag and let interested editors do the work. Blindly yanking out chunks of text along with the offending citations does not make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia, and neither does his attitude. Zeng8r (talk) 14:01, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Wow, why on earth did you want to use a shitty source in an article you want to get to GA status. You must be daft. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 14:07, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Um... lol? Zeng8r (talk) 14:16, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

You dont understand what's wrong with using the Fail as a source, do you? -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 14:19, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

AGF, I would take it that in time, Zeng8r wants to replace the daily fail with a better source before making the GAN nomination, it is not like the article is at GAN now and insisting the DM source has to stay. This is a 100% fair use of a deprecated source in the interim while a better replace is sought on a non-BLP article, and outright removal is more disruptive. --Masem (t) 14:43, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

A source known for making stuff up and pretending it is real, and publishing this made up stuff, is acceptable. Good grief. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 14:48, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Did you two actually read the situation I described above, or the situations described by others further above? As I said, I already replaced the Daily Mail citation weeks ago. That isn't the point of this discussion. The problem here is that Mr. Gerard's heavy-handed and sloppy approach to removing DM citations is leaving damage to articles all over this project.Zeng8r (talk) 14:49, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Ah, I see your mistake. David's edit was an improvement, and you clearly fail to see that. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 14:56, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Actually, it seems that my mistake was expecting other editors to read and/or understand a discussion before replying, because you're again not seeing the point. I'm not going to keep typing the same thing over and over, so please go back and read it before commenting again because this conversation is going nowhere. Zeng8r (talk) 15:11, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

I think for many the issue is we should not ever use bad sources, the argument "buts its the only source" means "fails undue" for many.Slatersteven (talk) 15:18, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Ok, let me try one more time. I am NOT arguing that the Daily Mail should be considered a reliable source. I never said that. And I replaced the DM citation at Jose Gaspar - the one that David Gerard removed - over two weeks ago. Got it everybody? Good. The actual issue is that Mr. Gerard is apparently on a quest to find and quickly remove DM citations across the whole of Wikipedia, and in the process, he's ALSO removing the related article text without bothering to look for a better source. Some (like the text in the Gaspar article) can be very easily re-sourced, but he's not taking the time to do the work and is instead removing some good and accurate info that some editor at some point just happened to cite with the Daily Mail, thereby weakening those articles in his zeal to excise the DM. And he's doing it with a snarky attitude that's apparently pissing off multiple editors. THAT'S the issue being discussed here, NOT the reliability of the Mail as a source. Hope that's clear enough.Zeng8r (talk) 15:29, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I concur with the above. Whenever I've come across Mr Gerrard, he always seems to be on this (for lack of a better expression) puritanical crusade to purge Wikipedia of DM without either looking at context or caring about the fact removal sometimes leaves unsourced sentences. I probably wouldn't mind but the fact is he doesn't seem to look very far for a viable replacement. For example 2015 FA Cup Final, He removed one sentence and replaced another with a Mirror source. He then reverted me without looking at the new source, to which I had to restore. I think the correct term is (as I said in the edits) "bull in a china shop". I think we do need to urge David to tone it down and urge him to look for alternative sources rather than this blanket "remove all" approach. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:44, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Then you need to provide diffs of him removing either content (rather then links to a DM source or him removing the DM as a a sole source for valid content. Him just removing the DM as a source is not against the rules, and for many keeping it in might be.

Zeng8r, first and foremost, there is nothing stopping you from thwarting David's evil plan by sneakily replacing the sources with reliable ones before he comes along. If you want to "fix" this "problem" (it's really not a problem), then use {{duses}} or the hidden maintenance categories for bad sourcing and make them your worklist.

Any editor is welcome to remove any content with an unreliable source at any time. WP:V/WP:RS are core tenets of Wikipedia and have been from the early days. Any editor who wishes to reintroduce the content with a valid source is welcome to do so. The onus is always on the editor seeking to include specific content, to demonstrate consensus for its inclusion, including sourcing. And that's how it must be because anything else would be a POV-pusher's charter.

Like David, I have been known to remove unreliable sources. Like David I have been told with equal confidence that (a) I must remove the text with the source, (b) I must leave the text and tag with {{cn}}, (c) that I must leave both text and source and tag with {{better source}} (which in my experience is rarely, if ever, fixed) and (d) that it is my responsibility to find an alternative source to the content that someone cited to a source that is unreliable.

In the end, it's hard to escape the conclusion that some people don't care about crap sources. And that's fine: they don't have to. But we do. We are fixing someone's mistake. Quibbling about exactly how we fix it, when there is more than one approach that can be used in good faith, is bureaucratic and unhelpful. Guy (help! - typo?) 15:41, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

But you see, I already provided diffs. In my first post in this topic. The one that nobody is reading before responding with comments that clearly demonstrate that they didn't read it. *hits microphone* IS THIS THING ON? Zeng8r (talk) 15:41, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

You have not provide diffs, you provide links to articles ans then expected us to dig for the evidence. [21]] is just him removing the DM from an already sourced section, the DM is nor needed, where is the issue?Slatersteven (talk) 15:48, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

The links to the diffs are linked in the text. Zeng8r (talk) 16:14, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Then I must be blind as the only link I see are to polices in your OP< bit diffs.Slatersteven (talk) 16:17, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Found one [[22]] not in your OP<, not to the article mentioned in your OP, and not the DM is not the only source used.Slatersteven (talk) 16:20, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Not to cast aspersions on anyone's eyesight, but you don't seem to be looking at my original comment in this discussion, which has zero links to policy but two links to diffs in Jose Gaspar. *shrug Zeng8r (talk) 16:25, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Sorry I was looking at the filers OP, which contains not one diff. This is your other diff [[23]], which failed verification (it does not support the text). So not seeing any issue with these removals. Even it was not the DM it would have been taged and no doubt removed.Slatersteven (talk) 16:33, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Zeng8r, by restoring an unreliable source, you become responsible for the content and its source. It is now your job to replace it with a better one. This constitutes disputed text (because the source is unreliable) and the onus is on you to fix it. Stop bitching about people who are clearing turds off the lawn, and definitely don't go and retrieve the turds from the bin and put them back. This applies even if you like turds on the lawn. Wikipedia consensus is that lawns should be turd-free. Guy (help! - typo?) 15:52, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Deprecated != banned. This has been discussed numerous times in how to handle DM links with most agreeing there is no rush to remove them except on BLPs and where the information is clearly contentious where removal should be done without hesitation. We should strive to remove them but they should be replaced if they can be with a better source supporting the same information. If if the DM RFC was closed as "banned" that would be a different story, but it wasn't. This isn't about using the DM as a source but trying to avoid the disruption of removing the DM and content it had supported without any effort to replace the DM source with a better on, which, when the source is only deprecated, we have time to make that effort, there is no deadline here. --Masem (t) 15:50, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Masem, sure. But nor is there any embargo on removing unreliable sources. That's normal for Wikipedia, we do it all the time. I have removed many tens of thousands of cites to predatory journals, for example, and several thousand to WorldNetDaily, InfoWars and the like. Guy (help! - typo?) 16:04, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

I have no idea if you are removing those links as they are being added (which is fully appropriate, and would be the same for DM per the RFC and definition of "deprecated" here), or if you are being more systematic in removal as a result of some type of RFC, and if that's the case, it would also depend on how the RFC was closed and how the source was to be treated. What is key is that outside all of this is to minimize disruption, and removing text+source that existed prior to the DM RFC without attempt to replace when there is no immediate concern about the source use (not on a BLP basically), as it appears David is doing, is disruptive. We had this same problem back with BetaCommand and NFC removals in 2008-2010, that while ultimately Beta was doing the right thing per consensus and policy, the FAIT-lie approach was disruptive. As Black Kite says below, the ultimate goal is to eliminate DM from all pages save for those where the RFC said its use was okay (mostly in pages about itself), but nothing in the RFC, nor in the word "deprecated" implies a timeline. If one wants to set a timeline via a new RFC, they can, and then we can made a full-on effort to rid DM across the board. But without that, removing existing DM links without any attempt to replace (outside of BLP) is not helpful and more disruptive. It is far easier to simply tag with an inline deprecated source marker to make sure editors are aware this needs to be swapped out. --Masem (t) 17:17, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Masem, um, what? No, it doesn't depend on any RfC. Nothing should be sourced to InfoWars, and it never should have been. No competent Wikipedian would use InfoWars, WorldNetDaily etc. as a source.

And actually nobody should have cited the Mail, The Sun, News of the World etc. either. The fact that we didn't do anything to stop this crap for two decades doesn't make it defensible. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:26, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors were given every opportunity to close DAILYMAIL as an extremely bas idea which sent all the wrong signals about their supposed neutrality, and instead have a broad debate about tabloid sources in general. It was instead argued that there was some specific reason why the Mail was a specific problem, requiring a Mail specifc debate, and a Mail specifc resolution. So when it came to pass that once the debate was done and a conclusion was made, but nothing remotely looking like a concerned effort to deal with the Mail, for these specific reasons as a specific problem source, came to pass, well.....suffice to say, it's not really those who didn't see this as a Mail specific issue, who have anything to defend. Nobody was citing The Sun or InfoWars in the same numbers as the Mail at the time, and for good reason. It is for those who argued for this unprecedented Pandora'a box of "depreciation" to be opened to solve a supposedly important problem, to defend the interminable delay and confusion that has ensued after they apparently got the result they wanted. CommandTeamSix (talk) 11:38, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

It is far easier to simply tag with an inline deprecated source marker to make sure editors are aware this needs to be swapped out. You object when tagged uses are removed too. Your behaviour is indistinguishable from just not wanting the deprecation to apply - David Gerard (talk) 10:25, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

True, but its also not an offence to do so. And many of us do not agree it is disruption. I suspect many would argue its far more disruptive to try and keep it in as a source. So lets see an example of this disruption, one example of a vital and correct piece of information sourced solely to the DM he has removed, lets see an example of the disruption?Slatersteven (talk) 15:57, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

• Theoretically there should never be anything in an article (especially a BLP) that's purely sourced to the Daily Mail. In 95% of cases if it's worth including it will be sourced elsewhere, and if it's only sourced to the DM there's a significant chance it could be wrong. There are of course exception (esp. sports stories) but in general, removing a DM source is never a bad thing. Black Kite (talk) 16:10, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

First and foremost, I never accused anybody of having an "evil plan", just of being overzealous and sloppy. Secondly, I don't have time to go on some silly Wikipedia crusade looking for depreciated sources and whatnot. Cleaning up "turds" is not not why I'm here, and Gerard's actions are more like scooping up turds and taking out some good turf along with them.

What it comes down to is a difference of Wiki-philosophy. My whole point in being active on this project for over a dozen years has been to help improve articles on a few favorite topics. When I come across questionable info and/or an unreliable source, I'll usually do a little research to verify and re-source, then either improve the text and citation or remove the whole thing as rubbish. If I don't have time and the information seems plausable, I'll usually drop in an appropriate tag and leave it be.

Removing vandalism or obviously false info is another matter, of course. But cutting a wide swath through dozens of articles, haphazardly removing information that may or may not be true just because the source is questionable does NOT make this a better encyclopedia. It's just lazy, imo. Adding a "citation needed", "dubious", "needs better source" tag is a MUCH better way to handle this issue, as that gives interested editors familiar with the topic the opportunity to fix any problems. If nothing happens after a while, then sure, removal is fine. However, hatchet edits like David Gerard is conducting are not helpful. Zeng8r (talk) 16:14, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

If you see a turd on a lawn, you would rather than remove it, put a little sign on it saying "this is a turd, please remove"? The problem is that we actually tried this approach - and nobody removed the turds, they just left them there, with a sign saying "this is a turd." When I finally do remove them, fans of turds on lawns complain loudly and vociferously that this is a load-bearing turd that is an essential feature of the lawn in question. It is absolutely routine in discussion of removal of dog turds from lawns for turd advocates to say that we should absolutely do a lengthy and elaborate series of actions that are anything other than removing the turd from the lawn - David Gerard (talk) 19:21, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

If you want to continue that analogy, the issue is that you're removing the turd and a good chunk of the lawn with it. That part of the yard, though , may have been rotten grass (nonsense from the DM that can't be resourced), or it may be rather green (content that can be resourced from a better RS), but we don't know, it's gone. The primary issue is that you have taken a process upon yourself, not specified in any RFC or agreed to by the community, to rid DM links when nothing had been said in the RFC closure. Usually, if there is a push to remove them, there is a sunset/grandfather period of some months specified to give editors a chance to clean up, but that wasn't spelled out at all, simply that DM was deprecated (not banned). Normally being BOLD to do this is fine, but when editors in numbers complain, that's when you are supposed to stop and establish a process, which is the situation around BetaCommand as well as the principle behind FIAT. Now, if the community wants to establish a deadline to strip DM sources, giving a sunset period after which all remaining DM links are fair game for outright stripping, great, but let's fix that in an agreed upon process, not one taken upon by one person. --Masem (t) 20:12, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

It was deprecated three years ago. Just how long do you want to wait?

You're also implying here that I'm outright stripping the links - this is false. If you want to make such behavioural allegations, I'd expect you to make your case and support it fully, with convincing diffs - not slip such claims into another discussion.

The process I'm following is as specified in WP:DAILYMAIL1: Volunteers are encouraged to review them, and remove/replace them as appropriate. You are claiming this is out-of-process. This is functionally indistinguishable from you trying to stop the process specified in the RFC conclusion and ratified in the second RFC. You've tried several times in the past to preserve Daily Mail links against the RFC findings - David Gerard (talk) 21:01, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Except that when you remove text, the effort leaves much to be desired. Recent example: [24]. Okay, that's a DM source, but it took me all of a few minutes to confirm at least the hotel being a favorite of the Queen Mother from RS, Telegraph Evening Standard. You should have replaced that source with those, not eliminated. That's poor checking and disruptive. --Masem (t) 00:40, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

My point above exactly. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:00, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Masem, there is no requirement on an editor removing unreliably sourced content, to do the work of the original editor who should have used a better source in the first place. Placing barriers in the way of removal of unreliable sources is a tactic commonly seen from those who wish to preserve such sources despite their broadly agreed unreliability, but not something I would expect from you.

Yes, sometimes a replacement source is easy to find. Sometimes it takes only a few minutes. And any editor is free to do so. But the people who complain most vociferously about this are not doing so. I see no evidence at all of any of David's critics going systematically through the project and replacing these links with better sources. So the complaint boils down to: we think David should so extra work which we are not prepared to do ourselves, implicitly because the complainants think that preserving lazily or badly sourced content is more important than removing bad sources. With a strong subtext of we don't really agree that the Daily mail is unreliable anyway. And by strong subtext, I mean that several complainants have repeatedly said exactly that in other debates.

If that's not your / their actual view (and I hope it isn't) then please do a better job of articulating what your actual view is. And do it without focusing on the Daily Mail specifically: I have had exactly the same kind of comments when removing content sourced to unambiguously unacceptable sources like InfoWars, predatory journals and conspiracy theorists. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:18, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Subtext goes both ways. David Gerard is removing citations to the Mail using DAILYMAIL as a justification, and he is accepting of no ambiguity at all on the central question of whether the Mail is an acceptable source. He is doing this as a primary task, making thousands of removals. And he is making no effort to replace sources, even though it seems to be the case that a non-trivial proportion of the uses of the Mail on Wikipedia are instances where the fact was true, worthwhile, and can be sourced using a supposedly reliable source, and with minimal effort (minutes, not hours). Gvien Wikipedia is a collective effort where one person isn't really meant to call the shots on such a basic thing as what is and is not an urgent task or whose time is more important than anyone else's, it is down to him therefore show that this is a task that, after all these years, has suddenly become so urgent as to be done in a way that creates work for others far beyond what they could reasonably be expected to be their daily duty of the slap and steady improvement of content by applying core policies like WP:V. It is clear David is upset that other Wikipedia editors do not see this as as much of a priority as he does, but that's the unfortunate reality of choosing Wikipedia as a hobby, and people are correct to point out that whatever DAILYMAIL is, what it is not is a direct command to replace all usages immediately and with no due regard for collateral damage. People have choices, David has made his, and it ultimately comes down to that central ethos of Wikipedia - don't be jerk to your fellow editors. CommandTeamSix (talk) 11:24, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

he is accepting of no ambiguity at all on the central question of whether the Mail is an acceptable source We had two broad general RFCs reaching the conclusion that it wasn't, and those are what I'm editing in accordance with, and what you're advocating against. If you really don't want the Mail removed, you could mount a third RFC, though I suspect everyone at RSN would consider it a waste of everyone's time. Again, dog turds on the lawn are not good, and we had two RFCs that they weren't good - David Gerard (talk) 12:10, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

This is my point. If there really are dog turds on the lawn, thousands of them, why did the entire Wikipedia community not really do anything, not even for three years after the general announcement that supposedly reads, hey guys, we got a while bunch of dog turds on our lawn? And why does it fall to you to do the removing now, and in a my way or the highway manner? The analogy does not hold, clearly. A third RfC, something that properly inspects the alleged turds and makes a scientific determination as to what percentage are fecal matter and what are simply wholesome good eating, and indeed, more importantly, how those percentages compare to the allegedly sweet smelling farts of The Guardian, is exactly what you do not want. Hence your speed, your singular determination to make this a fait accompli. You of course have nothing to fear, since a third RfC will never happen - what you fear is people casting a critical eye over whether the effects of those RfCs helped or harmed Wikipedia. That wasn't an issue while nobody was bothering with the alleged turds. But now you have started, you want absolutely nobody having it in their minds that what you might actually be doing, simply because some years ago someone was able to find a couple of actually confirmed turds and whip up an anti-turd frenzy off the back of it, is rip up a perfectly good lawn, on the basis that you, and only you, see turds everywhere. The analogy doesn't hold, because your complaint is not turds on a lawn, it's the quality of the grass seed and quantum effects therein, and you seemingly refusing to a accept that quite a lot of Wikipedia's grass seed comes from the same tainted farms, whether it says The Guardian or The Mail on the packet. CommandTeamSix (talk) 13:05, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

That the DM is deprecated and should be replaced is not in question, that's fine. But there is also no community deadline set to have all DM links replaced, not from the RFC or any other discussion. Just because it was three years ago doesn't mean it "it should have happened". Deprecated, when used at least as computer lingo, means "its use will be terminated at some point in the future so be prepared". Also, to keep in mind, we clear had, well before the RFC, numerous DM links in play.

Now, in most other WP processes, sourcing or otherwise, when the community says "We have decided X is no longer appropriate and we need to remove", and the number of times X is engaged on W is more than a few dozen, we generally establish a sunset or grandfathering approach. (When is is a small number, we just deal with it then and there). It might be part of the RFC that established that, it might come later, but usually this is well advertised "You have 3-6 months to replace or remove X in all articles before we will automatically remove X." or something like that. This is meant to avoid disruption on a large scale. Now, it is important to stress that the DM closure was only deprecation and while replace and remove was encouraged, there was no plan or deadline or ultimate process to say "By 20xx we should no longer have DM links." Again, deprecation is not banned, it simply meant the DM should never be added as a NEW source, and existing ones should be removed and replaced in time. Again, if the community wanted a deadline for replacement, this would have been part of the RFC or a second discussion after the fact, but this was not the case. It was simply "deprecated". We certainly can have an RFC to set a deadline w/ sunset period for certain, however.

So specifically to David's actions, he's taken it on himself to rush the removal of DM links. That's fine, but now the onus is on him to avoid creating disruption in mainspace in the removal of DM links that had exist before the RFCs. While the RFC supports the removal in principle, other factors like WP:FAIT do not support such mass actions taken on by one person without seeking consensus on the approach, which is where there are issues. And this is not the first time David's "remove" rather than "tag" on DM links has been brought up. (and I am pretty sure you have been involved in one of these before Guy). I can point to the cases of BetaCommand and to TTN as examples of where these admins/editors were following policy and community decisions but had created a mass process that did not have community review and thus resulted in action against them. Its the same reason we ask bot operators to get permissions, that we get people to get AWB permissions, all that. Mass actions like this are problematic even if they are upholding policy. As I said, if David wants to say "I propose to give all editors until Jan 1 2021 the time to fix DM links after which I will expunge with haste" and got consensus on that, great, everything's in the clear. But he didn't and instead has imposed an artificial deadline that does not exist in the RFC or agreed to by the community, which is the type of actions we do not want any editor to force on the whole community.

Of course, if David did actually take the time to do some better effort to replace DM links with more valid RSes and otherwise minimize disruption, we may not have known about any of this until he was all done, and David would have been several wikicookies for the efforts. It is important be BOLD but as soon as you know those actions are disruptive, you need to stop, which he didn't.

That's the point, it is not about upholding the DM RFC result, but the choice of process that was not part of the RFC and which has proven disruptive. --Masem (t) 13:25, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

If you think you can make a case, make it, but you're not making it. Bring diffs and make a case properly if you're going to. I believe I've said this to you multiple times before.

