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

User:Wumbolo

I kindly asked Wumbolo to take a break from nominating articles to AfD, earlier today, but it's just ridicules now that he continues to nominate articles without consulting talk pages or projects. I don't think he is doing correct research, WP:BEFORE etc. First example I will give is Xterm AfD and now AFree86. Both have gone to snow keep. There are other examples today and yesterday in the log of nominating multiple articles regarding older software and OS systems/ programs. This to me just seems an attack on these old articles without due and not to mention adding AfDs to an already expanding log pile. Would like some admins to review the situation please. Cheers. Govvy (talk) 22:55, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Sigh. First, it was I who snow-closed Xterm. But, let's take a closer look at the other one. Looking over the references in XFree86, it's really a pretty poor collection of sources. Lots of references, but blogs, interviews, mailing list posts, source code repositories, etc. I can't find a single WP:RS in the lot. The fact that this is heading to another snow keep just says that people aren't paying attention to our sourcing requirements. Or, maybe they're all just doing the WP:IAR thing. In either case, I really can't blame anybody for bringing this to AfD. And, yes, I've used both Xterm and Xfree86. And I know how important they are. But, we're looking for sources, and I'm not seeing them. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:09, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Well, I don't really use Linux anymore, I've kinda migrated to apple macs and Windows 7, X, long ago, but there were a number of books published for Xfree86, Emil Georgescu published a few, there are published notes which can be classed as a cite in notes on the article. But these are old topics, I hate to say it, but this is kind of an archive of old stuff on wikipedia and to just get rid of these articles without correct due diligence doesn't seem right. Govvy (talk) 23:22, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

The discussion of cURL is similar; those of semi-DABs of equipment and journal are not similar but may outrage inclusionists. There are also a good number of AfDs that look like they will be non-controversial. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:36, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

To be fair Wumbulo has only made about one AfD since asked to stop. Importantly however we have a problem not just related to AfD's but also to PRODs (and perhaps a redirect and a speedy) dating from about 12 September 2018 10:25 (and some You tube articles before that), starting with this redirect, though may have been issues before that. The PRODs and redirects are perhaps more serious as they may slip scrutiny if not properly on Wikiproject. Following the Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Computing#Proposed deletion of Xterm notification and deprod I've done a lot of deprods from Wumbulo's activity with a low threshold, not ideal practice but somewhat swamped, mainly because a number are at least possible merge candidates. Very concerned about Wumbolo's views at User_talk:Wumbolo#AfDs with regard to AfDs etc. This is disruptive because its all focused on destruction and defence rather than trying to improve, not good for genuine volunteers.Djm-leighpark (talk) 02:30, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I would strongly encourage Wumbolo to enable the PROD log feature of Twinkle. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:59, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

@Power~enwiki: if you want to see my PROD log, or more specifically my PRODs that didn't go through, use User:Ritchie333/badspeedies.py (perhaps change it a bit). I don't want to have a Twinkle PROD log so that people can look at blue links that are article re-creations in the future, after new sources will have been published. wumbolo ^^^ 08:44, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

If you expect a lot of your PRODs to stay blue (or turn blue again), you may want to reconsider your current PRODding. The log is not just a tool for transparancy, it's also useful to keep track of and evaluate your own actions. Kleuske (talk) 10:53, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't blame him, to be honest. PROD is a waste of time, you can PROD the most obvious piece of crap article in the history of crap articles, and someone will tootle along and remove it again. PROD is pointless. Just AFD them. Black Kite (talk) 21:17, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I would have said PROD is actually usually working quite well when combined when monitored at project level such as at Wikiproject Computing where they can be lightweight triaged into let pass, deprod and fix and deprod with a tendency to deprod if in doubt. Wumbolo's use of PROD on articles was technically well correct apart seemingly in my opinion from failure to look for best practice alternatives and use in potentially controversial prods, and especially a mid importance article likely will always be controversial. The question here is perhaps has Wumbulo in a sophisticated manner performed a course of actions and take a stance that was not in good faith and deliberately to make a WP:POINT. There may be questions of failure to follow WP:BEFORE, failure to consider WP:BUNDLE and perhaps failure to contact the project first to see if they had any solutions prior to bulk AfD's. There may be questions of WP:TWINKLEABUSE. I would notice Wumbulo is a WP:NPP and seems to have been targeted just before this period.Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:52, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