Alternately, accept that there were two RFCs saying explicitly that DM links should be removed, and stop trying to hamper the process of this actually being acted upon - David Gerard (talk) 13:42, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

WP:TURDFREE should be an essay. where is the other Guy when you need him? -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 16:48, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

go on, be bold - David Gerard (talk) 19:36, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

• The original problem was the rfc and the issues with the mail, there was personal concerns , I don't remember the exact issue but wiki felt attacked and there was a community response, which was block this news outlet. I have seen that there are many sources used here that are no better than the mail. Also, obsessing about removing a weblink such as the daily mail is not a good idea imo also not necessary to protect the wiki from anything. Govindaharihari (talk) 19:43, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

I personally wouldn't line my cat's litter tray with the Daily Mail, but it isn't a banned resource and is in some cases justifiable. If it was a banned resource you could simple run bot to remove all the references, but obviously that would be a heavy-handed approach that wouldn't be able to properly understand the context and make constructive edits to improve the articles. But here we have an editor who - in my view - is acting little better than a bot. Indeed on his own talk page he describes his technique as being no more sophisticated as being just searching for anything not in the top 20. That's a pretty blunt tool for editing, but it does seem to explain this editors bot-like edits. Shritwod (talk) 21:25, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

being just searching for anything not in the top 20 no, that's not what I said at that link, and you appear to be astoundingly bad at reading and understanding text if you think that's what I said. Try following the link there, and see if you can work out what I was talking about the top 20 of - David Gerard (talk) 23:32, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Shritwod, that comment literally says the exact opposite of what you tseem to think it does. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:23, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

• David Gerard, thank you for your work. Drmies (talk) 22:57, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

This is not an urgent situation that needs admin action. Its clear that David is doing what a lot (being ungenerous?) of users consider useful and valid work. I think this needs closing now.Slatersteven (talk) 09:13, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't mean to throw a stone in the works, but just now [25] is another example of David Gerard's failure to review, repair or fix the article. The cheap way is he just removed not only the Daily Mail source, but he also removed valid information about the hotel holding a royal warrant. I changed the cite over to the telegraph which confirms that the Daily Mail link was actually validated by the telegraph link and in fact the Daily Mail citation was correct. This also goes to show the pathetic nature of erasing Daily Mail links, probably a lot are correct information. There is probably a certain percentage of Daily Mail being incorrect, however there will be a percentage of correct information. Again, it's the failure to do a simple search is it? I found what Gerard removed what, in less than a minute from another source? :/ Govvy (talk) 10:16, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

WP:DENY

David Gerard is always going to be greeted with skepticism for his supposed "turd" removal efforts while it remains the case that DAILYMAIL is such a weakly argued case. It relies on mere examples, and barely any that are reliable or compelling themselves. If DAILYMAIL proved anything at all, it is that contrary to what was claimed, the problem is not the Mail specifically, it is Wikipedia's use of journalism as a source in general. What DAIYLYMAIL actually proved, with several concrete examples, is that you cannnot trust something even if it was printed in The Guardian or The Telegraph - they can and often are prone to error for the same reason the Mail is - and for similar reasons, you cannot trust those supposedly reliable sources to be fact checking content that originates from the Mail. If the Mail is "generally unreliable" but the likes of The Guardian and The Telegraph are reliable, as seems to be what DAILYMAIL is trying to allege with its flawed conclusion, then there really would be only one logical and justifiable way to approach DAILYMAIL removals - you take out both the source and the text it supposedly supported. If an error is still reintroduced to Wikipedia after that, then you at least know that the Mail's use as a source on Wikipedia won't have been the primary cause. If David Gerard or anyone else's approach to the removal of Mail citations doesn't reflect these basic realities, then yes, you are entitled to question their motives, especially if they are claiming the product they leave in their wake is a lawn with less turds on it, or indeed, that your specific and lovingly curated patch of it had any turds on it all to begin with, such that you should have been grateful for their fly by night turd removal efforts. CommandTeamSix (talk) 10:55, 21 August 2020 (UTC) CommandTeamSix smells like a WP:DUCK! Govvy (talk) 11:05, 21 August 2020 (UTC) Maybe, but given their "he should he should not" tone, of whom?Slatersteven (talk) 11:12, 21 August 2020 (UTC) Slatersteven, Most likely Brian K Horton, who is thought to be long term nuisance User:MickMacNee. Moneytrees🏝️Talk🌴Help out at CCI! 11:19, 21 August 2020 (UTC) Would help explain the bizarre taking both sides approach.Slatersteven (talk) 11:26, 21 August 2020 (UTC) I'm just pointing out the illogic in David et al arguing this is really a case of there being turds on a lawn. If so, well, it appears the vast majority of Wikipedia editors are perfectly fine with having turds on their lawn, because even after DAILYMAIL, they did nothing. I think there is an alternative explanation, one that addresses the central question of whether DAILYMAIL really reflects the actual reliability of the Mail (or more importantly, did a convincing enough job in proving that the perception of it as being reliable among most editors, was wrong). David will do what he is going to do, that much is obvious, but if it looks like a crusade, and if it smells like a crusade, and he meets many good faith editors on the way objecting to his apparent crusade, well.....maybe, just maybe, DAILYMAIL was conceived and is being defended by those who are less about the quiet unobjectinable business of reliable encyclopedia building, and more about the crusading aspect, in leveraging Wikipedia's unique ability to shape the world in ways that perhaps David et al are unhappy that the traditional media and their old school encyclopedia have not yet managed. Perhaps because they don't quite see the Mail as functionally equivalent to the National Enquirer, or some of the rother more ridiculous claims made in DAILYMAIL, based on the actual evidence. CommandTeamSix (talk) 11:49, 21 August 2020 (UTC) Or it could be he is happy to do the work the rest of us would find to tedious. I sometimes remove a DM source if I stumble across it. Its clear from this ANI a lot of users support what he is doing (SPA socks asside).Slatersteven (talk) 11:55, 21 August 2020 (UTC) And it is also clear he is getting a lot of pushback from established editors, far more than you would expect if this was a clear cut case of David being nice enough to take on a tedious but necessary task. Very little of the business of maintaining Wikipedia falls outside of the category of tedious but necessary, and yet all of that just gets done quietly, with no fuss. It is beyond obvious that what David is doing is controversial, and has been consistently since he began it, and so even in the incredibly unkikely event that this is just a case of all his critics just being idiots and only David acting out of the best interests of Wikipedia, he might benefit from finding a better way of explaining what he is doing, and why he chooses to do it in this specific way, if he would rather not be getting distracted from his task by having to answer reports like this. I do wonder how much support he has, since it appears to me to be only the same few names turning up to defend him each and every time. CommandTeamSix (talk) 12:09, 21 August 2020 (UTC) From a small number of established editors. Far more seem to agree with him.Slatersteven (talk) 12:15, 21 August 2020 (UTC) I am sceptical. Have you counted them, the fors and againsts, for example? It would be unwise in a case like this, especially when the opponent is being accused of being rude and belligerent, to simply assume that people choosing not to speak put, implies consent. It might very well be the case DAILYMAIL has broad consensus support, and people could literally care less how it is implemented, but then again, it might also be the case that it is the pet project of a handful of very committed, passionate and influential editors, who have made it plain they're not going to stand for anyone getting in their way. It's the sudden inflexible urgency that baffles me, given the entire corpus of editors clearly weren't all that fussed about the presence of thousands of links to the Mail for some years after DAILYMAIL. It's only become an issue recently because, for whatever reason, David has chosen to take it on in earnest, and in a manner that was almost certain to ruffle feathers among even the most committed of editors. It really doesn't strike me as altruism, if only because of the arrogant and sometimes even mocking way he speaks to equally good faith editors who have a different opinion on the specifics of his approach. Maybe I'm wrong, I don't watch him religiously, but I don't see many people being blocked or even warned for making unfair characterizations of his methods, it seems broadly accepted that he is being kind of a jerk, just not so badly that it warrants action (it of course always helps when you can somewhat make the case that you are doing it for the greater good). There's lots of Mail cites left to go, so I just foresee lots more aggravation and potential bitterness if there's no change of approach. CommandTeamSix (talk) 12:35, 21 August 2020 (UTC) Sudden? it was was deprecated 3 years ago [[26]], users had three years to replace its use, I would suggest this is now why it is just being removed. If after three years no better source has been found its reasonable to assume non exist.Slatersteven (talk) 12:42, 21 August 2020 (UTC) We appear to be making the same point, but for radically different reasons. Hilarious though that you used a Daily Mail story as your source for when it actually happened. It's a good read, an excellent reminder that the person who kicked the whole thing off, was later banned from Wikipedia for showing callous disregard for the holiest of policies, BLP. Even that embarassing incident wasn't enough for people to stop and wonder if the whole thing hadn't simply been an attempt to harm Paul Dacre for purely personal reasons, that quickly spiralled put of control. It's Wikipedia, mistakes are not recified, and apologies are not issued. It is simply suggested that it's perfectly normal for the Mail to be declared garbage, and then for everyone to just sit on their hands for three years, and then for David Gerard to begin a one man crusade, which gets non-trivial pushback, and still act like there's nothing to see here, it's all just normal, the best and least drama free way to build an encyclopedia. It really isn't. I lost faith in Wikipedia, stopped editing myself years ago, precisely because it became obvious it was this easy for just a handful of powerful editors to manipulate. CommandTeamSix (talk) 13:29, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

• I've generally had productive interactions with David. On an article, where I raised concerns regarding the sourcing, David was the only editor of a group of editors, who should have known better, who stood up to the plate and removed a source that clearly violated reliable sourcing rules. Similarly, I recall that a while back that when I asked a clear bright-line rule concerning a source on the noticeboards, he correctly answered with a yes/no response. I realize now how difficult that response was given his fundamental belief regarding certain sources. Unfortunately, there has also been the negative behaviour. One specific rude action was him collapsing a talk page conversation that I was having, even though he was an involved editor and was asked by another editor not to do that. The only other time I saw David's problematic behaviour was at the Keith Blakelock article. There he participated in a light edit war with another editor who was working on getting an article up to feature article status. His actions there, unfortunately, created a significant perturbance. My recommendation to David is that he slows down and engages more productively with his fellow editors. All of us want to make Wikipedia the greatest source of knowledge. As concerns the Wikipedia community, there likely should be a rfc or central discussion of how to procedural go about removing deprecated sources and a consensus should be gained for those actions.(e.g. how should they be tagged, should they be removed on sight, how long can they stand) This procedural agreement will give David and others the necessary tools to productively carry out the critical roles they play. --Guest2625 (talk) 12:08, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
  • lol, one look at Talk:Death_of_Keith_Blakelock and it's clear that Guest2625 is grossly misrepresenting the discussion. An editor (who should have known better) was edit-warring in a lengthy quote from the DM because they loved the writing style. It turned out the quote from a book source about the issue also written by the DM journalist was considerably less flowery - it appears the editor made up a pile of the version in the newspaper. Because you cannot trust the DM not to be making stuff up.
  • We had two general RFCs on this issue. Your advocacy for the DM is against broad editor consensus - David Gerard (talk) 12:17, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Relax David. I am not an advocate for the DM as you call it. I am indifferent to the source. I feel dealing with this source is a tedious administrative task. --Guest2625 (talk) 12:43, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Again, we are not here to discus the merits of the DM RFC, nor can we overturn it here. We are here to discus Davids actions, and if they are actionable.Slatersteven (talk) 13:35, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

This is what is being missed. In all practical effects, David's chosen method of enacting DAILYMAIL is now the de facto method, since it is only he who seems to see this as a priority. He is doing the lion's share of the work, and refuses to accept that the reason others are not is because they don't agree that the Mail is as unreliable as is claimed, they're just apparently lazy, or not as committed to reliability as he is. Even those who supported the RfC, don't apparently share the same level of concern as David, but that doesn't give him pause, everyone else is apparently in the wrong, not him. This is why it is going to be the case from now until he is done, questioning his motives and methods is always going to feel like an attempt to discuss the merits of or even overturn DAILYMAIL. If he weren't a Wikipedia editor, would anyone even be aware that some years ago now, it was collectively decided they the Mail is "generally unreliable", but nobody thought it might be a good idea to explain what that means, in practical terms. Would it not have just sat there, unactioned, as it was before something lit a fire under him? He is DAILYMAIL, DAILYMAIL is he. The question is, why. Because I am not buying that for him at least, this is about Wikipedia. At the very least, if it were, he would not be risking pissing off other good faith editors and potential helpers, just because they perhaps differ on issues of methodology, stuf that can wait a day or two to be resolved. He would be open to a moratorium, not greeting it with mockery and lies, as if it's just crazy talk and somehow all the pushback he has definitely got, is just imaginary, or the product of idiocy. CommandTeamSix (talk) 14:23, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Not not presume to tell me why I do not so something. Many of us do not know who to hunt sources, and so just rely on stumbling over them. Nor presume to tell me what I think of a paper I call the Daily Myth. This is not the place to revisited the RFC, wp:rsn is.Slatersteven (talk) 14:38, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Moratorium on Daily Mail removals?

WP:DENY

How about a pause on DAIYLMAIL removals unless or until some collectively agreed upon guidance is reached regarding how to do it? For example, remove items and text immediately from BLPs, remove items only and tag text as better source needed for uncontroversial claims, and remove cite and text of non-BLP but challengeable content only after a five minute check that it isn't the case that a reliable source can be found and replaced. That sounds reasonable, certainly better than causing David stress by constantly having to justify his approach to DAILYMAIL, it largely being the case now that however he does it, is going to be how it is done, because he appears to be the only one prepared to take the task on in a size larger than an elephant's toenail. CommandTeamSix (talk) 11:59, 21 August 2020 (UTC) So, what was the name of your previous account? --JBL (talk) 12:08, 21 August 2020 (UTC) I don't honesty recall. Whatever it was, the password is also forgotten now, so it wouldn't make much difference. I ceased editing in earnest many years ago, but I've continued to follow these sort of meta issues, as they interest me greatly regarding the broad based matters of what makes Wikipedia what it is. Apologies if my sudden entry into matters that might appear to be above my pay grade has upset or alarmed anyone, I certainky do know how the Wikipedia community kind of likes to be a little bit insular. Don't be frightened, I come in peace. :) Back when I was a lad, Wikipedia didn't even routinely welcome newcomers, so that's something I guess. CommandTeamSix (talk) 12:19, 21 August 2020 (UTC) Wonder if this is Brian K Horton yet again - no other edits than this topic - David Gerard (talk) 12:13, 21 August 2020 (UTC) Oppose its deprecated, and there is no reason not to remove it, this is just overturning the RFC by the back door.Slatersteven (talk) 12:14, 21 August 2020 (UTC) Oppose lol no, if you want to overturn two broad general RFCs on the topic, you'll need an equally broad RFC to do so - David Gerard (talk) 12:22, 21 August 2020 (UTC) What are you laughing at? Other than the ridiculousness of thinking people would really believe a proposal to temporarily halt removals pending agreement on how they should be done, was in reality an attempt to overturn the consensus for the removals? You could have responded to this in a lot of different ways if you disagreed, but simply laughing and quite deliberately misrepresenting (read:lying) about what was said, hardly helps your cause. Why shouldn't people see this as yet more evidence that what you've got going on here, is indeed, a one man crusade? That you're simply going to do whatever you want, and mistreat anyone who finds any reason to object to your edits. It already seems to me like you are operating with some sort of methodology where the manner of removal predictably and sensibly changes depending on circumstances, or so you claim, so what harm could it possibly do for you to put that on paper and seek community approval of it as a sensible way forward? As someone intending to do thousands of these edits, so people know what you're doing and what they can and cannot reasonably object to as you do so? It definitely feels like you're just angry that most editors don't have the same hatred of the Mail as you do, and as well as a mass removal campaign that lights up people's watchlists and makes work for them, you're going to exercise that anger by being as big of a jerk about it as you can to anyone who even slightly objects, even to people who are clearly good faith and committed Wikipedia editors. Fair enough if you had the solid backing of a clear edict, such as back in the day when the primacy of BLP was being first established, but you don't, do you? You know you don't. I'm just not sure you care anymore. CommandTeamSix (talk) 12:49, 21 August 2020 (UTC) Support. The Daily Mail is not a monolith (anymore than Fox News is monolithic). It's understandably despised in the UK for its screaming scare-mongering political headlines/articles. But it also contains, and has contained for many many decades, standard reportage on theatre and film-related events (I'm not talking about tabloid-type gossip, which it also contains), stage and film reviews, and other neutral informational articles which have encyclopedic citational value that sometimes cannot be found elsewhere. A blanket site-wide removal is not called for, any more than a blanket site-wide removal of all neutral information cited to Fox News (print or video) is called for. When information from Daily News is neutral and encyclopedicly valuable and in a non-gossip article, it should not be categorically removed and edit-warred over when there is policy-based reasoning to include the specific information and citation. Softlavender (talk) 12:41, 21 August 2020 (UTC) You actually get quite a good appreciation of the sheer breadth of the Mail's coverage, just by looking at David's contribution list. Not that this really should have been a surprise to anyone, but a properly conducted RfC should have established as a first instance that it was beyond doubt that the Mail was a popular and mainstream paper for a reason, and the reason what pretty good journalism across a number of areas. National Enquirer it is not. Should never have even been a talking point, that was as much of an obviously self-serving lie as anything that is claime to have come from the Mail's political coverage. People had every opportunity to define what it was about the Mail that made them think they just literally make stuff up as a matter of routine, and that might have led them to some sensible categories of what it can and cannot be used for, such as yes for sports, no for celebrity bios. These failed, because they exposed the lack of any actual reasoning on display, beyond simple Mail hatred. Is it the editor? Is it the business model? Is it the Nazis? Don't know. Don't care. It doesn't follow, for example, that just because they see the market value in the "side bar of shame" on DailyMail.com, they would see a business benefit in fabricating quotes by even their own well respected columnists in the Sunday paper edition. But that's where they had to go, because the alternative was too unpalatable. You see the result in David's edit list. It's all got to go, and now now now. And this before anyone here can even say how reliable the Mail is when compared to The Guardian, or The Telegraph. They do not care. Speaks volumes as to what it was all about, really. CommandTeamSix (talk) 13:20, 21 August 2020 (UTC) Popularity should not be a determining factor is accessing accuracy. Nor is this the place to discus the RFC, as you said you are not trying to challenge it.Slatersteven (talk) 13:22, 21 August 2020 (UTC) Is creating an account that literally only edits on this one topic on a policy board in the style of a banned sockpuppeter also solely interested in this one topic sufficient cause for a checkuser these days? - David Gerard (talk) 13:24, 21 August 2020 (UTC) People had every opportunity to define what it was about the Mail that made them think they just literally make stuff up as a matter of routine They have done, repeatedly - please see the forty-five discussions linked at WP:DAILYMAIL - David Gerard (talk) 13:24, 21 August 2020 (UTC) I have seen them, hence why I make confident statements about what they contain. I have never seen a Wikipedia debate properly address why Wikipedia editors seem to think a mass market newspaper would think it wise to fabricate material as a matter of routine, as if it were their actual business model, which is where the more ridiculously overzealous advocates of this ban seem to be at. I have seen it alleged it is because the regulator is weak, with no hint of irony given the very same debates are usually quite quick to mention the Mail's record before the regulator when it suits, while of course ignoring comparable records for supposedly reliable sources. I have seen it also suggested that it is because it is too onerous to sue, again, with no hint of irony that losing court cases are often brought up in said debates, again, with no concern for comparable records. What I have never seen, because there is no real interest in it here, is a debate which takes all of these matters into proper account, to make a robust determination of the Mail's reliability as it stands with respect to newspapers in general. If you are aware of it, please link to it now, because if you don't, people are entitled to assume it doesn't exist, and those many debates are as I have described, mere cherry picked examples to support a predetermined conclusion that casually disregards any and all relevant context in the sphere of newspaper reliability, even simple stuff like the likelihood of ex-employees not being the most reliable of sources. It is a simple fact, and this was shown to be true by DAILYMAIL, that from time to time, erroneous facts make it into the papers. Unless or until Wikipedia makes some genuine effort to prove otherwise with a robust and defensible methodology, most people are going to assume the risk of it happening in the Mail, is not so great that it makes any sense for Wikipedia to have a blanket ban of the Mail, and an apparent blanket acceptance of The Guardian, even, quite ridiculously, for pieces critical of the Mail. It is what it looks like, and indeed what in large part, in all those debates, it reads like. CommandTeamSix (talk) 13:50, 21 August 2020 (UTC) Oppose This is obviously a thankless job that very few people want anything to do with. We should be thanking David Gerard for taking it on at all. By no means should we stop him and make him wait for some guidance that is aimed at micromanaging the details. If you don't like how it is being done you have the option of pitching in and doing it your way. - MrOllie (talk) 14:02, 21 August 2020 (UTC) You can thank him if you want (have you?) but that's not going to make all the pushback surrounding his methodology disappear. Such outpouring of thanks might even embolden him to be even more rude and dismissive of what in many cases do appear to be legitimate concerns. You may or may not see that as a good thing, depending on your feelings about the nature of a collaboration and, as has been pointed out, the fact there is no deadline. What there are here however, is quite a lot of Wikipedia articles whose original authors are long gone, meaning that when David removes text and doesn't bother to check if it can be sourced with a so called reliable source (which in all likelihood, simply got the information from the same source the Mail did, if not the Mail itself!), which to be fair is not his approach every time, then it does rather mean it is likely that text is lost to Wikipedia for a good while, if not forever. It has happened to at least one of my articles, and it's long passed the time I felt like it was a good use of my time to repair such edits. Not least because I never really got thanked for having a stable of lovingly cared for articles in the first place! I was the sort of editor a Titan like David would have probably never even noticed. So be it. Didn't join for his praise, and didn't leave because of him either, not specifically anyway. All I got for my years if service, was grief from people who always seemed to think they had a better right than me to the claim of Protector and Nurturer of Wikipedia. Well, that they may have, but with the benefit of hindsight, I am in the majority it seems, one of the many thousands of people who were once committed, and are no longer. And largely not because we were the sort of idiot who couldn't tell a reliable source from a toilet roll. People looking for thanks probably shouldn't edit Wikipedia at all, but it's a darn sight more useful in terms of Editor Retention to be paying attention to those who attract complaints. I repeat, Wikipedia has a whole bunch of essential tasks of the thankless variety, and many choose to do them, sometimes alone, sometimes as a cadre. Few, if any, attract complaints on a regular basis. It is almost always a sign of a problem. CommandTeamSix (talk) 14:41, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Can we close this now?Slatersteven (talk) 18:00, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Clearing down review backlogs of deprecated sources: call for assistance

Some sources are considered so grossly unreliable that we can't even trust them for basic statements of fact. These are the ones on WP:RSP with a red or grey box.

Wikipedia articles must, per the Verifiability policy, be based on reliable sources. The deprecated sources are prima facie unreliable by broad general consensus, and their continued presence lowers the quality, reliability and trustworthiness of Wikipedia. They are not "better than nothing", but worse than nothing. They need review, and possible removal.

In the overwhelming number of cases I encounter in my own work in this area, they mostly should be removed. But obviously, all of these have to be checked by hand - "deprecated" is not "forbidden", after all.

(Just tagging the deprecated sources as bad doesn't seem to achieve much in practice. The bad sources need checking and likely removal.)

As I write this:

• The Daily Mail has 4,269 uses - I've been chewing through these, but help in eating this elephant would be most welcomed. A lot of these are on WP:BLPs, where the Mail, and the claim it's citing, should pretty much always just be removed. Vast numbers of WP:MEDRS-violating Mail cites also.
• News of the World still has 156 uses.
• The Epoch Times is at 654 uses.
• 112 Ukraine has 26 uses of 112.ua and 161 uses of 112.international.
• Crunchbase has 2,787 uses and is actually going up in usage, though that includes "External links" where it's allowed.
• HispanTV.com has just 19 uses.
• NNDB has 1,911 uses.
• Telesur has 199 uses of telesurtv.net and 42 uses of telesurenglish.net (its usage is actually going up).

If you're feeling bored, this sort of thing improves our quality and makes it look less like deprecated sources are acceptable in Wikipedia articles. Because by policy (WP:V), widely-accepted guidelines (WP:RS) and strong consensus (the deprecation RFCs), they really aren't - David Gerard (talk) 13:42, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

WP:DENY

You're only further highlighting that, in terms of wanting to do anything about it, there is only really one editor here on the whole of Wikipedia who genuinely seems to believe that The Daily Mail and the News Of The World are broadly equivalent. People aren't stupid, certainly not British people for whom these papers are an ever present and who are very familiar with their contents, and that is largely why you have got very little assistance from your fellow editors. Why not make a direct appeal to those editors who claimed that the Mail was no better than the National Enquirer? I put it to you that those sort of people don't want to help, because it is only once they try to start eating the elephant, they actually realise how wrong they were. It takes a special kind of person to engage in a task which, if you're not actually genuinely trying to locate alternative reliable sources for every instance where it looks like valuable information might be lost otherwise, which necessarily takes time, then it soon becomes apparent that in all likelihood, you are probably harming Wikipedia, and only to harm the Mail, who in all honestly, probably don't even care. People know the vast majority of these cites are not actually incorrect, they know the evidence to convict the Mail in Wikipedia's court was a mere handful of examples, and they know the number that are wrong is probably not even close to being say an order of magnitude above the sort of error rate you might find for say, The Guardian. That is why it is only you who seems to care enough to make it a priority. You made this bed, you and tiny handful of other editors, so you should probably lie in it. CommandTeamSix (talk) 14:08, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

I note that of the first 10 so articles one has been tagged as needing better sourcing for 2 years. So yes people have been doing it the other way, and no one has bothered to provide better sourcing.Slatersteven (talk) 16:23, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

The user CommandTeamSix was blocked due to being a sockpuppet. However a new account was made and named user:CommandTeamSixSixSix which is a obvious duck.

NFL color schemes

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

---

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

(For additional context, the page in question below is Module:Gridiron color/data, which is template-protected, and only administrators and users with the template editor user right can edit it.)

• In December 2019, there was a discussion at WT:NFL about the Denver Broncos color scheme (here) regarding a recent change. Charlesaaronthompson explained that he changed the color scheme to meet WP:CONTRAST, an accessibility policy, as it is difficult for color-blind readers to see certain font colors over certain background colors. During the discussion, he changed the scheme three times before it appeared that most of the editors in the discussion were satisfied with the final scheme implemented.
• On February 1, 2020, Charlesaaronthompson changed the colors back again without discussion and contrary to the result of the discussion from December. After I pointed out this change on his talk page (here), he reverted himself.
• On February 4, 2020, Charlesaaronthompson changed the colors back again without discussion. He reverted himself two days later.
• On February 10, 2020, he changed the colors back again without discussion. I posted again on his talk page (here) that he had now changed the Broncos colors for the tenth time in three months and needs to stop implementing changes immediately until discussions have taken place. He reverted himself the next day.
• On March 17, 2020, he changed the colors again, but at least this time, he notified me after the fact (here again), but still in opposition to the discussion at WT:NFL. I reverted this edit [27] and told him he needs to start a new discussion at WT:NFL if he wants to change it again. I reminded him about the guidelines at Wikipedia:Template editor, and why this tool is not automatically granted to every editor.
• On April 21, 2020, he attempted to start another discussion about the Broncos' color scheme at WT:NFL, but failed to receive any input from other editors for a change to the scheme.
• I posted on his talk page again on May 11, 2020, after he made more changes to the module (for the Miami Dolphins color scheme, another similar issue happening concurrently to this one) despite my repeated pleas to have discussions first.
• Changed again on June 1, 2020, without discussion.
• Changed again today, without discussion.
• He has changed the color scheme at Template:Denver Broncos roster a total of 14 times in the past eight months despite their color scheme not changing at all in the same span in real life.

I have run out of ideas for solving this issue, and believe at this point that revoking Charlesaaronthompson's template editor tools is the next step here per WP:TPEREVOKE. If you look at the edit history for Module:Gridiron color/data, it is mostly Charlesaaronthompson repeatedly making changes to team color schemes and then changing his mind within a day or two, all without discussion. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:36, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

@Eagles247: OK. I am sorry for making these clearly unwanted changes. I was only trying to make these changes to improve the color codes so they reflected the team's colors that they use in real life. I am sorry. Is there any way my template editor tools may be preserved? Look: I reverted back the HTML color codes at Module:Gridiron color/data, per this edit diff. Please forgive me? Also, is there anything else I can say to make my case to preserve my template editor tools? Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 19:43, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

@Charlesaaronthompson: February 11: "I'll promise to stop changing the colors.". May 12: "I understand. I understand how frustrating it is on your end and from the viewpoint of other editors that I have previously changed the colors for the Denver Broncos way too frequently. I'm trying to come across as serious here. I really do understand that it is frustrating that I do seem to constantly change my mind repeatedly." and "I'm sorry that I have frustrated you over this. I apologize." I believe you when you say you're sorry each time, but making the same edits over and over again after you apologize and revert yourself doesn't give me much faith that you're actually learning from this. I will let others chime in here, but in my opinion, it would be more productive if you were to post edit requests on the talk pages instead of being able to make these color changes yourself. This way a discussion for the changes will have to occur and proper consensus can be formed. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:55, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

@Eagles247: OK, yes, I did say all of that. Look, I'm sorry. I clearly failed to edit in good faith. I just need one more chance to prove that I will learn and not just unilaterally make edit changes without first gaining WP:CONSENSUS from other editors like yourself. I fear that if I lose my template editor tools, I may never get them back. I just need one more opportunity to learn from my past mistakes. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 20:01, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

@Eagles247: OK, I'm sorry that I failed to collaborate and further engage in a discussion with you over at WT:NFL over the color code changes. I'm also sorry that I went ahead and tried to unilaterally implement these changes over at Module:Gridiron color/data. You have a very valid point that I clearly failed to learn from my past mistakes. However, I'm willing to change. What else can I do or say to prove that I'm willing & determined to learn from my mistakes while showing that I'm willing to collaborate, while not losing my template editor tools? What I really want to know is this: if it's determined by administrators that I should lose my template editor tools, is there any way I may be able to get them back? If so, how would I need to prove that I'm willing and determined to learn from my past mistakes and prove that I'm willing and determined to collaborate with other editors and not just unilaterally push through changes without first discussing my proposed changes? Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 20:49, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorely tempted to partially block Charlesaaronthompson from Module:Gridiron color/data. If that's the only page where problems have occurred, it should remove the temptation for him to edit it, while allowing him to edit normally everywhere else. It would also push him into using the sandbox for his experiments and to use an edit-request on talk for any changes. What do others think? --RexxS (talk) 23:38, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

OK, I see where I went wrong. I should have used the sandbox for Module:Gridiron color/data before repeatedly reverting myself and repeatedly trying to force through color code changes that only myself and no other editor was comfortable with. I see that now. If I was partially blocked from having template editor rights to edit Module:Gridiron color/data, how long would that block last? Also, I would settle for that as a natural consequence, in order to teach me to start using the sandbox for my experiments, so long as I knew how long that partial block from having template editor rights to edit Module:Gridiron color/data would last. I would rather settle for that than having my template editor rights permanently revoked for all protected templates. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 23:49, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

@RexxS: Judging from the history, it's the same story at Module:Sports_color/basketball as well. Many self-reverts and "nevermind"s. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:04, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

@Eagles247: Oh well, just a thought. At least we have the tools to craft more nuanced solutions now, even if they won't always work. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 00:10, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Charlesaaronthompson, it seems there have been multiple times when you've said you wouldn't do it, and then you did it. Why did you do it the previous times when you said you wouldn't? Why will this time be different than those previous times? Lev!vich 02:04, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

@Levivich: The reason why I went ahead and tried to force through color code changes over at Module:Gridiron color/data, Module:Sports color/basketball & other protected modules was because I was unaware that sandboxes for these protected modules existed. The best explanation I can give is that I really wasn't sure myself how I wanted to update the wiki-code formatting for the color codes at the protected modules, and so I experimented, not knowing that there were sandboxes that existed for the purpose of experimenting with the wiki-code formatting before I settled on the formatting. All I can say is that this time will be different in that I will not repeatedly self-revert myself from now on or even edit these protected modules if I'm allowed to keep my template editor rights. I will also do better to initiate discussions and seek consensus with other editors before trying to unilaterally force through unwanted wiki-code formatting changes. However, I will promise to do these necessary changes, even if my template editor rights are revoked. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 03:29, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure what is more worrying, the edits or a TPE being unaware of the sandbox (i.e. not looking to find it) or not creating a sandbox when none is found. Cabayi (talk) 09:18, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

I hate to be a jerk, but... you did say, in your request for Template Editor:

I am requesting template editor rights in order to edit Template:NFLPrimaryColor, Template:NFLTertiaryColorRaw, and all other related and appropriate protected sports league templates. The reason why I am requesting template editor rights is because I was extremely familiar with editing those templates prior to them becoming protected. I also have extensive experience editing other templates and modules, such as Module:Baseball color/data, Module:Basketball color/data, and Module:College color/data. I also am requesting template editor rights in order to update the HTML color codes (both current and historic) for NFL teams at the previously mentioned protected templates. I understand that if I am granted template editor rights, I will use them responsibly, and do my best to collaborate to the best of my ability with other template editors in hopes of reaching consensus.

I'm having a hard time reconciling being extremely familiar and having extensive experience and then, two years after getting TE, not knowing that there were sandboxes that existed for the purpose of experimenting with the wiki-code formatting. Lev!vich 16:23, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

You wrote above (emphasis added): OK, I see where I went wrong. I should have used the sandbox for Module:Gridiron color/data before repeatedly reverting myself and repeatedly trying to force through color code changes that only myself and no other editor was comfortable with. I see that now.

You also wrote above (emphasis added): The reason why I went ahead and tried to force through color code changes over at Module:Gridiron color/data, Module:Sports color/basketball & other protected modules was because I was unaware that sandboxes for these protected modules existed.

But two weeks ago (Aug 3), you created Module:Sports color/ice hockey/sandbox, with the edit summary, I created this template sandbox, based off Module:Sports color/basketball/sandbox. So you knew on Aug 3 that sandboxes existed, but when you changed the colors on August 17, you didn't know that sandboxes existed? Lev!vich 02:07, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Seems unfamiliar with WP:TPE (which specifically mentions sandboxes and offers advice on consensus usage). Multiple unmet commitments to "do better next time" and stop making unnecessary template changes. Next logical step is to remove template editor access with the option of reapplying in (say) 3 months with evidence of greater familiarity in how it should be used. Other views welcome. -- Euryalus (talk) 11:46, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

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

Allusion to legal action from IP user

• 2600:8801:1203:5A93:CD94:1894:3EB8:8D5A (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• Edit summary in question: [28]

IP user has alluded to taking legal action in regards to edits on the encyclopedia. /Tpdwkouaa (talk) 22:53, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Tpdwkouaa, I'd read "Forwarded edits to legal." as saying they'd forwarded a copy of the changes to legal@wikimedia.org rather than a threat of legal action. Cabayi (talk) 14:27, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

A possibility, to be sure, and I'd hope that you're right. I don't know if I'd expect the average IP user to be familiar with that outlet, however, and if they were, I'd think that when referring to it they'd be more explicit, i.e., "I'll be reporting these edits to WMF/Wikipedia's legal team/etc." /Tpdwkouaa (talk) 21:06, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Long term disruptive account

• Salwiki84 (talk · contribs) has an odd pov agenda, which has led to a lot of inappropriate editing. But why they weren't blocked on the spot for this [29] is beyond me. And please rev/delete that gem/ Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:38, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Edit has been revdel'd. I'd like a second set of eyes to see if a block is warranted. RickinBaltimore (talk) 01:49, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, RickinBaltimore. I'll offer a few diffs if necessary: [30]; [31]; [32]; [33]; [34]; [35]; [36]; [37]; [38]; [39]; [40]; [41]; [42]; [43]; [44]. Pretty much changes any negative content about Maryland, based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Most edits in the last two years have been flat vandalism. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:45, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

The user though has not edited much recently, 2 edits yesterday and not much prior to that. I wouldn't feel comfortable issuing a block on edits that are years old, as some of those are. Blocks are to be preventive, not punative. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:12, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

I understand, RickinBaltimore, which is why I brought this here rather than AIV. Longterm pattern of disruption, based on original research, to put it kindly. After two years the most recent edits confirm there's no indication of a learning curve, or increased competence. WP:CIR. 2601:188:180:B8E0:A834:6250:2E50:37AC (talk) 16:25, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

I see that, like I said I'm not comfortable issuing the block here, but would appreciate another admin to look as well. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:29, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Less uncomfortable, but would like to try engagement and education first. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:36, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

• I know I'm repeating myself, but given the edit that was rev/deleted, submit that the user ceded such considerations long ago. Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:A834:6250:2E50:37AC (talk) 16:39, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

USEr:DonQuixote

User:DonQuixote is clearly pushing a personal POV on multiple related articles. He has dismissed anything that doesn't conform to his POV as a "fringe theory", even going so far as to blank reliably sourced information just because he doesn't like what it says. And he also makes personal attacks. Anyone attempting to maintain a NPOV will be insulted by this editor.

Some examples [45]

[46]

[47]

This all stems from the fact that some Reliable Sources say that two characters who appeared in an old television show were in fact the same character. While others say that that's not the case.

DonQuixote insists that that's a "fringe view", and is determined to delete any trace of the fact that some sources did indeed say that it's the same character.

he believes that the only reason anyone would include that is because they are the ones pushing the POV.

However, by blanking Reliably Sourced, valid material, and dismissing it as a "fringe view", it s clear that DonQuixote is simply pushing HIS view, and making multiple disruptive edits. Surely ALL reliably sourced material should be included? Not just the ones that this one user, DonQuixote, seems to like.197.89.19.68 (talk) 08:22, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

The only real Master imho, was Roger Delgado. Just sayin. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 08:35, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

We all have our personal opinions. But this person User:DonQuixote is blanking RS just because they say something other than his opinion. That's WP:VANDALISM, plain and simple. 197.89.19.68 (talk) 10:38, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Didn't you say I'm out. Don't bother responding. I won't be back. And you can post nay nonsense you like on any article.? (see previous ANI).

And, the proposal by @HandThatFeeds: was The IP in question should be blocked from editing these articles and, if they do not refrain from insults, blocked from the site itself. They are being disruptive and tendentious, all because they believe specific actors are not getting the "recognition" the IP feels is deserved.

Also, pinging @Girth Summit:. DonQuixote (talk) 11:13, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Also, it's hard to take you seriously when you do things like this. DonQuixote (talk) 11:16, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, I'm going to re-add my proposal here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 11:52, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Never mind pinging anyone. Just answer a simple question : Why did you blank reliably sourced material on multiple articles? Answer that without changing the subject. 197.89.19.68 (talk) 12:34, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

As I have explained multiple times, due weight. DonQuixote (talk) 12:41, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

NOT a valid answer. The articles as they stand are VERY POV in one direction. There were tiny bits and pieces trying to give a NPOV, and you simply blanked those small bits. That's pushing a POV, plain and simple. 197.89.19.68 (talk) 12:44, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

In addition, the so-called "due weight" all come from the same small group of people. 197.89.19.68 (talk) 12:45, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

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. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views. (emphasis mine) DonQuixote (talk) 12:59, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

But it's not a "tiny minority view". It's in multiple reliable sources. So, it MUST be included. As it is, YOUR POV dominates every article. But you don't want anything else mentioned at all. 197.89.19.68 (talk) 13:52, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Plus, how can YOU claim what is "the widely held view", and what isn't? That's POV at best. 197.89.19.68 (talk) 13:56, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)In the months you've been at this, you've managed to scrounge up a couple of games (primary sources), a single-line commentary by a literary critic and a short opinion in a listicle. Tiny minority. DonQuixote (talk) 13:58, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Plus, how can YOU claim what is "the widely held view, and what isn't?"

If it takes you months to scrounge together two secondary sources, each with only a couple of sentences on the topic, then it's probably a tiny viewpoint. If you can spend less than two hours finding ten secondary sources spanning four decades saying the same thing, then it's probably a widely held view. DonQuixote (talk) 14:01, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

No. Here's what it is. There is an article about a fictional character who appeared in two serials of Doctor Who in the 1960's. Whether such a character even requires his own Wikipedia article is another issue entirely. Now, here's where the fun starts.. 1) In the 80's multiple officially licensed products, both narrative and "real world" all stated outright that this character is the same character as the Doctor Who character The Master. Whether that was actually true or not is besides the point. Multiple sources state that that is true. However, later, other officially licensed products, both narrative and "real world" stated outright that the character is NOT the same character as the Master. So, what to do? This article lists the character under the name he was credited as in the two television serials.(And even THAT is another whole issue..) Over the years, multiple media have each featured "The Return of.." in multiple, contradictory, ways. And, nne of them actually called the character "The Monk". He was "the Time Meddler", "Mortimus", and other names, but NEVER "The Monk". In the last decade, Big Finish Audios have produced a handful of brand new made-for-sale audio adventures featuring a character that they claim to be the same character as the character who last appeared on television in January 1966.And they have all called him "the Monk". So, what of the article? Surely, it should reflect all of that? Except, that User:DonQuixote wants to push the Big Finish idea of the character as the only one, and blanks anything to the contrary. The problem here is that there are multiple contradictory accounts, each with reliable sources. And no two are truly compatible. Why should ONE version, that ahs been around for less than a decade, be the "One true version"? And, even if that was, why does DonQuixote keep blanking anything that says anything to the contrary? Is this a Big Finish Fanboy Website, or is it Wikipedia? 197.89.19.112 (talk) 06:34, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Nope. Your inability or unwillingness to understand due weight, amongst other things, is why we're here. You can keep telling yourself the above, but that's not going to accomplish anything. DonQuixote (talk) 10:30, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Only "due weight" in your mind. Look, as repeatedly stated, there are multiple contradictory accounts. As it stands the article is entirely skewed towards ONE position, YOUR position. But that isn't enough for you. No, you want to remove ALL other relevant information. And you have repeatedly blanked RELIABLY SOURCED material, simply because it says something other than what you believe to be "true". And nobody but you has spent any real time looking for multiple RS. All I did was a very quick search, and found enough RS for DIFFERENT positions. And you obviously weren't born until the 21st century. It was taken as fact in the 80's that "it's the same character as the Master". Then, during the Virgin Books Era, it was taken as fact that it was an entirely separate character, but called "Mortimus". Only very recently has YOUR preferred position been seen as being "right". Of course, as mentioned on the actual discussion page, which you completely ignored, it was taken as fact in 1965-1966 that the character Peter Butterworth played in Doctor Who was a human being from the future. Actually, if you had ever actually watched either The Time Meddler or The Daleks' Master Plan, it is beyond obvious, that the character disguised as a monk is a human man. And only in the 80's did we first learn that "he is the first of the Doctor's people(apart from Susan) to appear in the series". Even The Making of Doctor Who, published in 1972, says nothing at all about him being a Time Lord. THAT is my problem. YOU(and your little cabal) are trying to force a 2020 revisionist perspective onto something that was made and aired in 1965-1966. You want to include all the stuff about Graeme Garden and Rufus Hound? Go right ahead. But that should NOT be the focus of the article, and EVERY OTHER interpretation should be included, including "he is the Master", "he is Mortimus", "he is the Time Meddler", and OF COURSE..."he is a human man from the future". Because ALL of those were reliably sourced before you were even born. Wikipedia must maintain a WP:NPOV. And your "widely held view" only exists in your own mind. 197.89.19.112 (talk) 12:54, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Proposal

Restating & updating my previous proposal, with the hopes an admin acts on it:

The IP in question should be partially-blocked from editing Doctor Who-related articles and, if they do not refrain from insults, blocked from the site itself. They are being disruptive and tendentious, all because they believe specific actors are not getting the "recognition" the IP feels is deserved. This IP is here to right great wrongs. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 11:52, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

No. See here's what happened. 1) There was RELIABLY SOURCED material from VALID SOURCES on multiple articles. One user, User:DonQuxiote simply BLANKED IT ALL, dismissing it as a "fringe theory". I reinstated it. So, who's the one being disruptive and tendentious? The person trying to add reliably sourced material to articles, or the one going around blanket removing reliably sourced material from various pages, simply because it doesn't suit their own personal POV? 197.89.19.68 (talk) 12:42, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

These are not reliably sourced, and your inability to grasp that is the problem. If you had simply discussed the matter per WP:BRD we wouldn't be here. It's your repeated, tendentious insistence on editing these into the articles combined with personal attacks that led me to the above proposal. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:32, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Now that I've got a moment to elaborate & bring others up to speed: the dispute, at its heart, comes from a disagreement on sourcing. The IP believes that third-party material about the show Doctor Who is a reliable source for including certain edits in articles; other editors, primarily DonQuixote, disagreed and removed them. Normally, that'd make this a content dispute not suited to ANI.