• I agree with Wumbolo's approach; I warned him months ago that inclusionists like Govvy would complain. There's nothing wrong with Wumbolo's nominations that I've seen. I PROD stuff all the time in order to affect a deletion when an AfD would only elicit wrong opinions like Govvy's. Even at AfD, Wumbolo admits when he was wrong. I recommend trouting Govvy for wasting our time. Chris Troutman (talk) 12:55, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Wasting who's time? You edit wikipedia because you have time on your hands! Also, Guitar Pro is point indication that in my opinion Wumbolo is nominating articles for deletion without analysing what the page is. If he knew the industry and how used some of this software programs are, then he might not bother nominating these articles. This is more about this abundant delete culture simple because you don't know and all you are going by is GNG rules? This is poor process procedure, wikipedia is about the collective team effort and no one person should go about nominating a string of articles without a bit of input from one of the projects. Govvy (talk) 13:47, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

@Govvy: Now, you're wasting my time. It is not incumbent upon Wumbolo or anyone else to know the industry. Either the subject passes notability criteria or it goes. Inveterate fans like you expect the subjects you like to be written about without presenting any sources to make a claim of notability. That WikiProject members show up en masse at a given AfD to !vote keep doesn't make Wumbolo wrong. What's going on here is that cabals of editors expect special treatment and they become irate when they don't get it. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:51, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Many of the commenters to the AfDs have included possible sources, so I disagree with your assertion "without presenting any sources" as that is not what is happening. Yes several of the articles definitely could have better sourcing and a few of the articles probably should get deleted or merged wmii for example but the commenters for the most point have pointed that out. I know on several of the AfDs I've spent time checking and evaluating sources. AfD is not for article cleanup, there is a reason that WP:BEFORE suggests "Search for additional sources, if the main concern is notability". PaleAqua (talk) 05:18, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Chris. I've noticed now that there's a group of editors that stalk Wumbolo's AFD noms and vote keep together based on the fact that Wumbolo is making bad AFD noms because they're all getting a bunch of keep votes, which is circular logic. This is unacceptable. It's WP:Wikihounding and it's creating an imbalanced perspective of Wumbolo's nominations. In fact, a bunch of these are receiving non-admin closures as well, despite the fact that it's the same cabal of editors voting keep. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 07:13, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

I tend to peruse a lot of PRODs and AfDs Wikiproject computing. I'm specifically tracking Wumbulo's forty or so since the X386 redirect, but I've been involved in 8/10 others as well. I certainly raised my eyebrows particularly at one or two of the non-admin closures ... though did nothing as quite frankly the end result would not have changed. An option might be to comment on remaining (unlisted) AfDs not heading for delete AfD may be controversial and to request an admin closure .. I won't commit to doing this but I may do this. I think some people who have come to AfD's or who have been trying to save articles have not really had much experience at that, some have learned good and bad practice from me, sometimes without the nuances. I'd like to think I'm just reasonably good at finding references and citing, not necessarily so good at policies. I don't think Wumbolo's really helped himself in all of this, I am minded his approach has not been constructive and may likely be viewed as disruptive. It's also the case the 'savers' are doing a lot more work throwing up 'references' and not really understanding why these might not count and a careful analysis of why these may not count towards notability. There may be some lessons learned in this, for example if an article was not Wikiproject tagged such as Cyber Centurion, and perhaps some other tweaks to advice. I have no doubt experienced admins are viewing these discussions. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:56, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Sources have been found, noms have been questioned, by different editors. No evidence for a "cabal", circular logic or hounding has been presented. If several editors independently think there's disruption and bring it here, forcing editors to find sources which should have been done at BEFORE, that reflects on the bad noms. Some of the AfDs have been relisted once or twice, so more participation should be encouraged not delegitimised. Widefox; talk 15:25, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

All I'm saying is that your claims of "mass AFDs that are almost always voted keep on the basis of BEFORE" is not a claim you can really make, since it's a self fulfilling prophecy. If Wumbolo's noms are so bad and malicious, there should be plenty of neutral editors perusing AFD to catch them right? Why do you feel the need to track every single one of Wumbolo's AFD noms? Tracking someone's contributions so intently can create the feeling that a user is unwanted. Maybe it's best to just let it go and realize that Wikipedia's systems are more than robust enough to handle a single so-called "mass AFD nominator". – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 17:03, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

• I do agree with the logic, just not the targets. Something that is a core operating system component on the majority of Unix-like systems today is obviously notable. However, there is a problem with too much UGC being used as sources on articles related to open source software, and I do agree that while something like X.org is clearly notable, Obscure Window Manager #291 isn't. ViperSnake151  Talk  15:25, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
• This is mass nomination (including some major articles like xterm, X.Org Server, some obscure, but the scale is shown by a large percentage of Template:Desktop environments and window managers for X11 and Wayland including one of the categories X window manager referred to as "spam" [1]) combined with a lack of WP:BEFORE. Both are at best pointy, at worst just disruption, and picking up much comments from editors at the AfDs all saying the same. I don't see any sign this is acknowledged, so it's reasonable to bring here. Almost all of the AfDs I've seen are unanimous (or near) Keeps. Widefox; talk 17:15, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