However, instead of following WP:BRD, this IP began hurling insults, insisting everyone else was wrong and trying to force their preferred content into the articles. Looking over the examples in the previous ANI report led me to believe this IP was trying to right great wrongs (believing certain actors were not given appropriate credit for their work), and entered a battleground mentality to try and bludgeon their preferred content into the articles. As seen in the section below, this is typical for this editor, and I do not see any other solution outside of partially-blocking them from editing the articles, or a block from the site. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:39, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

To clarify, I brought this to ANI after the IP summarily dismissed ten secondary sources as being unreliable, which I supplied in response to the addition of a point-y unreliable source tag for a single line in an article (diff and thread). DonQuixote (talk) 14:52, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

• Fully support The Ip editor literally shot himself in the foot in his counter proposal. More than that, he shown that he's very much an entrenched editor who's looking to push his particular viewpoint and reliable sourced be damned. I hate to support any proposal that anyone gets banned, but this is reason enough for it to happen. W.K.W.W.K...^{Toss a coin to the witcher, ye valley of plenty} 16:25, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

The only one(s) trying to "push a particular viewpoint" are the ones who are blanking reliably sourced material. If that gets anyone banned, then it should be the one(s) simply blanking whole sections of RELIABLY SOURCED material from multiple articles. 197.89.19.112 (talk) 06:25, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

• support (at least this) now edit warring (yes they breached 3rr) over what might be an SPS.Slatersteven (talk)

And now we have this [[48]] in essence calling anyone who has commented against him here (or opposed his edits) trolls, and an admin ignorant. The amount of not here and battleground mentality is too strong I think for this user to edit here. I up my choice to a CBAN.Slatersteven (talk) 09:34, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

And still at it [[49]], and I am not going to respond because now I fell like I am baiting them.Slatersteven (talk) 10:39, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support Forcing your own POVs to the preferred articles is unacceptable in a general encyclopedia, unless it's on other wiki sites like some FANDOM (Wikia) wikis. There is an IP accusing me of putting my own POV to the templates, but in that case I'm trying to make that template to follow the MOS. This case is definitely not. SMB​99​thx Email! 12:34, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

And still at it [[50]], note here is the discussion I did not start [[51]]. His talk page is now just being used to attack other editors and even admins.Slatersteven (talk) 13:56, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

And still at it [[52]].Slatersteven (talk) 14:44, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Counter-Proposal

This User:HandThatFeeds is clearly a meat puppet. As such, I suggest that anything User:HandThatFeeds be treated with the attention/respect it deserves. Which is to say...none at all. He/she should simply be ignored. And if he/she persist with these attacks, he/she should be the one who is blocked.

(This "Proposal" is clearly an attempt by DonQuixtoe and HandThatFeeds to ignore the real issue here. In addition these two users are insisting that it is ok for them to simply blank reliably sourced material. and then they act as though the ones trying to reinstate the reliably sourced material are the ones who need to be blocked! That's ass backwards. 197.89.19.68 (talk) 12:32, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

^^^^^ That's a bad idea IP 197. You really should strike all of that and close this section out. You really just shot yourself in the foot with this! W.K.W.W.K...^{Toss a coin to the witcher, ye valley of plenty} 14:29, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

This is the behavior which led me to make the proposal above. This could have just been a simple content dispute, but the IP has insisted on forcing their preferred edits into the articles and then attacking those who disagree. I don't see a path forward other than blocking. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:34, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Notice how neither of these people actually add anything at all to the issue at hand. They just suddenly appear to offer up catchphrases. This seemingly show support for one person, yet neither of these people have actually added anything constructive at all. 197.89.19.112 (talk) 06:23, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

It's called an outside perspective. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:45, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

This tit for tat silliness however leads me to think a full TBAN might be in order.Slatersteven (talk) 15:43, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Might be time for a block or at least talk page priveleges to be removed

Now IP User 197.89.19.112 is | using his talk page to post polemics and attacks. I did | blank the page like the instructions in WP:POLEMIC stated. He | restored it and added an attack. Yes, he's talking about me, but no I'm not bothered by it at all. Slatersteven came by | and cautioned him about using his page to attack anyone. I | re blanked, but left a polite note explaining why this was happening and an alternative actoin for himi to do instead of using his userpage to attack anyone. He then | restored everything with an attack against me (again, I could care less, I'm a performer, my skin's tough as a Rhino! ) and SlaterSteven. Kinda think it's time for a block or at least loss of his talk page. W.K.W.W.K...^{Toss a coin to the witcher, ye valley of plenty} 18:48, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

York4044 aspersions

York4044 added her opinion to the article on Wikipedia's handling of racism. I reverted her, and she decided to attack me on my talk page. Over the course of the last few months month, she was repeatedly warned to not engage in disruptive editing. Many of those warns were also for personal attacks. One of those accusations was in response to her calling another editor a "rape apologist". The last warning was a final one. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 10:23, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

I didn't know lived experiences were now an opinion and you consider being told to check your privilege an attack? I was actually very polite. Did you read the context of the other incidents you are referring. Really sad that the rumours about Wikipedia being a hub for bigotry are true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by York4044 (talk • contribs) 10:29, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

York4044, you are casting WP:ASPERSIONS here. Please stop making baseless accusations of bigotry. Also, your "lives experiences" constitute original research which is unsuitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia, especially in a biography of a living person. All information in an encyclopedia should be reliably sourced, especially for BLPs. JavaHurricane 10:38, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

User:JavaHurricane Generally yes but the article in question was about racial bias in Wikipedia. Also that editor was engaging in very creepy behaviour by following me over from H.P. Lovecraft's page to the racial bias one. Almost like they though they were the focus.Made me feel unsafe to be begin with and had displayed prejudiced behaviour there when I simply shifted the contents of "Race" higher up in the chronology.York4044 (talk) 10:44, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

They weren't following you. Rather your edits were inappropriate and I don't see why they should not be removed. PS: See York4044's talk page, especially [53]. JavaHurricane 10:47, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Full disclosure: I was aware of the incident before this report was filed and had suggested to Susmuffin that he take this matter to ANI. I don't think that this impairs my judgement, however.

To me, this seems like a pretty clear-cut case of York4044 being here to right great wrongs. And while I do agree that we need to acknowledge and counteract systemic bias on Wikipedia, the path she has chosen is clearly not the right way to do it. Making bold edits is fine – and so is challenging the status quo. But making edits that violate policy and resorting to personal attacks and casting aspersions when they are challenged is not. I propose that York4044 be blocked until she can demonstrate that she is willing to engage with other editors civilly and constructively. — Blablubbs ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:56, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Blablubbs It is interesting that you concluded that it does not impair your judgement. Seems like the solution to everything here is blocking the user instead of thinking about the bigoted content. "Civility" has always been a dog-whistle for equality on your own time. Seems like other editors haven't taken the time to engage constructively. — Preceding unsigned comment added by York4044 (talk • contribs) 11:01, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

In this context, "civility" is not a dog-whistle, but a bullhorn shouting that you should start to actually engage with what people say instead of making unfounded accusations about who they are. For example, you could have explained why you believe that my judgement is flawed or why your actions were justified – arguments that I am willing to listen and respond to. Instead, you have chosen to suggest that I refuse to think about bigotry and just want to get everyone who disagrees with me blocked. And that is an attitude that is plainly incompatible with a project that's built on collaboration, consensus and the the assumption that others are acting in good faith. — Blablubbs ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:28, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

• Probably about time @York4044 is indef blocked for not being here to build an encyclopedia. I can recollect not too long ago when she kept on adding defamatory contents to a particular article and was warned by myself & other editors as can be observed here, here, & here. What followed here was an appropriate block for 72 hours. Seeing that they are still generally not being productive but rather disruptive it may be time for them to be blocked indefinitely, at least until they understand fundamental policies governing this collaborative project. Just like Susmuffin, said, they indeed referred to an administrator as a “rape apologist” & just like Blablubbs said above it indeed does appear as though they are here to “right great wrongs” & not necessary build an encyclopedia hence an indef block per WP:NOTHERE seems very apt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Celestina007 (talk • contribs) 13:21, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

@Celestina007 This smells like a witch hunt. I was appropriately "punished" according to your standards so what do you want from me? Why didn't you mention that what I was fighting for ended up on the page? You owe me an apology. Did you even read the context of this or you are letting prejudice lead you? Kindly stay in your lane.York4044 (talk) 13:25, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

York4044, "Kindly stay in your lane"? Are you even aware of the tone in which you are speaking to other editors? You've been given a final warning on your talk page which I will not hesitate in enacting as WP:NOTHERE if you do not start behaving within our guidelines; specifically WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. It's really that simple. Glen (talk) 13:41, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Glen I understand how that may have come across but perhaps you will note how that editor in question had a similar tone. They also have a track record of harassing me and actually owe me an apology for giving me grief and blocking me over an edit that eventually went on a page.It is not a random act. — Preceding unsigned comment added by York4044 (talk • contribs) 13:46, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

York4044 I get you're frustrated but there are clear signals that the way you are going about this is not the best approach. You've been blocked on more than one occasion and you need to take a step back and ask yourself if there's an alternative methodology you could utilise that may lend itself to a better result. Snapping at other editors is only going to end badly. If you ask me you've been given plenty of chances here - please act accordingly. Glen (talk) 13:52, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Glen I get you have good intentions but "best approach" has been used as a silencing tactic for systemic bias. Along with "this is not the right time" and me supposed to be grateful that I am not punished for dissent. I hope we evolve soon. In the meantime, I have seen feminist pages/ groups on here. I can't seem to find a Black feminist collective though. If you know of any, I would be very glad to go in that direction. York4044 (talk) 14:03, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

@York4044, here we go again! you have just been told politely by JavaHurricane about casting aspersions(which is why you are here in the first place) & you have just done so yet again by making statements such as They also have a track record of harassing me hereby insinuating that I have been stalking/harassing you whereas in actuality my first encounter with you was on June 23 & my last encounter with you was on June 25 up until today, so please where is/are the diff(s) to substantiate claims that I have a “track record of harassing you” ? Honestly at this juncture an indef block is required urgently, you cannot after being warned severally continue to make personal attacks, engage in original research, & cast aspersions. What you are generally doing per entries such as this is called WP:TE a great trait & indicator of one not here to build an encyclopedia. Celestina007 14:08, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

@Celestina007 You are really keen to get me out of here instead of engaging like you always suggest. Straight to a silencing tactic. I am not here to fight with you. Like you said we had an extended encounter in which you disparaged me as well. The conclusion of that was that I was right about the entry but my methods were flawed. I was blocked for a bit. I would say you got the upper-hand so we can just forget about this or risk both of us getting blocked. Please do not seek me out and I will do same. York4044 (talk) 14:22, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

It's pretty clear that this user is here to right great wrongs and refuses to contribute productively, attacking other editors instead of working with them. While countering bias is an admirable goal, a block is probably warranted in this case. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 19:00, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Given how this thread has gone, and this editor's history here, I'm inclined to agree that this has gone on long enough. I'm therefore blocking York4044 for repeated refusal to get the point that this is not the place to rail on about perceived injustices and attack perceived enemies. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:29, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Baseless aspersions of paid editing by User:Hatchens

Hatchens, (a new editor started earlier this year) is feeling very free in their accusations of paid shilling. I created Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BlueFocus Communication Group back in April (one of the largest, fastest-growing ad agencies in the world with a possible US IPO upcoming); he tagged it for nom and slapped the paid editing template and said in his nom that I created the article for "for PR/Advertising WP:PROMO purpose". I've been editing since 2007 and have edited a wide range of topics (medicine, law, business), but also particularly edit articles on listed securities. I can't remember the last time I was accused of paid shilling, but I imagine it's happened - many long-term editors have been accused at some point. For that reason, it is taken quite seriously as a WP:PERSONAL attack, and WP:ASPERSIONS documents ArbCom's admonishment to use it lightly: "accusations of being paid by a company to promote a point of view (i.e., a shill) or similar associations and using that to attack or cast doubt over the editor in content disputes. If accusations must be made, they should be raised, with evidence, at appropriate forums such as the user talk page, WP:COIN, or other appropriate places per WP:COI". I have tried over and over to get thru to Hatchens on my talk page and his, starting w/ a point-blank asking Hatchens to cease the accusation (retract), and then pointed to all our policies and ArbCom's findings about these aspersions. His ultimate response was just pure snark ("so now I am not being taken to WP:ANI? Oh Lord! (Sigh). You just broke my heart. And, you giving me a chance to redeem? Aah, so nice of you").

These types of baseless accusations are demoralizing and defaming. As I pointed out to Hatchens, I could easily flip this same type of attack on him: he has created minimal content or articles, but did create dubiously notable GO Navigator and GO Searcher, leaving him open to being accused of being a Guice Offshore promoter paid shill. He has shown no remorse or recognition that throwing around these accusations everywhere creates a hostile, chaotic environment. He seems to be mentored by Timtrent, and noticed they are tagging User_talk:Ktin#August_2020 (Ktin, editing since 2006) with the template lately too; similarly, seems like thin evidence w/o much basis. Also some discussion at Template_talk:Undisclosed_paid#Make_talk_page_discussion_mandatory_when_this_template_is_used.

My hope is that Hatchens can be warned to follow the steps recommended by ArbCom when making these accusations and avoid them entirely when not up to that level of presentation. He should also immediately retract his defamatory accusations towards me unless he wants to create a real case. It is important that newcomers be forced to recognize our longstanding core good-faith policies early to avoid settling into terrible habits which then spread and become commonplace among other new users. II | (t - c) 14:25, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

ImperfectlyInformed, let me help you out a bit. You should never pull sentences just out of context. It provides the wrong picture - "ImperfectlyInformed, Ok, so now I am not being taken to WP:ANI? Oh Lord! (Sigh). You just broke my heart. And, you giving me a chance to redeem? Aah, so nice of you. But, I guess I let it pass this time. As far as, whatever I need to agree or disagree is a concern, either I'll do it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BlueFocus Communication Group or at WP:ANI. So, let's meet either of the two places. Shall we? Hatchens (talk) 13:59, 18 August 2020 (UTC) (reply)" - This is the actual/full communication? do correct me. Hatchens (talk) 14:34, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

...Hatchens, is that really any better? I shouldn't have to open an ANI thread for you to engage with me on your harassment and personal attacks, and derailing the AfD with such a discussion isn't exactly great either. Can you engage on why you think it's appropriate to make this aspersion w/o evidence? When will you present evidence? II | (t - c) 14:47, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

ImperfectlyInformed, you did the right thing. I totally support you on this. Let everybody chip in and till then have patience. thank you. - Hatchens (talk) 14:51, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

ImperfectlyInformed, Not mentoring. We have had some cordial interactions, and I agree with pursuing evidence based claims of paid editing. I disagree with non evidence based claims. With regard to tagging Ktin you will see that I have accepted their assertion at once and worked with them to handle it. I believe relations with me and Ktin are fine, unless they disagree.

I think Hatchens ought simply have stopped and thought hard when you first made the strong suggestion that they did. I'm never keen on suicide by AN/I, and I hope they make a firm statement that they were in error and solve the issue in that simple manner Fiddle Faddle 15:01, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Timtrent, thank you. I cherish that interaction. It has been good learning. Hatchens (talk) 15:06, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Hatchens, I had also been enjoying it. As part of it I have made a very strong suggestion on your talk page, which I am sure you have seen by now. Please act on it and mean it. Fiddle Faddle 15:13, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

• It is never fun to see this kind of condescending language, and baseless allegations of paid editing are a serious violation of AGF. It seems as if Hitchens was goading II into starting an ANI thread where the allegations would be laid out, then; I cannot understand "let everybody chip in" in any other way. That is an abuse of this board also; it's the equivalent of "I don't know if these allegations are true; we'll wait and see". Drmies (talk) 15:23, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Drmies that 'baseless allegations of paid editing are a serious violation of AGF.' We have an established way of dealing with possible COI, and Hatchens has not followed it. In short, ask on the user talk page, then, if they state that they don't have a COI, the issue should only be pressed on admin noticeboards or Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. If allegations of COI continue outside of this framework, they are likely to be seen as Wikipedia:Casting aspersions.Dialectric (talk) 15:55, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

• All, I have a somewhat of a serious concern to bring up, and I have been debating whether I should be bringing it up here. I am doing so, with a hope that this will not spur retaliation of any form.

Sometime last week, almost all of the articles that I had created in the last three years were marked for AfDs by Hatchens, and a subset of them were marked with the paid editing WP:UPE tag, including the one referenced by ImperfectlyInformed upstream. One thing caught my attention too, and it was this conversation. - specifically to quote "As far as the WP:UPE is a concern, IDs from Nigeria are very easy to tackle because of their poor language and editing skills. But, the IDs from South Asian Subcontinent - especially India and Bangladesh are actually in my focus. They are not just editing Indian/subcontinent subjects or entities... they are often found to be editing American and European entities with expertise in using the existing grey areas of WP:GNG, WP:RS, and WP:VERIFY." This was right around the same time when the user had gone in and marked most my articles (from the last few years) for AfD and slapped the WP:UPE banner on a subset of them, without a rationale on the reasoning. I felt victimized because of my origins, because of the articles that I edited, the geographic conversations that I took part in. To me this indicates a set of actions that were perhaps coming out of good intent, but, definitely coming in from a place of discrimination and prejudice, and that should have no place in our community.

To be clear, I have nothing against the AfDs that have been triggered (or the fact that they were raised at all), some will stay, some will be deleted, and that's perfectly fine. But, we should not be starting from a place of prejudice.

Ktin (talk) 15:53, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Ktin, I don't think you have mentioned anything about your origin on your user page. Well its my mistake, if you have felt offended, I apologize. - Hatchens (talk) 16:14, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Hatchens, My only point is against the starting position of prejudice, and my statement above where I believe that we should not have any place in our community for that starting position of discrimination and prejudice. Regards. Ktin (talk) 16:45, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Ktin, Thank you for getting me corrected, and thank you for being kind enough. I apologize again if it had caused any hurt at your end. - Hatchens (talk) 16:49, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Hatchens, Thanks. I would also go forward and request that you withdraw / recuse yourself from any ongoing AfD / WP:UPE actions as it pertains to the South Asian Subcontinent - especially India and Bangladesh for a period of time of your decision (in good faith), and come back with a fresh slate to do away with any concerns of starting positions of prejudice. But, if others feel this is an over-reaction, I am ready to listen to their counsel as well. Regards. Ktin (talk) 17:38, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Ktin, I guess we will now work together on this as Wiki compatriots. And, of course, Timtrent is always there to help us. - Hatchens (talk) 17:45, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Hatchens, Not sure if you caught the spirit of my suggestion. I am sure we will work as good compatriots, and I am sure good guides will continue to be voices of reason. But, the onus of not holding discriminatory and prejudiced starting points is squarely within one's own self.

My request to you remains that you recuse yourself from any ongoing and new AfD / WP:UPE actions as it pertains to the South Asian Subcontinent - especially India and Bangladesh for a period of your decision (in good faith) and come back with a fresh slate. No amount of time is too less, and no amount of time is too much. Like I said earlier, this starting position should of prejudice should not have a place in this community.

I look forward to us working as Wiki compatriots. Regards. Ktin (talk) 05:51, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Ktin, Just struck off that particular comment on my talk page. Kindly check and advise. Thank you once again for helping me out. - Hatchens (talk) 06:07, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Hatchens, Thanks. My request of you was not necessarily to strike that comment from your conversation / talk page.

My point in this thread has been about the starting position of discrimination / prejudice which should not have any place in this community. Hence, my request to you is to take a moral stance and recuse yourself (i.e. withdraw yourself) from any ongoing or new WP:UPE or AfDs as it pertains to the South Asian Subcontinent - especially India and Bangladesh for a duration of time (in good faith), and come back with a fresh slate. Like I said earlier, no amount of time is too little, no amount of time is too much when it comes to this topic.

Regards. Ktin (talk) 06:14, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

My Defense: First of all, let me be very direct why I feel this particular page is WP:PROMO case and duly qualifies for WP:ADMASK.

1. Its' media citations are completely sponsored ones and part of either press release sites (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) or something near about like that. In short, it doesn't have much citations from sites listed on WP:RS or WP:RSPMISSING.

2. Just 4 passing mentions in Books.

3. Just couple passing mentions in Academic articles.

4. Nothing on JSTOR.

5. Nothing on NYT.

In short, it also fails WP:SIGCOV.

The page was created on April 26, 2020. And, as per the content... it has no encyclopedic value in the first place. So, I had all possible reasons to nominate this article and so I did. Because, at the personal level, I do not believe in - Speedy Deletion WP:SPEEDY. Every article creator should get a chance to justify his/her stand at the AfD pages.

However, instead of improving the article - the creator ImperfectlyInformed started a barrage of attack against me across multiple pages. You can refer to these links (1, 2, 3) and can easily deduce how an editor of 13 years of experience is threatening an editor with just 6 months' experience by showing off his knowledge with regards to Wikipedia rules and regulations. As per my 6 months of editing history, this kind of assertion can ben made only made when one has an extremely strong interest to protect such substandard pages on Wikipedia. My assumptions might be wrong, that's why I always take the AfD route. So a democratic process can do necessary justice to it.

I'm not here to undermine the power of administrators. If admins feels I am guilty. I'm ready to accept their verdict without putting up any protest. I have nothing more to say. Thank you for having me. -Hatchens (talk) 15:58, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

First, I apologize if I got hot under the collar and you felt attacked. I did you give the chance to work with me before ANI. Second, you should focus on the good-faith policies. Finally, while I don't want to rehash the AfD, I will briefly mention that of the currently cited sources, you only grabbed 1 (PRWeek). BlueFocus is a multibillion dollar company. PRWeek is not PR site, it's a trade magazine. AdAge also did an in-depth profile, as did The Globe and Mail. To be clear, I originally wrote the article because I was doing competitive analysis on WPP Group and Omnicon as potential investments, and also noticed that NYSE:LGC was looking to take BlueFocus ("Blue Impact") public via a SPAC. I also think that major companies influencing the world economy should be on Wikipedia, and Chinese companies are underrepresented. Currently do not hold any investments in ad agencies in my portfolio, nor have I in the past several years. Further, I don't feel that my relatively de minimis investments (typical size ~1% of assets, max 5%) would constitute a COI, altho perhaps I should look into that issue. Further, I have never edited a listed securities page while holding the security or shortly before or after. I also don't edit or create pages for microcap or small-cap securities which are much more my investment interest. BlueFocus is a midcap (around $2.5B USD market cap). II | (t - c) 16:12, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

• It's not about "guilty" or "verdicts", we aren't a court of law. It's about being a jackass to someone. Don't do that. Don't make claims without evidence. If you have a questions about someone's conflict of interest, try asking them on their talk page. Try taking the path of least drama instead of ramping it up when you have zero evidence. Is that simple enough? Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:13, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

  Dennis Brown, Yes sir! I got it. I apologize for that. - Hatchens (talk) 16:17, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

  Hatchens, a solid step to showing you've got it would be to amend your nom for the AfD so that instead of casting aspersions, the attack is replaced with an argument based upon WP:NCORP policy. Please read the citations in the article and explain why they don't demonstrate notability. II | (t - c) 16:24, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

  ImperfectlyInformed, yes I just amended the nomination. Thank you. - Hatchens (talk) 16:40, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

  Hatchens, and yet you left the first sentence personal attack saying that this was created for PR purposes? Also seems like you are ignoring my discussion and the existing citations, but that's irrelevant to the bad-faith aspersions. II | (t - c) 16:43, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

  ImperfectlyInformed, First sentence has been stricken off. Kindly check. -Hatchens (talk) 16:56, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

  Hatchens, you're going thru the motions w/o understanding the spirit. You struck the first sentence, but left the article saying "Qualifies WP:PROMO and WP:ADMASK" (advertisement masquerading as an article). So you're still saying the same thing - that I created an article to spam Wkipedia. Just stick to the damn sources without a bunch of loaded emotionally evocative garbage. II | (t - c) 17:09, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

  ImperfectlyInformed, Removed all the personal attacking text. Kept the AfD qualifying rules with proofs - as advised. Kindly help me with the AfD discussion. Thank you. - Hatchens (talk) 17:13, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

  Hatchens, why are you saying that I created an advertisement article? Just because it's a wikilink to a policy guideline doesn't make it not an attack on my motives. Strike that second sentence too ("Qualifies WP:PROMO and WP:ADMASK") and be more careful about calling people spammers and PR promoters in the future. Then we can close this and get back to building the encyclopedia. II | (t - c) 17:16, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

  ImperfectlyInformed, No can do. Whatever I felt with regard to AfD, I have given the proofs. If you still feel its a personal attack, I can't help much. If you can update the article and qualify it as per WP:HEY, then well and good. If it survives the AfD without WP:HEY, then also it's well and good. AfD discussion should run its course. - Hatchens (talk) 17:24, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

• @Hatchens: Based on your responses, I agree you're "going through the motions" without understanding anything here. Actually, you're coming across as strongly passive-aggressive, bordering on trolling. These are serious accusations that need to be self-evident to any reasonable person. Looking at the article it's obvious that it's not a promotional advertisement, and looking at the author it's clear that they're an established, trusted user, even holding the autopatrolled user right, meaning they're so trusted that we don't even need to review their creations. So accusing them of making advertisements is absolutely a personal attack. None of your updated rationales reinforce these claims. Saying you "can't help much" clearly shows that you're not understanding the problem here, because you need to be retracting your statements and apologizing. I'm retracting your personal attacks, and if I see you doing this again in the future, you're going to be blocked until you can show an understanding of why this behavior is not okay. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 05:27, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

  Swarm, I understood. Will avoid such unwanted circumstances. Thank you for guiding me. Shall I retract the "statement of proof" with an apology at the AfD page?. Kindly advise. - Hatchens (talk) 06:08, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

No, because you made a new argument about WP:SIGCOV, and the PROMO accusations have been removed. If you're going to apologize, apologize to the editor directly on their talk page. If you really want to make it right, don't make these accusations again going forward. Even at this point you show no understanding as to what makes an article promotional, so you'd best just refrain from making judgment calls in such cases. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 06:13, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Dear Swarm, I have withdrawn my nomination and submitted my apology to ImperfectlyInformed at the AfD discussion page and as well as at his's talk page. You're right!, I need to learn much more before putting any accusation or making any judgment calls. Also, I would like to apologize to the creator and everyone for unknowingly indulging in "personal attack" which has created an inconvenient situation for everyone. Thank you and thanks to everyone for guiding me and make me more aware of the rules which we all need to adhere, with absolute integrity. - Hatchens (talk) 06:39, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Hatchens. Wikipedia can be a rough place and I try not to hold grudges. I look forward to more positive interactions in the future, and I truly do appreciate your interest in helping to protect this place from spammers. But please remember that we are here to build an encyclopedia, and people should also not have to constantly defend their reasons for contributing content. Feel free to hit me up on my talk page if you need any advice, and if you email me we can do a telephone call if text becomes difficult. Also big thanks to the admins and long-term editors who commented (Swarm Drmies, Timtrent, Dialectric) for showing newcomers that our policies really do matter and nipping bad habits in the bud. II | (t - c) 06:52, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

ImperfectlyInformed, I'm totally in. Can I assist you to build up this page BlueFocus Communication Group? - only if you permit me. You might have noticed, I'm not much into article creation. Nothing would be much better than having a hand-on practice in the first place. And, yes thank you. I will be in touch with you via your talk page or email to learn more about the whole wiki editing (as per the rules). - Hatchens (talk) 07:18, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment — I assume this is going to be closed as “resolved” but I’d want to say this though, comments like this are condescending & very antagonizing & of a truth are not to be tolerated in this collaborative project. Moving forward I’d expect Hatchens to do better, having read comments above, it appears as though Hatchens only became remorseful when it seemed as though other editors weren’t “siding” him as he may have anticipated & was at risk of being issued a block. I’ve seen Hatchens do some good work thus far, hence my utmost surprise at that stereotype degrading comment of his. Celestina007 22:44, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

  Celestina007, Thanks for this note. Please pardon my persistence on this topic. I don't agree that this thread should be marked as resolved.

  My humble insistence is going to be that this user recuse / withdraw themself from any ongoing and new AfDs and WP:UPE actions for a duration of time (in good faith) and restart with a clean slate. Like I mentioned earlier, no amount of time is too little, or no amount of time is too much when it comes to this topic. This starting position of prejudice / discrimination should have no place in this community.

  Regards. Ktin (talk) 02:31, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring, personal attacks, and socking from IP

Two IPs (User:2600:6C4A:797F:F9E3:F08D:1027:D2D5:8B52 and User:75.48.228.60) have reverted content on Association for Behavior Analysis International. Violated WP:3RR after explicit warning not to. Both are from the same location and I believe them to be the same user, but on the talk page they represent themselves as different users. User accuses me of vandalism for adding sourced content to the article.

Reverts:

• [54]
• [55]
• [56]
• [57]

--66.244.121.212 (talk) 17:27, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

I have looked at primary and secondary sources available online and it certainly looks like the ABAI regularly gives the JRC a friendly platform to defend and promote their electrical torture research practiced on children. At no point does the ABAI break away from the JRC and deny the validity of the JRC's behavioral work, especially their controversial electrical GED tool. The award given by ABAI to JRC lawyer Robert A. Sherman is especially damning. The IPs from Portage, Michigan, should not be allowed to edit that article, because they are whitewashing the article and promoting the topic. The IPs from Portage should be blocked for edit warring and violations of WP:MULTIPLE, or perhaps the article could be semiprotected, but that would also turn out the OP who is seeking neutrality. In any case, the IPs from Portage must be placed under heavy WP:COI restrictions, as the ABAI is physically located in Portage. Binksternet (talk) 07:38, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Legal threat

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

---

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

With this edit this editor left a message at Talk:Nikko Briteramos entitled "White Supremacist Trolling" and wrote, "I notice a pattern of criminal conspiracy to inaccurately portray irrefutable facts found within certified legal documents. I ask that the #fbi and #cia bring the sources of these Cyber Crimes to justice." This appears to meet the criteria of a legal threat. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:01, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Also, this edit summary. Nat Gertler (talk) 21:11, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's pretty lame as threats go but it scrapes by the definition as "a threat to engage in an external (real life) legal or other governmental process that would target other editors". Blocked indefinitely. Cabayi (talk) 21:15, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

GNAA? Now that's a name I haven't heard in a long time. Solid block as well. RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:17, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

I've also revdelled a few of the more disruptive edit summaries. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:01, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

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

Promotional editing at Oren Moverman

• MovermanOren (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 173.56.75.8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• Melinataurus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 98.14.13.73 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2604:2000:F64B:6600:B912:C22A:8F00:6560 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

For years, Oren Moverman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been heavily edited by connected contributors, whether disclosed or not. Recently, MovermanOren and 173.56.75.8 keeps adding unsourced, promotional material and keeps removing sourced material. I left a warning at both users' talk pages, but they keep ignoring it. Looking at their edits, I think MovermanOren and 173.56.75.8 are engaging in sockpuppetry. Could someone block them and revert their edits? 153.209.66.212 (talk) 02:57, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Account blocked to prevent impersonation. I've warned the most recent IP, let us know if it continues and we'll consider page protection. GirthSummit _(blether) 04:01, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I can't tell if this is Moverman/his people or someone who is using his name and making him look bad. DÅRTHBØTTØ _(T•C) 17:49, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

173.56.75.8 is back again, adding unsourced, promotional material and removing sourced material. 153.201.109.227 (talk) 01:14, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

The article on Oren Moverman is now semiprotected three days by User:Seraphimblade. EdJohnston (talk) 11:53, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

1 threat, 1 personal information leaked, 3 personal attacks

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

---

Hi Administrators

I am on Wikipedia since 2018 but when the year ends i received a threat and my personal information was leaked in 2018 so i decided to change my username. A Wikipedia voluntarily response team helped me a lot. Now i am fed up and not only me but there are many others who have openly wrote a letter to Wikipedia team and raised the issue on social media. I am not a paid editor and whatever i did to Wikipedia is contributed from my end, from making pages to celebrities to public figures and places to religious places all were my contribution. but since 2019 i am being bullied here but few editors, whatever page i create, whoever the public figures are, if it is published in Dawn News or CNN, BBC to Nytimes every article of mine get deleted but when i ask them the reason they said "i am creating useless article and they are not passing notability" then i receive bunch of personal attacks, i received a threat on email in 2019 which i sent to law enforcement. Now last 5 articles which i created voluntarily is nominated for deletion and 2 is rescued somehow. I was suggested by administrator to make draft, i waited and voila the article got accepted by administrators and even patrolled too but in revenge my article got nominated for deletion by a guy "SAQIB" and "other" Mr. Saqib has been warned by more than two administrators and few editors in past to stop making personal comments. if you look into his talk page you will understand, now he started to put my article for deletion because i nominated 3 articles last month and 2 yesterday.

Please look here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wahdat and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Iffat_Rahim_(3rd_nomination) I am not taking revenge from any model at the time of nominating Iffat Rahim page there were no references and for Wahdat i put the article for deletion on 18 July 2020 last month so how am i on mass deletion spree? and why makes personal comments on me? why in revenge they put the deletion tag on Nick Wrenn Page? he was the VP of CNN International and passing notability and the page was accepted by administrator and editor but as soon as he knew that my page got approved he put the deletion tag in revenge. Same happens with Bin Swelah pages and later with Ayesha Chundrigar but luckily this page which i created of Anna Higgs is save else he would have put the deletion tag to that page too. there are many articles of mine which are nominated for deletion by them, and they do it because they don't like those celebrities. he did it with Waqar Zaka pages too and others. Can any administrator stop them to being doing this and making personal comments? I have never abuse anyone here and always give everyone a respect and in return i accept the same too.

Memon KutianaWala (talk) 09:57, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

See: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pakistanpedia. --Saqib (talk) 11:14, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi any administrators can look and investigate my account for sure i am not using any multiple accounts and using this since 2018 only, a person Saqib is doing this deliberately because i have complained here, please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wahdat. Mr. Saqib is either confused or in hurry to ban me but any sock puppet investigator can check my IP's and locations with other users who have been banned by the administrators :) Memon KutianaWala (talk) 11:51, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

• What exactly are you hoping to accomplish here with vague threats and personal attacks against long standing editors? Your articles being deleted are an indication of your lack of understanding of WP:N, not other editors. A review of articles of yours that have been deleted via AFD indicate multiple editors nominating, not just Saqib and not just me. Are you implying that we are somehow in cahoots? Praxidicae (talk) 13:40, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Further, you've created 24 articles in mainspace, of which 13 have been deleted (only 1 recreated) which is more than half of all of your creations. 10 of which were deleted via AFD with an overwhelming delete consensus, 1 is currently at AFD after you recreated it in mainspace. The other 2 were G7'd by you. This says a lot more about your editing than it does other editors. Praxidicae (talk) 13:44, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Memon KutianaWala has a history of lambasting editors who nominate his articles for deletion. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1024#AFD_Flooding_By_A_Member:. --Saqib (talk) 14:29, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I am not abusing anyone here deleting my page makes no sense, Mr. Saqib is doing everything deliberately and of evidence i have sent to Wikimedia Emergency team and will involved Cyber Crime Department if necessary too. He is not only being personnel but involved in abusing, slang language and threat in past. Memon KutianaWala (talk) 14:35, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

It seems to me that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of Wikipedia. It's been two years and has been explained multiple times to you. No one is attacking you (that I can see) from your edit history, they're nominating articles that fail our standards as part of a normal patrol process. Don't like it? Start going through WP:AFC. Also you really need to read WP:ASPERSIONS. I'd also strongly advise your next edit provides a diff to where Saqib threatened you, otherwise this is going to boomerang badly. Praxidicae (talk) 14:38, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

@Memon KutianaWala: will involved Cyber Crime Department if necessary too. are you saying that you will effectively call the police because you dislike the way deletion discussions have gone? Praxidicae (talk) 14:40, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Not involving officials for deleting my pages but for personal attacks on me and many others the evidence has been sent to the Wikipedia team and let them decide. My pages are deleted but Mr. Saqib did it because of revenge and if i am doing something wrong Admin will block me simple and if i am not not doing anything wrong they will leave me :) But Mr Praxidicae according to you my articles are not notable ok i agreed did i argue with you? my question is same why many Pakistani articles who are not notable are having a Wikipedia pages here? i have put deletion tag on few and some were deleted too but in return Mr. Saqib started harassing me that why i have put the AFD on them and in return he put two AFD on my pages. Mr.Praxidicae tell me honestly is this page is not notable? Nick Wrenn if you say No then i will send you 20 articles here which were edited by Mr. Saqib and you need to put the AFD by yourself. Debate end and i am leaving this on Administrators, meanwhile i have sent evidence to emergency team and involved few officials there.Memon KutianaWala (talk) 14:41, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Dear Praxidicae i am not talking about you but i am not sure whenever i speak about Mr. Saqib he either involves you to take part in discussion or you come from your end. In 2019 i received a threat a dangerous one, my personal information was leaked on Wikipedia. on Email wikimedia emergency team helped me then i changed my username to this. for a personal attacks forget about me just go to Mr. Saqib talk page and you will see. Memon KutianaWala (talk) 14:46, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

• Memon's response here is unsatisfactory and shows yet another inability to grasp basic Wikipedia norms and policies both regarding deletion and treatment of other editors. Continued personal attacks, aspersion casting and now legal threats to involve "cyber crime unit" because they can't seem to get WP:N and WP:V down leads me to believe they need an extended Wikibreak. I'd propose a lengthy block until they can demonstrate that they understand 1.) Wikipedia is an encyclopedia 2.) Editors who disagree with them are not bullying them 3.) AFD nominations which for the most part, seem to be successful are not bullying and are a normal part of patrolling and finally 4.) they can demonstrate competence through an understanding of the above mentioned policies without resorting to personal attacks and pointless ANI threads. Praxidicae (talk) 14:47, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

That's not enough he said i am a sock puppet and using multiple accounts just because he don't like me means i am a sock puppet lol any CPI and administrators can check my location and IP address and if they find me that i am using Wikipedia for abusive purpose or even using multiple accounts then i will leave Wikipedia from my own and will never come back.Memon KutianaWala (talk) 14:49, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

The fact that you think the primary issue here is someone filing a reasonable SPI is indicative of the problem I just described above and demonstrates your inability to understand the basic function of Wikipedia. Praxidicae (talk) 14:51, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I'd support a 1 month block, since this user is utterly failing to get the point. That should give Memon KutianaWala some time to read up on the actual purpose of Wikipedia. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:13, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi sure ban me no problem but can you guys stop sending me death threats on email please? i am receiving emails from Wikipedia since last hour. I have forwarded the emails to Trust and Safety team of Wikipedia and involved VP of Wikipedia Miss Denis. it all started after i posted here, Wikipedia is for this purpose? i have created this thread for complaint and in return editors are silencing my voice and sending me death threats and abusing my mother in email. what a shame guys its either you two whom i nominated or (Redacted) that is why i mention to emergency team that i will involve Cyber Crime Police.Memon KutianaWala (talk) 17:26, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Whats wrong with you? You OUTING me now. --Saqib (talk) 17:36, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Really? do you have any shame left (Redacted)? i am receiving emails from your name from Wikipedia user where i m receiving a threat, i have sent the header and the email with the details to emergency team and trust and safety wikipedia. in email why you are abusing my family? the email has been received to me 3 times in an hour with your name. I have been assured by emergency team to look into this matter, (Redacted) stop doing this i told you before, that is why i stated to involve FIA officials.Memon KutianaWala (talk) 17:40, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Do we have an admin around who can look into this case please. This user constantly accusing me for sending him abusive emails, whereas he busy outing me and threatening me with legal action. --Saqib (talk) 17:47, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I am not accusing you i am telling you to stop else i will do, meanwhile the email copy and further details sent to Mr. Samuel, Miss Sydney from Emergency team and Miss Maggie Denis. In fifth email which i received was saying your name and using very slang language. any administrators if needed the email password of my Wikipedia or email needed then please don't hesitate to ask. I have also sent evidences to CA team Wikipedia about Mr. Saqib who was in past involved in using slang language and was involved in abusive behavior. Memon KutianaWala (talk) 17:52, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Where in past I was involved in using slang language and was involved in abusive behavior? Care to provide diff. or evidence? --Saqib (talk) 18:09, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

• Given the accusation of off-wiki stalking, the emails need to be forwarded to the arbcom. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:57, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

  Deepfriedokra, My understanding from the comments above is that T&S is already in possession of the emails in question. It might be time to close this thread. SQL^{Query me!} 18:00, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

• Hi Deepfriedokra i forwarded to ca@wikimedia, emergency@wikimedia and VP of Wikimedia Miss Dennis too, total i have received 8 emails so far.Memon KutianaWala (talk) 17:59, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

• @Memon KutianaWala: Then I don't know what needs to be done here. @SQL:. I see no point in continuing this either, but would rather someone else close it.18:04, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks everyone all the evidences has been sent to CA team of Wikipedia and they told me "we are investigating" and thus i am forwarding details to them and law enforcement too as received a (life threat).Memon KutianaWala (talk) 18:14, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

1 threat, 1 personal information leaked, 3 personal attacks-- part 2

Postscript: I have closed three AfD nominations related to this dispute as WP:NACD. They are Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nick Wrenn, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bin Swelah and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maya Alhawary, all closed under WP:SKCRIT #2 as "... nomination[s] ... unquestionably made for the purposes of ... disruption and ... no uninvolved editor has recommended deletion or redirection as an outcome of the discussion." All three articles were created by Memon KutianaWala and nominated by Saqib after accusing MKW of being on a "reckless deletion spree". Given that Saqib has nominated over 60 articles in the same time period MKW has nominated fifteen, there is no possible WP:AGF explanation for that accusation. The timing also demonstrates that Saqib nominated these after coming into dispute with MKW at the Wahdat AfD. As these two factors place the nominations clearly out of process, I have closed both. I take no position on the remainder of the mutual accusations above nor on the ultimate notability of these article subjects. If an admin thinks these closes were not covered by NACD, please feel free to revert without further discussion. Thank you. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:42, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

@Eggishorn: I don't particularly agree with the closure as there was not enough discussion. Looking forward to other views. This whole affair has been bizarre. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:47, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra:, as I said, I have no objections if you think these nominations truly have merit and the AfD's should proceed I think, however, that the obvious animosity of the two editors towards each other's work and the out-of-process opening makes new nominations by fresh eyes preferable. Perhaps that is needless bureaucracy but drawing a clean line underneath the issue and starting new discussions seems wise. I hope that helps explain why I NAC'ed them. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:38, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Post postscript: I received a clear and blatant legal threat by email, and have blocked Memon KutianaWala indefinitely per WP:NLT. In accordance with the blocking policy, I have forwarded the evidence to ArbCom. – bradv🍁 22:37, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Bradv referring something to arbcom feels like one of those spiderman pointing memes... —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 02:27, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

The thread title is starting to sound like the 12 Days of Christmas, ANI edition... GeneralNotability (talk) 02:42, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Interaction ban proposal

I'm in email discussion with User:Memon KutianaWala, who is blocked for making a legal threat, and I've seen material that they have also sent to the emergency folks and to ArbCom. It's very disturbing material. User:Saqib, meanwhile, has had the following three AfD's closed: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nick Wrenn, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bin Swelah, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maya Alhawary by User:Eggishorn with an explanation given at User talk:Saqib#Bad faith in AfD discussions. Now Saqib is accusing Memon KutianaWala of paid editing without providing any evidence, at User talk:Praxidicae#Paid articless?. There's clearly bad blood between these two, and it looks like it stretches back some time. So, at least while various people are investigating the off-wiki evidence, I'd like to propose an indefinite interaction ban between User:Saqib and User:Memon KutianaWala, which can be appealed/revisited when this personal dispute is resolved. (I will now go and notify everyone I've mentioned here right away.) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:25, 20 August 2020 (UTC)) Withdrawn - Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:11, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

@Boing! said Zebedee: For the record, I did not sent any e-mail to Memon KutianaWala. In-fact, I received an e-mail from his side, but I did not bothered to reply back. Could you please at-least share the evidence with my as well? --Saqib (talk) 16:52, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

@Saqib: Thank you for the information, but I don't think I can forward anything on to you - I will send it to ArbCom. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:14, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

@Boing! said Zebedee: And may I ask why you just can't share with me the e-mail of whatever it is, which you believe was sent to Memon by me. --Saqib (talk) 17:18, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

@Saqib: I don't *believe* anything was sent by you, as I can not tell if what I have is genuine - just that I have seen some disturbing material. So I apologise if it came across as if I believe any allegations. I can not forward material sent to me by one person on to another without the sender's permission as that would be a serious failure of communications etiquette. (Also, please see my reply to Bradv too). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:42, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Boing! said Zebedee, this may be just my opinion, but if you don't have permission to share allegations against another user, it probably shouldn't have been mentioned onwiki. – bradv🍁 17:19, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Exactly. And also the claims that there's "bad blood between these two, and it looks like it stretches back some time." when literally I don't remember If I've ever came across with this user called Memon before yesterday. --Saqib (talk) 17:28, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

@Bradv: Yes, you are right, it was a mistake on my part to mention it, so I apologise for that. I got my "bad blood between these two" thing partly from the interactions above, and I might have misjudged that. I have other speculations, but I think it's best if I send them only to Bradv/ArbCom. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:42, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:25, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
• oppose this seems over the top to me. Maybe Saqib acted in bad faith, I dunno but subjecting someone who was outed in this very thread to an iban because another user fundamentally misunderstands Wikipedia (and as a consequence, is now blocked indefinitely with TPA revoked) seems counter-productive, punitive and reactionary, considering the other party is indefinitely blocked and should remain that way without even considering their legal threats. Praxidicae (talk) 15:35, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

  It's not because "another user fundamentally misunderstands Wikipedia", Memon KutianaWala simply made legal threats which were actually (at least in part) about off-wiki attacks and harrassment. The off-wiki material I have seen is very disturbing, but it needs investigation rather than being taken at face value, and time is needed for that. Meanwhile, I think Memon KutianaWala could be very close to being unblocked. I really think an interaction ban would provide some needed breathing space so the matter can be resolved without any further accusations or attacks happening in either direction. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:42, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

  That wasn't my point. He happened to be blocked for that before any of the other on-wiki issues were evaluated and as I've repeatedly pointed out, this entire thread is based on the fact that Memon does not understand process (also evidenced by the fact that he was harassing me on IRC after I asked him to stop multiple times.) Had he not been blocked for a legal threat, I would have proposed a lengthy block for competence and repeated, continued personal attacks that extend well beyond the thread here. I think this iban proposal is over the top and punitive for Saqib. Breathing room is fine, but Saqib is a respected editor here, why not ask him to back off and wait for a response before going for the nuclear option? Praxidicae (talk) 15:47, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

  Also I think it's unfair to discuss off-wiki evidence that appears to implicate another editor and then ask the community to evaluate a sanction on an editor without being able to evaluate the implied evidence themselves (and no, I am not asking it to be made public.) Praxidicae (talk) 15:51, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

  I understand what you're saying, and I have asked Saqib to keep away voluntarily for now. If he agrees, I'll withdraw this proposal. Or if he doesn't, it might be rejected by the community anyway on the basis that the evidence is not public. If the proposal does not pass, and disruption continues, I guess I'll have to ask ArbCom to step in as they have seen the relevant material. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:57, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

  I agree harassing Praxidicae was unacceptable. But IMO we haven't dealt well with this as a community. For example, it was stated above "are you saying that you will effectively call the police because you dislike the way deletion discussions have gone". But where was such a threat ever made? It seems clear that the claim by Memon KutianaWala has always been that the reports relate to "abusing, slang language and threat in past." and "threat on email in 2019". When pushed further they claimed "bad words about my mother, calling me swine and gave personal threat to me". There are further claims about stuff going back to 2018 which allegedly required the WMF's involvement, although precisely who was responsible for those problems is unclear. I would assume if there were serious problems with what an editor did, the WMF would have banned them or at least given them a serious warning so it seems not particularly likely it's someone who is still active. Whether any of these abusive emails actually exist, and what they actual said is something we could never deal with here, so it was always the wrong place and so naming the alleged party was highly problematic, and the outing even worse. Still the best way to deal with it IMO was to tell the editor "Your allegations are serious and I understand why you are aggrieved if they are true, but it's not something we can deal with here so email arbcom and/or the WMF. If you feel the threats are serious enough to warrant legal reports, that's up to you. Unfortunately we will have to block you until such legal issues are resolved." I can sort of understand why they were further aggrieved when they made serious allegations here and these seemed to be partly ignored or misunderstood, even if the way they responded to Praxidicae was unacceptable. Nil Einne (talk) 17:58, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose per Praxidicae. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:53, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
• Considering this is a matter of apparently very serious private evidence, any outcomes should probably rest in the hands of ArbCom alone. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 16:01, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

  Yes, it is in their hands. I'm really just exploring ways to contain any ongoing disputes while they deal with it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:08, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Well I appreciate the effort, but it feels like a bit of an academic exercise until we know if Memon will be unblocked or not, and from my view, with limited knowledge of the evidence, I think they won't be. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 16:14, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Well, Memon has effectively told me they withdraw the legal threat, so I think there's a case for proposing unblocking now - which I would not do without the consent of User:Bradv, of course. And if the dispute is continuing one-sided in the meantime, that's hardly fair. (I'll notify Bradv of this discussion). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:22, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

In which case, I think my original proposal of a block of Memon should be reopened. If we're going to call for a sanction on Saqib who afaict, hasn't done anything aside from potentially revenge nomming an article, why is an indef for Memon not still on the table? This is not the first time we've spent days on end trying to explain the basic function of Wikipedia to them. Praxidicae (talk) 16:28, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Re: "afaict". You can't tell, and it's got nothing to do with the alleged revenge nom. If you want to propose a separate block of Memon for reasons other than the reason they are currently blocked, that's entirely up to you. The fact that the material in question is not public is a problem, I admit, and I'm wondering if I should just ask ArbCom if they think an interaction ban might be a useful interim measure while they investigate. I'll think on it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:49, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

• I think this is unnecessary at this juncture. Memon KutianaWala is blocked, and is going to stay blocked at least until they withdraw the legal threat. At that point the unblocking admin (or ArbCom, given the nature of the private evidence) can implement an interaction ban as an unblock condition. Boing! said Zebedee, you mention above that you have other private evidence pertaining to Saqib – I don't believe this has been sent to ArbCom. – bradv🍁 16:52, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

  Thanks Bradv, I'll drop you a line shortly - I'll need to get permission to forward it on to you. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:11, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

• this would all be better sorted by the people with extra large mops and magic glasses. Again, this whole discussion is moot. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:30, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

• Having now seen the private evidence in question, I would recommend that this discussion be closed without action. There is nothing here that implicates Saqib, and I consider it quite likely that they were being impersonated. Memon KutianaWala remains blocked for the unretracted legal threat, which can be appealed to ArbCom. – bradv🍁 20:44, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

  Figured as much. Endorse close courtesy ping User:saqib. Fix ping --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:02, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

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

Date-changing vandal in the Chicago area

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

---

Someone using IPs from near Chicago has been vandalizing hip hop music articles by changing dates. The IPs come from Chicago Heights, Richton Park and neighboring Park Forest. A year ago, the same vandalism was coming from St Louis, Missouri, IPs, interspersed with Park Forest IP 108.252.133.42 which was blocked for a year. Please block the range Special:Contributions/2600:1700:F190:CCD0:0:0:0:0/64.

Involved IPs listed below. Binksternet (talk) 22:46, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Our friend The Anome has blocked the above range for two years. Binksternet (talk) 23:35, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Involved IPs

2020 Feb–Aug – 2600:1700:F190:CCD0:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) from Park Forest 2020 Jun – 73.8.116.47 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) from Chicago Heights 2020 Jun – 73.45.17.160 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) from Chicago Heights 2020 Jun – 73.168.142.237 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) from Homewood 2019 Aug – 172.56.12.198 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) from St Louis 2019 Aug – 172.56.12.222 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) from St Louis 2019 Jun – 2600:387:B:7:0:0:0:69 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) from Chicago 2019 May – 2600:387:B:5:0:0:0:89 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) from Chicago 2019 Mar–Sep – 108.252.133.42 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) from Park Forest (blocked for one year) 2019 Dec – 2601:244:4900:1540:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) from Richton Park (blocked for two weeks) 2018–2020 – 2600:1702:3310:6C30:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) from Richton Park (blocked for one year) 2018–2020 – 76.231.64.214 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) from Park Forest (blocked for two years) 2017–2018 – 2602:304:CE74:D60:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) from Richton Park (blocked for one month) 2016 – 2601:244:4900:12B0:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) from Park Forest 2016–2019 – 50.201.7.46 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) from Chicago Heights (blocked for two years) 2016 – 2601:244:4901:4C0:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) from Park Forest 2016 – 2601:241:8304:AAC0:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) from Chicago 2016 – 2601:241:8381:2850:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) from US 2016 – 2601:241:8304:BCD0:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) from Chicago 2016 – 2601:241:8381:2850:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) from US 2015 – 2601:241:8302:41EA:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) from Chicago

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

2409:4060:31F:E993:99FE:CDCB:666:E5DD

2409:4060:31F:E993:99FE:CDCB:666:E5DD (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) Self-admitted sock of Nitten Das (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki), who is, at least when I interpret Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nittin Das/Archive corretly, now site-banned under WP:3X. Please block the IP with talkpage acces disabled. Site note: I am intentionally not going to notify the IP of this due to WP:RBI and to not give the sock another platfrom. If I should in future report such cases elsewhere, please let me know. Victor Schmidt (talk)

I blocked the IP. Admitted socks can be reported to WP:AIV. If it requires proof or explanation, it should be reported to the appropriate case at WP:SPI. It's not just bureaucracy. There are scripts and templates that have been designed to work at SPI, and some of them don't work elsewhere. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:26, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Personal attacks from 185.66.252.235

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

---

• 185.66.252.235 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Kazakhstan medical cases chart (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This person called me a thief for allegedly stealing the IP's draft chart from his sandbox (Wikipedia:Sandbox). Really? 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. (In this case, a draft chart.) I have some draft pages that got edited by other user and I didn't care about it. there is a draft article I made that has some of the concepts "stolen" into the Typhoon Hagupit, but I also don't care. Now, about the chart IP claimed I'm "stealing" it, I'm not in any way stole that chart. I just appended his draft chart to the template to reflect the reality in Kazakhstan and to make the IP's edits to not seem disruptive. In fact, i'm trying to improve the template with the draft chart IP made - for that i'm grateful. IP also claimed that I'm imposing my POV to the IP's template. No. I'm trying to get the template to follow MOS set by other templates. It's pretty neutral as I can get.

IP also attacked me for "teaching" the IP (I actually welcoming the IP with some caution in order to help the IP to become a Wikipedian) and calling for civility (I'm actually doing it as IP said to Xberkutx (talk · contribs), translated from Russian in this edit summary: Why the heck you delete without explanation. This is not a gain! This is a retrospective of the association with pneumonia! and to Windows XP build 2542 (talk · contribs) with this edit summary (Translated from Russian): Explain, what the fuck .. you erased he mortality data of the Ministry of Health without explanation? XP-iha is buggy, upgradeable.

In the end, IP called me to "talk about academic honesty principles, young boy" (i'm not lying and actually honest about what I'm doing.) and claimed that i have to seek devils in your own "black soul". (I'm doing it since long time ago. I'm not SMB99thx of the past. I'm different from what it is today.)

Because of this, i believe the IP should be blocked for at least 3 or 6 months for uncollaborative behavior in this sensitive topic and give semi-protection (per general sanctions) in the pages this IP has been involved, including template linked in the top:

• • Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Kyrgyzstan medical cases chart (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Syria medical cases chart (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • COVID-19 pandemic in Kyrgyzstan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • COVID-19 pandemic in Denmark (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • COVID-19 pandemic in Belarus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • COVID-19 pandemic in Mozambique (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • COVID-19 pandemic in the State of Palestine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • COVID-19 pandemic in Suriname (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • COVID-19 pandemic in Georgia (country) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • COVID-19 pandemic in Mozambique (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Cameroon medical cases chart (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I hope this should be finished quickly. I'm Christian, by the way. SMB​99​thx Email! 11:21, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

As I recall you are not allowed to claim credit for another users work.Slatersteven (talk) 11:23, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Oh. Thank you. I forgot to credit the IP for these edits. The IP is a capable editor and knows coding about charts but has an unacceptable behaviour. For that i'm grateful, but the IP's behaviour looks like it deserves to be blocked. SMB​99​thx Email! 11:32, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Have they had a formal warning before?Slatersteven (talk) 11:35, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

No. I'm the first person to warn the IP. SMB​99​thx Email! 11:38, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

People do own the copyright to any work of theirs eligible for copyright. They have agreed to licence said work under certain terms by contributing here, but those terms require attribution. If you are going to copy stuff within Wikipedia, please make sure you comply with WP:Copying within Wikipedia unless you are absolutely sure you don't have to (there is zero copyright in the work e.g. because it doesn't meet the essential elements for protection or you have the permission of the original contribution not to comply). Also if someone is in the midst of actively editing or creating a page, it's generally polite to let them finish rather than copying their work when it's half complete. Or when it's completely but they haven't yet got around to copying it (e.g. maybe they are checking it one more time). Obviously the precise details of what's reasonable will depend on the situation e.g. if it's late breaking news on a highly edited page someone cannot expect no one to edit for 5 minutes while they do stuff. Nil Einne (talk) 13:44, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

While I agree 100% with that as a very clear matter of policy, their comments on the OPs talk page are unacceptable personal attacks. There's no cause to start off with accusations of bad faith and personal insults. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:13, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox: It's important to point out that it's not just me that the IP has insulted other people. I've pointed that the IP's edit summary insulted Windows XP build 2542 by calling XP "buggy, upgradeable" (referring to the username Windows XP build 2542 has used - i believe it is derogatory). SMB​99​thx Email! 23:23, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: Oh. When the IP called me a "thief", he focused on a particular contribution where I forgot to attribute the IP's work (with the edit summary of me personally disliking what happened on template - I don't believe the pneumonia cases should be added as it was reported differently from coronavirus cases. I've considered reverting into the version I preferred (before the modification), but i've decided to help IP's work instead by copying his draft into the template and with some further modifications (the current revision of the template right now since the IP did not revert the edits I made) as i want to be nice and make the IP's work follow the MOS). I wrongly assumed that the IP either released his work under public domain or i assumed that IP released his work by CC-BY-SA-3.0 and GFDL license, but i forgot to attribute his work. Either way, the IP attacked me for that reason. I personally release my work under CC and the GFDL license like many on Wikipedia, but i rarely assume my copyright. From now on, I will try to comply WP:Copying within Wikipedia by always attributing other people's work when i copy them. Honestly, I has a history of copying other people's work, and it's in order to make Wikipedia better, but i never attributed them (and they don't care about it). This time and from now on, I will attribute people's work even if they don't care. And for that reason, I will apologize to the IP for forgetting to attribute his work.

However, despite this apology I want to say something more about the IP, based on what I can infer from the messages they sent when someone is doing something to their work. I want to point out that by from edit summary the IP made, translated from Russian: To Xberkutx: Why the heck you delete without explanation. This is not a gain! This is a retrospective of the association with pneumonia! it sounds like that the IP acted like the owner of the template, not just a person who want to simply contribute. And speaking of IP calling me a thief, it's not just simply a "thief" but a "tiny, dirty, stinky thief!". Which made me feel recently that even if I attribute their work, they would just attack me anyway regardless. This is why I called them a capable editor but has an unacceptable behavior (ownership tendencies (which means this IP didn't assume that they release the work under CC-BY-SA-3.0 and GFDL license) and prone to personally insult other people (i've mentioned the examples above)). For this reason, this is why i decided to bring this to ANI and seeking a block on the IP - based on the IP's history. While I'm trying to be nice with many IPs I have interacted with, sometimes I have to be tough towards IPs to prevent disruption, or in this case a further personal attacks from the IP. SMB​99​thx Email! 23:23, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

While I'm going to be away for a while, I want to also point out that:

• This IP, other than three incidents I mentioned above, clearly has a productive track record like suggesting fixes in Template talk:Graph:Chart and clearly improved templates and articles this IP has involved in, for example adding a medical cases chart (alternate view of data) for COVID-19 pandemic in the State of Palestine article. This is why i called this IP a "capable editor" and instead of extended confirmed protection, i preferred a semi protection in these articles. For the block, i preferred a long one, but shorter block may be more appropriate (still including revoking talk page access) because first, this IP did not engage in disruptive editing and second, this IP never actually reverted edits that other people did to their work. If this IP did some reverts, they did not do it in a technical way. However when they revert some edits, the problems show up and that problem is what I reported to ANI.
• As what happened with the other incidents of harassment, with the way it works i believe we have to do some revision deletions. They are:

• [58]
• [59]
• [60]
• [61]

I'm not sure for the IP's talk page, but i prefer to keep it instead.

I hope this situation should be finished by now. SMB​99​thx Email! 02:31, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Please clarify the underlying issue first: did you copy work done by someone else and post it as if it were yours? Johnuniq (talk) 02:32, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I did copy the work by someone else. But I did not post it as my work. I just forgot attributing the work to that person I just copied. SMB​99​thx Email! 03:13, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

We can discuss whether "I forgot" is reasonable another time but why are you here trying to get someone sanctioned when the underlying issue is that another editor created some content that you took as your own? Wouldn't it be more reasonable to say something like "sorry, you're right, I shouldn't have done that; by the way, please don't use offensive language". Johnuniq (talk) 03:32, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

I want to get that IP sanctioned because the IP made a strongly offensive and unacceptable messages towards me (that I have a "black soul" and called me a "tiny, dirty, stinky thief!") and also made other messages towards two other editors Windows XP build 2542 and Xberkutx that i considered it condescending and uncivil. This is not just me only, but for the other people involved that edited IP's work. I could have been done as what you have said (and revert my edit on the template), but i can't tolerate what the IP has been done towards not just me, but also to the other users. SMB​99​thx 03:54, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

That was the reason why i'm seeking sanctions towards the IP as i'm not an admin. However, with the way this ANI is going as the IP is a productive editor and the IP did not do anything wrong other than personally attack three other editors (i want ANIs i involved in to be pretty fair as possible), i'm willing to consider that this ANI be closed with no actions (or some actions, preferably revdel ones) other than apologies and the IP should not make (To any user) edit summaries if they don't like what the other person editing their edits in the future. I do not want any further conflicts with this IP going forward. I could be wrong sometimes, and no one is perfect. SMB​99​thx 04:05, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Uh, yeah. The IP was wrong to personally attack you, but with that being said, copying content without attribution on Wikipedia is intellectual property theft. Under Wikipedia's license, we release our contributions for free use with the caveat that they will remain attributed to us. By copying content without attribution, you're inherently claiming to be a copyright holder releasing their content for free use with the caveat that it will remain attributable to you. You're stealing the credit for someone else's content, violating someone else's legal rights and invalidating the license in which we all operate under. Here you are arguing that the IP should recieve some draconian block, yet you have still not resolved the copyright violation that you created. I'm sorry but copyright violations are considered to be far more serious than personal attacks here because there are actual real-world legal consequences for copyvios. We aggressively block for this if education is not successful. Fix the damn copyvio, apologize to the IP for not giving them credit, and move on with your life. This is not asking a lot, attribution can simply be provided with a url to the original copied edit in an edit summary. Just fix your mistake, admit that you were wrong, and move on. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 07:57, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

I reverted, apologized, admitted my mistake and I'll move on with my life and continue my work on English Wikipedia. Done. Lessons learned and i will not do it again. No need for this ANI to continue and this should be closed, preferably as quick as possible. SMB​99​thx 08:54, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

That's all well and good, but the point is not that you need to revert, it's simply that you need to provide attribution. Like I said, this can be as simple as saying "copied from [url or wikilink]" in the edit summary. The goal here is not to chastise you so that you revert yourself and run off, it's merely to educate you so that you can make these kinds of edits without the errors. This shouldn't be closed as quickly as possible, but simply once you understand the problem. You self-reverting does not suggest that you understand the problem. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 10:26, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Swarm, I understand the problem. I undid my self-revert and i finally attributed the IP's edit to this edit. I note that there is some modifications i made - i attributed it again. I fully understand what i have done. SMB9​9thx my edits 10:47, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

I finally fixed the copyvio i made in the template. I also did my copyedits to make it substantially different from the original. SMB99thx my edits 11:25, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

As a finishing touch, i attributed other people's work, including notes about modifications from the original with the help of this guideline to fix the references, and though with some errors. As such, i fixed it with this final edit i made. I'm going to sleep now. SMB9​9thx my edits 12:31, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

I am wondering about a boomerang warning about IP theft. Sure the IP needs a warning too, about PA's.Slatersteven (talk) 10:32, 21 August 2020 (UTC) I note in the apology " I will not try to as you call it "steal" your edits if you are not done with the work". no you are not allowed to steal other people work, even if they have finished it. It is clear to me you do not get it.Slatersteven (talk) 10:36, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven, I changed the apology as you quickly pointed it out - i will not steal other people's work, regardless of it is a draft or a final work. By the way, i did what i have to do - fix the damn copyvio, as Swarm said. I get what i have done to myself, i get it. Regardless of that, i think boomerang warning to me is acceptable as i want to learn my lesson on this day to not repeat it in the future. SMB9​9thx my edits 10:49, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

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

Continued mass changes

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

User:75.145.78.121 has continuously, on and off throughout this year, changed RCA → RCA Records in the infoboxes of David Bowie albums despite that going against Template:Infobox_album. They have been blocked repeated but are now back changing it. Could we permanently ban this IP? This user has never once tried to explain themselves despite mine and other editors' attempts. User:Pdcook and I have concluded that this IP and 2601:1C2:4100:EC0:494F:A99B:31C8:61B8 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) are the same person, as they have made the exact same edits continuously. – zmbro _(talk) 18:32, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support topic ban per WP:CIR. —{CrypticCanadian} 21:51, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't believe a topic ban is what is being asked for here, or would be an effective solution since they are uncommunicative. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:03, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

OP wants a permanent ban of some sort for this editor, but making it larger than a TBAN seems unenforceable to me. I suggested a TBAN because I'm not sure how else I'd deal with this problem. Long-term blocks of IPs carry the threat of collateral down the line, and this user has shown that they can use more than one IP. They might not be communicative but it would be fairly easy to single out this editor for ban enforcement based on this particular behavioural pattern regardless of which IP they're using. —{CrypticCanadian} 22:27, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

• I've given the 75 address a year off. The other one hasn't edited in four months. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:08, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Personal attacks by User:EEng at Talk:Kamala Harris

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

---

• EEng (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Talk:Kamala Harris (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

A disagreement about how frequently a talkpage should be archived and how when it has recently exploded in size (due to the subject being in a high profile event) and become difficult to load and navigate has been subject to aggressive reverts, an attitude of ownership and personal attacks by User:EEng who has taken to throwing around insults and making it impossible to discuss the situation calmly.

This comment in particular is absolutely appalling and completely uncalled for. Much of the other behaviour problems can be seen in this posting.

Given even the talk page has attracted media attention because of the subject's importance it is critical that the page has a calm conducive atmosphere and such abuse is completely kept out.

User:EEng has a long history of being blocked many times - I struggle to think of another user I've seen where the block log summary only contains some of the blocks - including at least five times for personal attacks. Given this history and their response to their behaviour being called out it is clear that it would be a complete waste of time to try discussing it with them individually first. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:25, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

• User notified. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:26, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
• This is not good, and marking that edit as "minor" is just abuse of the "minor" checkbox by Timrollpickering. The first time you changed the archive setting you also marked that edit as "minor", so it's repeated abuse of the "minor edit" checkbox. I haven't followed this thing, but I smell Australian wood. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 23:35, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

  A friendly reminder that Arbcom has authorized escalating blocks for editors who repeatedly employ coy circumlocutions for boomerangs. You have been warned. EEng 01:36, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

  This isn't a boomerang situation, but the OP should remember to take it to the talk page next time he makes a bold edit that gets reverted. And while I generally appreciate EEng's humor, few talk page disputes are likely to be enhanced by a joking insinuation that your opponent would advocate for mass murder. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 03:08, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

• I've notified User:Valereee and User:Ivanvector who seem somewhat involved to me as admins who voiced their opinion on Talk:Kamala Harris#Changing archiving. (and they agree with EEng) And so do I. About EEng's hungry people comment, I think that was obviously over-the-top and not meant to be taken seriously. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 23:47, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
• Two-day auto-archiving is a ridiculous setting choice. Even for exploding discussions we should not set the archive rate so high that only always-on-Wikipedia-editors are capable of participating. And EEng missed a fine opportunity for a literary allusion by not suggesting that the dead bodies be eaten. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:53, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

  Sorry, I have a lot on my plate right now. EEng 01:36, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

• Why do people mention E's supposedly long block log like the rest of us can't see that it's filled with overturned blocks, a joke block, etc. I think the whole log boils down to one unchallenged partial block and one unchallenged 3RR block in like the last five years. Lev!vich 00:13, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

  However the fact that they are regularly featured at ANI (the previous one was last week if I remember correctly), and that a large selection of administrators DO block them for something they perceive as a blockable offense means they are deliberately balancing on the edge for years. Unless they realize this and move from the edge, they need to be helped with being separated from this project for a while.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:36, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

  That's one interpretation. Another is that there's a small proportion (3%, let's say) of admins whose understanding of community norms is not only less acute than is my understanding (which is why they block me) but also less acute than is the understanding of most editors in general (which is why the community overturns them). And how delicious that your very own post above beautifully illustrates that!

  • You say that I have been deliberately balancing on the edge for years. Accusing me of deliberately disrupting the project is a real personal attack, and it's amazing that in a thread about personal attacks you seem unaware of that. It doesn't matter to me but you might want to withdraw that before someone opens an ANI thread on you. Which brings me to another point ...
  • And you might want to cool it with the where-there's-smoke-there's-fire reasoning, because a quick check of the archives shows that you yourself are more than a little vulnerable on that front.

  EEng 12:37, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

  Sure. You personally attacked someone at some page and got (yet, again) dragged to ANI, but the conclusion of this ANI must be that I get blocked and desysopped for personal attacks. Very familiar ANI logic. If you are unhappy with my behavior, open a separate thread about me. Do not forget to cite my block log.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:47, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

• Hyperbole Rhetoric is not a lost art, thank God. Changing the archive period on a busy talk page to two days seems ill-advised, as does edit warring over it. Abstain from recommending remedies as I have a WP:COI where EEng is concerned, I appreciate his wit and witticisms (EEng's an acquired taste), but setting that aside, I don't know what this thread hopes to accomplish. OP seems to be building their case on a WP:COATRACK. The rest of the complaint is justifying their position in a content dispute, and that isn't going to be fixed in this venue. I'll let others make up their minds as to whether that was a personal attack. I think not. Sometimes EEng is hard to get used to. Some folks never do get used to his charming wit and humor. And not every one understands literary allusion --Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:00, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

  As the wise man said, EEng's humor can be like drinking gin. The first time, you may say, "Ugh! Horrid! Disgusting!" After a few more times, you may say, "Ugh! Revolting! Disgusting! EEng 01:36, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

  We have in this thread metaphor, simile, hyperbole, rhetoric and irony. It's turned into a mini English seminar. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:33, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

  He used ... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks -- dramatic irony, metaphor, bathos, puns, parody, litotes and ... satire. EEng 14:07, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

• This amounts to nothing. I completely agree with David Eppstein that there is no call for such a short period for archiving. The highlighted comment, while far from the best use of the project, is below the threshold of what merits the attention of this noticeboard. BD2412 T 01:18, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
• Two points:

• For the avoidance of doubt, I wasn't actually suggesting that Timrollpickering would mass-murder starving people (though I think the analogy to killing "starving" discussion threads was quite apt, even if I do say so myself).
• I do apologize for not dialing it back a little in light of the potential media scrutiny. That was a lapse on my part.

EEng 01:36, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

• No action is likely to be taken here, but in future talkpage discussions, metaphors about killing people should not be used. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:27, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

  Well, would a simile be OK? And does that mean we can't say stuff like Let's kill all the lawyers anymore? EEng 03:28, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

  You certainly shouldn't kill all the lawyers. You've gotta leave one behind to handle your defense. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 03:40, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

  But there will be no prosecutors either, I'm home free. EEng 03:46, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oh, and to avoid further airing of our dirty Lyndon in public, I suggest someone archive that discussion promptly, assuming no one has anything new to add. EEng 04:08, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

  And I thought Richard Nixon was (expletive deleted). --Deepfriedokra (talk) 07:42, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

• Okay, this is just bizarre. There's no personal attacks here. EEng is clearly arguing that the high level of talk page threads is to be expected on an article such as this, and prematurely sweeping them into the archives is a counterproductive solution to a problem, akin to wiping out hungry people to solve world hunger. It's clearly not only not a personal attack, much less something that's meant to be taken literally, but a fairly basic employment of rhetoric used to illustrate an underlying point. Dragging a user to AN/I so that they can explain the obvious fact that they were not literally accusing you of being a genocidal maniac is a ridiculous waste of everyone's time. Also, reverting a contested change with a clearly-articulated explanation and the support of the local consensus is not "ownership". Good grief. How we need to explain this to a user with nearly 300k edits is beyond me. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 07:39, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

• I've seen EEng's humour many many times, it's definitely never grown on me. And although it's an accepted part of ANI etc and I'm not suggesting they be banned from it, I think we need to be realistic here that when what humour is directed at editors, it's often going to be taken poorly. While I still don't think any action is warranted yet, EEng should do their best to cut down on humour targeted at editors likely to cause offence. Discussions get heated enough without a lame joke directed at another editor.

  BTW, 2 days or even lower for extremely active discussions is hardly uncommon e.g. [62] [63] [64][65] [66] or [67] [68] [69] [70] [71]. Mostly this happens with current events which attract a vast amount of interest for at least a few days. If you've ever participated in such discussion, you know how quickly they can get unwieldy, noting that even with such aggressive archiving, 30-50 threads per talk page can still arise. And if we put aside technical issues, just because the threads are there doesn't mean they are noticed. In other words, by the time you have 30-50 threads, it's hardly uncommon to find someone missing earlier threads and therefore starting a new discussion. Yes, these may be merged when someone notices, but that can take a while and also still cause confusion especially for editors who are not regulars.

  While it's true this makes it harder for those less active, remember that we aren't talking about 2 days since the thread was opened. We are talking about 2 days since the thread was last active. For such active talk pages, it often is the case that any thread without activity for 2 days (or whatever) is a dead issue. Especially for rapidly developing situations (where such aggressive archiving is most common) e.g. discussions about whether to use heavy.com to provide details on the suspect is probably not important when the New York Times is now reporting the same details. (Of my examples, that would apply to the Boston bombing situation, but not the COVID-19 one, and it obviously doesn't apply here either.)

  And it is unfortunately the case that plenty of editors and yes this includes me at times, are guilty of necroing a dead discussion unnecessarily at times, preventing archiving (and so the longer the archive period, the more likely this is to happen in any specific discussion). While this is no problem, and may even be worth it in cases with a fairly inactive talk pages, it tends to make things worse in a very active talk page. To be clear, when I refer to necroing, I mean when someone comments without any suggestion for change, and where it's unlikely their comments will be particularly useful for anyone searching the archives or whatever. I am not referring to cases when an editor comments on an issue where they genuinely feel it matters. (Although there are those cases in between, e.g. when an editor comments feeling it is necessary but in reality the issue was resolved with discussion somewhere else, or simply by editing without discussion or there has been some change that makes it irrelevant or whatever.)

  Of course, there are ways to stop archiving a specific thread if editors genuinely feel it is necessary, and as always any editor is free to bring back an archived thread if they feel more discussion is needed. Note that I am not saying that 2 days is necessary for the Kamala Harris talk page. I actually wonder whether it is, but ultimately don't care since I don't plan to involve myself in said discussion. I'm just surprised people are treating 2 days as something that never happens or is terrible, when it's actually well accepted in certain cases where it is genuinely necessary.

  Nil Einne (talk) 10:03, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

• It's a snarky remark, but I wouldn't characterize it as a personal attack. It was clearly hyperbole. Changing the archiving at an article when you aren't actually working at the talk page yourself, and then changing it again without discussing first when one of those working at the talk page reverts you, and marking both edits minor, was a bit puzzling to me. There are plenty of experienced editors working that page who know how to change the archiving. Yes, it's a really long messy page. Yes, it's likely difficult for new editors to navigate, and it's not fun to keep up with all those conversations. I completely reject the notion that it's necessary or even beneficial to pretend we edit contentious articles in a "calm conducive atmosphere". This is how the sausage gets made. —valereee (talk) 11:57, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

I see one mistake by shortening the archiving, but other than that, I don't see a problem, this ANI should be closed and EEng has been on the better side and doesn't deserve all of this. Govvy (talk) 13:47, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

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

EEng at ANI

I think EEng is smarter than a lot of editors. He's probably smarter than me, but he's for sure more adroit with his writing. In my opinion EEng also, as he posits above, has a better understanding of what the community tolerates and accepts than some administrators. What he chooses to do with this intelligence and understanding is to be transgressive in a socially acceptable way. Because he's transgressive he keeps ending up here. Because it's socially acceptable nothing happens. I could state my wish for what EEng wouldn't do (punch down with humor, refuse to accept reverts for talk/project space preferences like the archiving thing here) and others could state theirs and maybe it makes a difference. But I suspect it won't because, again, it's socially accepted.

What I'm more curious about is if ANI could develop a way to help the editors who come here who have been wronged by EEng. Because what seems to happen now is, "This might be new and (insert appropriate emotion here) for you. (insert transgression here) is (pick one: wrong, seemingly wrong but OK, actually humorous to the community as a whole). However, because it is not new for the editors who form the consensus of this noticeboard and because our tools for dealing with misconduct would either be an overreaction (blocks) or ineffective (stern talking to's) there's nothing to do here. Sorry you feel (insert emotion from sentence one here) (insert if appropriate: and sorry that now you feel (insert new emotion caused by realizing the helplessness of the situation)). The rest of us will carry on now and so should you." I mean that is a way of dealing with these threads. I know it's a way because it's what we're doing. But if we're not going to do anything against EEng (and I really don't see that we should given either individual cases or even the totality of behavior) maybe we can at least develop a better response to the real humans who come here than what we've been doing. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:38, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

I have to say I find EEng's brand of transgressions to be a lot more palatable than the fare I'm used to seeing on ANI, which is usually along the lines of "very productive editor calls someone an asshat and a moron, and said person gets boomeranged for daring to report them".--WaltCip-(BLM!Resist The Orange One) 15:48, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

What lands EEng at ANI being more palatable than the norm was indeed part of my point. I'm glad I'm not the only one who sees that. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:04, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

EEng might be considered an adroit editor, but certainly not of the astute kind. I encountered him for the first time only a few days ago and found pretty soon that EEng's attitude is characterized by an arrogance that mistakes "I" for "we". That attitude seems to be based on nothing more than a talent to spit out one cliche after the other, which apparently gathers just enough admirers to satisfy the craving for attention and to uphold the air of untouchability that makes said user appear as the pain in the ass to those who unsuccesfully seek refuge on ANI. I have no problem dealing with such figures, but I think it should concern the community that one user is able to continuously – maybe not by the character of the guidelines, but nonetheless – effectively harass editors that are of good will. I doubt that said behaviour is socially accepted, even though narcissism being unfunny in itself is not a crime. Eissink (talk) 15:55, 21 August 2020 (UTC).

Those playing along at home can click here [72] to learn what Eissink's upset about. EEng 18:22, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

It might take a few days, but you will finally get it, EEng, really. For now, I understand it's convenient to pinpoint to me in a distraction from the other comments here, but I advise you to stop turning on me. Good luck, Eissink (talk) 18:26, 21 August 2020 (UTC).

Au contraire, mon frère. EEng 20:39, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Eissink, I don't think that's a fair description of EEng's character; I say that having been on the opposite side of a disagreement with him before. Obviously, EEng's reputation is such that he will often get the better end of the stick in disputes he's involved in. He has strong opinions, but in my experience I found him to be willing and able to listen to reason, regardless of the prominence (or lack thereof) of the editor making opposing arguments. He has a certain style of humour, which some may find offensive and others amusing. Perhaps a bit ignorant, but as a general comment, I think the view towards ANI is both inconsistent and just wrong. This forum seems to often see itself as a low-barrier-to-entry judiciary, to moderate behaviour of otherwise productive editors who woke up on the wrong side of the bed for a day, and (in recent months alone) has resulted in actions taken against editors, actions which have been a clear net negative to an encyclopaedia which has plenty of actual (content) issues and a relatively small number of active editors to deal with them. Frankly, much of the threads started here are a waste of everyone's time. It's easier to make an opinionated comment on a thread here than do something actually productive. As far as it relates to EEng, most of his disputes he's usually right and he seems to toe the line of (in)civility pretty well, most of the time I don't think he means any harm, his humour is just hard to digest for some (or many?). I'm sure he can/should take the points on board. Either way, both these ANI threads were ridiculous, and could both have been sorted out before reaching this forum. His manner wasn't even inappropriate here, and two-day archiving is just silly anyway. More productive things to do here people... ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:16, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

You may not see it, but vanity can be a destructive force that consumes its subjects. Eissink (talk) 16:40, 21 August 2020 (UTC).

And by a curious coincidence, vanity is also the force that consumes ortolans. EEng 20:41, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Or, in other words, EEng is an unblockable who knows how to annoy some people without getting blocked. And, instead of stopping this behavior, we should find a way of telling these people that EEng is unblockable, and they are just overreacting and this is their fault that they do not find this amusing.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:09, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

I, actually, think that erring on the side of being oversensitive is a mistake. El_C 16:24, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

@El C:. Yes! Yes! --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:28, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Man, I would hate it if EEng were to somehow forced to be dull, if that is even at all possible. But being allowed to push the envelope a bit with whimsy does not make him otherwise unbrlockable — I blocked him myself last year. El_C 16:37, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it's their fault. But I do think that is the message we send right now. My post was to see if we can find a different way of responding that is better than the status quo. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:29, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

EEng currently occupies and exploits a position that emerges on all online forums: the court jester. Someone who has been given an unofficial license to lighten the mood and show up foibles, or mock and needle others to give a giggle to the in-group - the specific interpretation depending on whether you are one of the in-group. The problem is that this role is a lot easier to accommodate on forums that exist for the purpose of fun and chatting, where telling someone to be a sport and suck it up is a socially expected thing. But on a project that tries to get something serious done and has a big corpus of rules intended to keep people civil and productive? Not so much. As usual, Barkeep49 is showing great willingness to be reasonable and do realpolitik in his suggestion, but I feel that we would be better served if there was a commitment to have less of the reflexive falling-back on the position of "good ol' EEng, he's a rum one, don't you like fun?" Lots of getting away with small amounts of shit ought to add up to getting hit with the midden at some point. That's what we should assure people of. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:26, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

@Elmidae: Your point is excellent. Part of the problem, I think, is that we're not an online forum. We are a project to produce an encyclopedia. We hope for our encyclopedia to be both accurate and credible to readers, and since our backstage interactions to this end are also visible to the readers (and even get reported on in the media at times), we should want the level of discourse to tend towards supporting that credibility. We have a ton of policies that support this: WP:NOTFORUM, WP:NOTFREESPEECH, WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND. No one in their right mind would take a serious question about a scientific or historical fact and look for a credible answer in a relatively ungoverned forum like Twitter or 4chan, where this court jester motif reigns. I am a strong advocate of broken windows theory: if small transgressions are routinely allowed, that signals that larger transgressions are permissible, and in any case makes the neighborhood a less attractive place for strangers to visit in general. In my own career, I have had to argue points in adversarial proceedings before a panel of judges, and making clever one-upsmanship comments in that forum would only hurt my credibility. Well, here we are being judged for our credibility by the entire world. BD2412 T 18:39, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

The above ANI report was for "I think [editor's] solution would be to kill all the hungry people – problem solved!" The previous one was for "WTF? [Editor], my vague recollection of you is that you don't usually say idiotic things. But what you just said is idiotic." Neither of these were ANI-worthy. Neither of these were directed towards, nor reported by, new editors. To me, the problem isn't "what EEng said", it's people reporting EEng for totally-not-a-problem statements. I'd like to see an example of an actually-problematic statement by EEng. Lev!vich 17:50, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

I thought @Black Kite: closed this down? GoodDay (talk) 17:57, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

EEng considered it better to continue. Eissink (talk) 18:10, 21 August 2020 (UTC).

Yes he added a gag to the closing comment but that's not "continuing." It was Barkeep49 who started this second part.-- P-K3 (talk) 18:43, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

In a recent MOS discussion, Eissink edited EEng's post here. EEng had meant to say "much of what you write is unintelligible" but left out the "you" (an elegant proof of Muphry's law), and Eissink inserted "I" so it read "much of what I write is unintelligible" with a FIFYesque edit summary. Now, everyone knows my sense of humor: I thought that was actually rather clever and funny; it put a smile on my face, seeing the old man take a bit of a jab on the chin like that. E's less-than-friendly "Friendly note", though accurate in its prediction, showed that the jab landed. And Eissink's response there, Your sense of metaphor must be the worst I've ever seen. You would be, perhaps, funny if we still lived in the Fifties, yet here you are in 2020 and all I hear is a non-stop stream of clichés that seems to self-boost you into believing your facetiousness somehow equals intellectual vigor, but you cannot even stand a little joke that is better than anything you will ever produce. Don't you be afraid that I will ever voluntarily seek the downer of your presence again., is far more rude than E's comment that is the subject of this ANI, "I think [editor's] solution would be to kill all the hungry people – problem solved!" So when I see Eissink post in this thread complaining about E's incivility, those complains strike me as extremely fucking insincere, and I think that is really uncivil. I don't mind editors with a sharp tongue, but a crooked spine bothers me. And this is "the problem" in my view: the ANI reports aren't sincere. Lev!vich 18:54, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know your sense of humor, so I guess I'm not "everyone". But, beside that, perhaps you fail to notice that making someone's head spin will do worse things to a spine than just being crooked, and to that threat (which some might think is funny, but I don't) my response was an answer. And now I will refrain from further discussion here, because this is not about me, nor was I the first or the last to react. Eissink (talk) 19:10, 21 August 2020 (UTC).

What I'm saying is: throw punches or clutch pearls, but not both. Lev!vich 19:12, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

It's not up to you to decide what I do, regardless of whether your assessment is correct or not (and it is not), but anyhow you must have overread the pivotal part of my initial reaction here, which is not a personal defence but a plea for communal order. Eissink (talk) 19:22, 21 August 2020 (UTC).

• this is not about me – Actually it now is about you, because you made it so by injecting yourself into it. As you'll learn when you've got somewhat more than your current 1500 edits under your belt, it's better not to pile on when you have unclean hands (see WP:BOOMERANG), for example if you've recently done one of the most serious things an editor can do, which is to edit someone's comment to change its meaning.
• And, actually, it is up to Levivich, and the rest of us, to decide what you do, because regulation of behavior is what we do here at ANI. And I'm confident you would find, if you were to press the point (though you would be most unwise to do that, for reasons already explained) that the community endorses his formulation, which is an elegant expression of the BOOMERANG principle just recommended to your attention.

EEng 20:39, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Try me. But not in this section where you are currently been weighed and found wanting. And shut the fuck up with your pathetic "humorous essay". And by the way, it's not the first time you exhibit your believe that your 'seniority' somehow makes you own this place more than others, when in reality you're nothing but a loquacious, childish prattler that is nothing but a relic of times past. But don't take my word for it, just try to wrap your head around what others have said, if you're even capable. Eissink (talk) 21:23, 21 August 2020 (UTC).

Most people are on their buttoned-down best behavior at ANI, so it's refreshing to see someone so candid and unvarnished. EEng 22:06, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

'Vich bitch: In an uncharacteristic misfire of your usually steel-trap mind, you broke off telling the story without communicating my final comments to Eissink, which expresses precisely what you said just above:

If you'd pinged me in the edit summary, or left a note on my talk page a little later, in order to be sure I was aware so I could fix it [i.e. fix Eissink's humorous modification of my post to reverse its meaning], it would have been worth a chuckle and perfectly acceptable. But you didn't so it wasn't ...

As with so many other things, the proof is in the execution. In this case a good idea was spoiled by an execution failure, viz. not making sure I saw it, without which the gag was a serious breach of community norms. It's kind of a like a really clever practical joke during which, through sloppiness, someone gets hurt – suddenly it's not funny at all.

EEng 20:39, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

• "EEng is without doubt the worst thing to happen to Wikipedia -- except for all the others." - Winston Churchill. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:59, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
• There is, after all, a space between "this requires a sanction" and "this was beyond criticism". What EEng has done (and done, and done again) is absolutely not something that should be punished or prohibited. I'm someone who likes EEng's sense of humor. (In other words, I'm emotionally impaired.) And I appreciate learning that there is such a thing as litotes. (And here I thought Lil' Totes was a hip hop artist.) On the other hand, I think that Barkeep was exactly right to refer to punching down. EEng, I wish you'd stop doing that. I'm not saying that you should be forced to stop, but rather, that you should decide to stop. There's such a thing as generosity of spirit, and it's worth aiming for. (Or think of it this way: mocking someone who is already down is the kind of thing Donald Trump would do.) Feel free to mock me, because everyone knows that I'm way, way better than you are. But please don't punch down. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:48, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Legal threat

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

---

• 209.151.250.145 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Mark Kozelek (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

IP editor 209.151.250.145 made a legal threat on Mark Kozelek: "Removed false and defamatory material. Will pursue legal action against those individuals who continue to revert the false and defamatory materials." —Eyer (If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message to let me know.) 02:07, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Eyer, don't overlook legal threats. I don't know if this necessarily applies here, but it's worth thoroughly investigating the disputed content before reverting, especially when it concerns a living person. – bradv🍁 02:17, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

After a review of the situation, it does not appear that the editors are wrong for reverting. IP is trying to blank a reliably-sourced section on sexual misconduct allegations. The section is well-sourced, carefully worded to objectively refer to accusations without implying guilt, fairly brief, and balanced with the subject's assertions that they are innocent and are being defamed by the accusations. So, even assuming the accusations are false, I don't see anything about the section that could be construed as false or defamatory, it's simply a reflection of the reliable sources, compliant with BLP. The article also seems to be in compliance with the guidance offered by WP:CRIT. Also, the legal threat is as direct as it can be, this isn't a case where we would be brushing off a user for trying to bring up a serious concern and blocking them for some sort of ethereal, implied legal thread. So, blocked for a month. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 07:20, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Just a reminder to all that "don't overlook legal threats" in the context of WP:DOLT doesn't mean "legal threats are fine if the aggressor has a valid point". They still need to be blocked immediately for as long as legal action is being sought or threatened.--WaltCip-(BLM!Resist The Orange One) 12:27, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

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

Hoax: Ballman Alternative Orchestra

Can we get a rangeblock? Someone is trying to put together a hoax on your dime. They are fabricating the band Ballman Alternative Orchestra.[73][74] If we block the range Special:Contributions/2001:1970:55DB:A500:B817:3D0A:20F6:7A52/64 then it might stop the hoaxing.[75] Note that some of the edits on the range are good, which means the block might have some collateral effects. Binksternet (talk) 06:38, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

• Range blocked for one week. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 07:23, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Advise on this editor Fereydoonshah and their editing - Unsourced and maybe Original Research?

So hopefully I have brought this to the right place, I'm not sure what to do here and it maybe ok what Fereydoonshah is doing, (as long as source is provided) but latest had no sources and it maybe original research instead. Then there is the usefulness of the information WP:NOTSTATS and that type of data can be ever changing and out of data. So I'm not sure I am correct or what is the correct process here? Advice would be appreciated and I have left message for them on their talk page too. NZFC^(talk)(cont) 10:46, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

I have taken note of your comments and have added sources to the edits I had made, which you referred to: Allenstein (region) and Kreis Schubin. To address your point about the usefulness of data, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that most of the pages which I edited had little existing content prior to my edits and therefore I would argue that the information I have added does add value to the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fereydoonshah (talk • contribs) 14:42, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Series of racist edits at articles of murdered black men, but no block

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

---

I reported JoeBlow7777 (talk · contribs) at AIV six hours ago for whitewashing racist murders [76]; [77], this [78] and this [79] The report sat there overnight while perhaps dozens of accounts were reported and blocked, and was deemed unactionable for lack of warning. How much warning do racist edits require, and, more rhetorically, how tone deaf is Wikipedia? 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 11:37, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Well calling as user a racist is a violation of wp:npa. As to how many warnings, one.Slatersteven (talk) 11:42, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

I blocked indef, a pretty clear case of WP:NOTHERE to me.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:43, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Ymblanter. The issue remains that admins passed that up for over six hours; something's wrong there. Slatersteven, I called the edits racist, not the editor. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 11:46, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Well we do not warn edits, but admins do actually have lives, they they may not respond right away.Slatersteven (talk) 11:50, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

No fooling. You're free to look at the edit history from AIV during those six hours. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 11:52, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

And he has been blocked, as I said admins have a life. They cannot be expected to respond instantly to every complaint.Slatersteven (talk) 11:53, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven, as I said, there was plenty of administrative activity there. And six hours, as I'm noting for the third time, was not 'instantly." In what way are your comments here helping? 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 11:55, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: Would you consider raising your personal threshold for contributing to an ANI thread? You post a huge number of comments that add very little. --JBL (talk) 11:58, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Bar the first in this ANI every one of my responses has been to a direct question to me or in which I was pinged, should I just ignore people? As to not contributing, so you disagree that admins have a life outside Wikipedia and may not actually be around to notice or act on a complaint? Especially a badly formed one with out diffs, or linking to an article?Slatersteven (talk) 12:10, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Per my responses and Joel_B._Lewis, when the unsolicited drive-by comments essentially co-opt a legitimate report and diminish the rationale for the report, there's a new issue. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 12:16, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

You should raise the bar for getting involved in a thread at ANI, period. Yes, you should ignore people if responding to them is not going to add value, as e.g. in all of your comments in this thread. You should also raise the bar for the individual quality of your comments (many of them are unproofread, to the point of incoherence, though not in this particular thread). --JBL (talk) 12:20, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Welp, I think that wrongly accusing someone with legitimate, actionable concerns of making personal attacks is definitely not something to be done, encouraged, or defended. Should we close this thread now that the offending editor as been rightly blocked? Do we need to look around to see if they left a sock? Do we need to further discuss Slatersteven's finer (or not so fine) qualities? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:21, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Sure, Deepfriedokra. In part, my frustration was spurred by experience. This wasn't the first time I've reported racially offensive edits to AIV and had them tabled for technical reasons. That's why I'm posing the question of whether Wiki needs to do some systemic self-review. Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 13:27, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

I do get your frustration IP. The edits were warranted for a block prior to the "final warning". There are cases where edits are egregious enough to have a blocked place before a Level 4 warning. I know some editors are sticklers that we have to follow the exact protocol, but sometimes common sense applies. Had I been around and saw it, I'd issued the block, as they weren't just vandalizing but definitely WP:NOTHERE. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:32, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

It's possible this might be the latest of User:SJMccarth's socks. Other than that, I'd say it's time to close this thread. The block was appropriate, should have been imposed sooner, it was not a good idea to accuse an IP with a well-founded complaint of making personal attacks. Salvio 13:35, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

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

Repeated vandalism by Rf4fr4WE3412

175.118.193.119 (talk · contribs) was previously blocked on 29 April 2020 and he continued to vandalize edits as he change to the image of Hyundai cars on the Incheon International Airport Terminal 1 station and Incheon International Airport Terminal 2 station as he did on the previously accounts by Rf4fr4WE3412 (talk · contribs) and Rfefr4r4f (talk · contribs)AJP426 (talk) 13:21, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done IP blocked. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:23, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Suggestions please – rangeblock the Poland IP date-changing vandal

Regarding the Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Date-changing vandal from Poland, this person has caused so much trouble in popular music articles that it's time for solutions involving collateral damage. I think we must block some IP4 ranges which will unfortunately stop a lot of good-faith people. Do we have any rangeblock experts who can tailor this thing for the least collateral damage? And since this person also edits the Polish language Wikipedia, a global rangeblock would be good.

As far as I can tell, these are the ranges involved:

• 31.0.32.0/21 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) (most of this is our vandal)
• 31.0.40.0/21 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) (most of this is our vandal)
• 31.0.64.0/21 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) (most of this is our vandal)
• 31.0.80.0/21 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) (most of this is our vandal)
• 37.248.160.0/21 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) (some of this is our vandal)
• 37.248.209.0/21 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) (most of this is our vandal)

If we block these 12,288 IPs then our vandal will be frustrated, but so will some good folks. Binksternet (talk) 18:44, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Binksternet,

• "31.0.0.0/17" has been blocked
• "37.248.160.0/21" has been blocked
• "37.248.208.0/21" has been blocked

There is not as much collateral damage as you might think. There is at least one UPE socking and another LTA with a bunch of globally locked accounts behind these ranges. Blocked all for 3 months. Notice the last range was blocked earlier this year for a month.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:07, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you muchly. English Wikipedia breathes a sigh of relief. I sent a note to Polish language admin User:Masti who globally blocked 31.0.0.0/17 for a year starting in 2017. Perhaps Masti will globally block it again. Binksternet (talk) 19:36, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Implied intent to reveal personal information

• Djm-leighpark (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Coey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Djm-leighpark made this comment, "Are you trying to out me? Because if I have to defend further I may need to out." No where have I ever in any way threatened to out this person. The final clause, "I may need to out" made me think they are using this false accusation as a way to imply they will out my personal information.

I gave this person the benefit of the doubt and posted this reply, (see the bottom of the diff for my reply and note below regarding the mixed up order). hoping they would clarify they meant something different, perhaps they were referring to their other account Bigdelboy, but they declare this as an alt on both pages, so what outing could be done? But again I gave them the benefit of the doubt in hopes they would clarify or at least just drop the matter. I figured if anything needed done, the closing admin could handle it.

They responded with this comment They chose not to clarify they intended something other than what I understood, but told me to take it to ANI (so here we are). They finish their comment with "I will say this AfD is still running however and points possibly remain to be addressed." Since they have clearly stated their points opposition to the AfD, what does this mean? I understand this as a follow up to out my personal information if I continue to support the AfD.

(Please note: the comment ordering and indenting was mixed up inadvertently by my confusion due to the placement of an image. I tried to fix it and another editor removed the image. I believe everything is in the correct order. It was my fault I placed my comment in the wrong spot. I altered none of the comments)

The point I would like addressed:

1. The accusation "Are you trying to out me?" which I never in any way did. [80]
2. The comment " Because if I have to defend further I may need to out". [81]
3. The comment "this AfD is still running however and points possibly remain to be addressed" [82]

I wouldn't be hard to find a TimothyBlue in Los Angeles from the info on my userpage, but I find the implications above unacceptable. Thank you.   // Timothy :: talk  18:53, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

• I have noticed a tendency for Djm to fly off the handle in disputes as well as get verbose to the point of being unreadable. My only suggestion here would be that Djm perhaps take some time off and reflect on this and how to respond to editors and be concise before stronger measures are suggested or taken. Praxidicae (talk) 19:01, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

  Actually, reading the discussion myself, Djm's threat to out TimothyBlue should be treated the same as a legal threat and they should be blocked until it's rescinded and they demonstrate an understanding of our policies. Praxidicae (talk) 19:05, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

• He hasn't edited since receiving the ANI notice so I suggest letting him discuss here to see if this may be resolved without blocking.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:39, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
• If Djm-leighpark drops the stick and retracts the threat, it's settled as far as I'm concerned.   // Timothy :: talk  19:55, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflictx2): Ah. I have noticed this. The outing would be self outing of myself (revealing personal information) in order to explain certain things to present reasoning to TimothyBlue ... this relates to among other things as to timings of access to resourced. I am spitting feathers at the allegations made by TimothyBlue on the thread and my attempts to fake sources. Yes I am under pressure at the moment ... and some of this relates to resolution of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Code page 875 ... people should note in that .... For me normally that might be a month, but currently its three and I'll negotiate with that with any designated WP:FUNKy person bar one if anyone thinks I'm being awkward or unreasonable.. Siad to Barkeep49 reopening that AFD would likely lead to trouble. MFD's going on such as Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:NASLite this one are a real pain .... The closer Scottywong and offers a month and little more ... its hardly surprising something breaks because I was expecting that. Since this is an outing call I will say I was very close to one of the big and worst outings earlier this year and I'd expect TimothyBlue to spot that when he researches history though I will absolutely say I was not involved. Funkies can contact me on that if necessary. It also (slightly) relevant to the Discussion Alerts have been held for a couple of days recently and that (perhaps) has lead to less partication in that AfD. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:35, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

@TimothyBlue I have no issue with any outing and you will not be outed by me or by me inciting a third party to do the same. Dropping the stick may be a different matter as I have allegations at an AfD to examine. there is also a question of your excessively deletionist approach and I am inclined to think you have a "red mist" approach to this. With regards to comments at AfD with me becoming an NPP I respect the work they do though occassionly have had need to bring they to DRV for e.g. overzealous speedies. I have not asked for autopatroller privilege because I steward a spectrum of drafts and may on occasion bring one to mainspace that would be marginal so its better they go via NPP. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:35, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Djm-leighpark, I am not sure what the ping for me is. You did mention stress and concern around the Code pages. The 1 month deadline is only for deletion on enwiki. I don't think you only have a month to perfect them on wikibooks. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:52, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

@Barkeep49 , not related to this ANI I am doing automation that refers to en.wiki. It is also the case the transwiki you kindly organised was a cut/paste not with full versions. So I am likely to have to repeat that the long way round. I still expect some automation I am preparing to be on the en wiki in situ and if its gonered I'm likely giving up or whatever. In which case I have wasted many many many hours this month. I've invested a lot if it goes belly up, but perhaps that what people want and they dont want to attribute to people properly per SA licences. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:17, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

• Reply to Djm-leighpark, I consider the matter of outing explained and closed.

I think the "question of your excessively deletionist approach" and "red mist" approach is actually just an angry attempt to divert attention away from what has been exposed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Coey.

I certainly make mistakes, everyone does and I've shown a willingness to listen to others and change my mind based on discussion, not just be offended and go on the attack. You seem to feel the need to attack, which is shown in the AfD and in this discussion. This combative I must win, I must be right, attitude is ultimately what is causing you stress. You need to stop it because ultimately it is self-defeating, even if you win some arguments. This isn't patronizing, it's goodwill advice.   // Timothy :: talk  22:30, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

I am glad we have the outing matter settled as that is important, but to say what is causing me stress would require me to self out some more stuff and that might be very silly and impacting. You have displayed a singular view as to what Wikipedia is and and quite frankly straight to AfD on that stub remains unbelievable. Options such as notability tagging would have been the right aproach. I have yet to anaylse the editing of the article to see if certain comments you made were justifiable. I have learned to have the opposite of your advice, its not clever and you need to face up to yopur approach if you are a deletionist. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:54, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Cortilme seems to be promotion-only

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

This editor seems to be only promoting singers from their country, especially Goulam, who has been created and deleted repeatedly. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:25, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

I've deleted and salted that page. Canterbury Tail talk 20:43, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

fr:Discussion utilisateur:Cortilme suggests that this editor is having difficulty in getting articles to survive on frwiki also. Narky Blert (talk) 21:34, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Persistent IP and possible sockpuppet

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

After a recent blocking, this IP, an obvious sockpuppet of blocked vandal MatimyasFrancia12302003 has learned nothing and refuses top stop adding spam to pages such as Home Alone 3 and Jimmy Neutron: Boy Genius. I request immediate serious action be taken against it, and that all pages it vandalized be protected for no less than a year. DawgDeputy (talk) 21:15, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

• Already blocked. Drmies (talk) 21:29, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

No sources and no response

• Stonecold415 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Although I have not scrutinized all 5,877 edits made by User:Stonecold415, of the hundred or so I have looked at not one has been sourced. These aren't just copyedits; these are additions of statistics and dates and stuff that really should be sourced. Their talk page is littered with warnings about unsourced content, yet this editor continues, and has not responded once on their talk page. Unsourced content does not improve Wikipedia, and undermines the hard work of other editors. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:18, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

The editor seems to be one of those who has never contributed to a talk page, ever [83] in those 5000+ edits. If there was really no reason to, like there was never any dispute over their edits that required discussion and they were taking on board feedback received then this may be barely okay. But there are requests to provide sources going back to March 2018 [84], including some old non-templated ones [85] and as Magnolia677 said, this still seems to be going on. There are other issues which I don't think are being addressed either [86] [87]. The editor is using the mobile web editor but since it's an account I believe they should receive some sign of new messages (unlike the case for IPs). In any event, whether they are simply unaware of their talk page and the messages or have seen but ignored them, I think a block is in order which will hopefully get their attention so they can address the problems. Nil Einne (talk) 23:09, 21 August 2020 (UTC)