  This is absolutely an exaggeration. A lot of Wumbolo's AFDs attract shitty keep votes from editors who use this software and therefore think it's inherently notable. It's a reflection of Wikipedia's WP:Systemic bias. In one of the more blatant examples of systemic bias, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Xmonad_(3rd_nomination)#Xmonad has a keep vote from an editor who literally just has a "gut feeling" that the software is notable. Meanwhile, the other keep votes don't cite policy or show any sources. Just because a bunch of keep votes land on an AFD doesn't mean the AFD is bad or made in bad faith. It could also mean that Wumbolo nominates AFDs that certain groups of editors are unhappy with because they have a bias for these articles. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 16:05, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

That reply doesn't address the validity of failing to do basic BEFORE as required, or the mass nomination, which is the big problem. A scattergun hits the target sometimes, huh? That one is borderline out the 40-50 is an exception that proves the rule. (AGF ignored) . To extrapolate from one AfD to 50 is, an exaggeration, yes. Widefox; talk 18:03, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

• The nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of X Window System desktop environments is a particular egregious example, as the reason given is "seems like an advertisement of one company's products", when the article is clearly a list of comparison of different notable open source desktop environments, nearly all with their own article. Bradv 01:26, 17 September 2018 (UTC)— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Bradv (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff) wumbolo ^^^ 15:02, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

No Wumbolo, I wasn't canvassed to come here. Your talk page has been on my watchlist since your shenanigans at White genocide conspiracy theory. Bradv 15:12, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

@Bradv: I find that rather unbelievable. You were pinged about an hour before you commented here at ANI. But the ANI thread itself was a couple of days old. wumbolo ^^^ 15:17, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

I wasn't pinged to come here. I was already watching this page, along with your talk page. Even if I were, does that mean that my comment here is invalid? This is the kind of WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour that needs to be brought to an end. Bradv 15:22, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

So it's WP:BATTLEGROUND of me to just point out that you were canvassed (which you were by Widefox as a matter of fact, regardless of whether you came here because of it or not), and it's not battleground behavior to canvass someone?! And why do you think that canvassing to ANI is not a problem? Are not enough neutral people watching ANI? wumbolo ^^^ 15:29, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

(no notification has been made to me of such an accusations at ANI, so I'll ignore) Widefox; talk 18:55, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: People seem to disagree about the merits of Wumbolo's AfDs, but there does seem to be general concern about the increasing number of them to the exclusion of doing WP:BEFORE. He went from 10 AfDs in July to 11 AfDs in August to 15 in one day alone (September 12) and 16 the following day (September 13) [2]. I propose that either (1) Wumbolo be warned to restrict his AfD noms to 2 per week; (2) Wumbolo be officially restricted to 2 AfDs per week; or (3) an alternative proposal that will solve/reduce his ever-increasing number of AfD noms. Softlavender (talk) 01:51, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Both quality and quantity are a problem. Quality it's more than BEFORE, it's misrepresentation [3] [4], wikilaywering [5] [6] [7] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GetRight (4th nomination), WP:POINTY, and WP:BLUDGEON (on most/all of them), and a relist less than a year after the last Keep AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GetRight (4th nomination) . Not bold, but reckless. Does anyone in their right mind think xterm, X window manager (a category of articles), and X.Org Server should be deleted? The AfDs are like a newbie with a pointy stick bludgeoning all that turn up in disbelief.

Considering it's behaviour in the AfDs as well, any restriction should address that too. 1) plus some limit on comments seems a start. Widefox; talk 02:35, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing with you, but can you come up with a restriction or sanction (or warning/suggestion) that would cover and prevent all of that? Or just brainstorm some possibilities? Maybe just a topic ban on computer/tech-related AfDs. Softlavender (talk) 02:42, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it's not just computer, it's disruption in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Thinsulate [8], and it's ongoing #1 #2. Suggest general deletion restriction (PROD/AfD). Widefox; talk 13:53, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Topic bans from deletion per se are a hard sell (and require lots and lots of diffs). It's easier to start with provable problems, provable disruption. I think it's clear that Wumbolo does not do WP:BEFORE, that he is targeting tech and computer articles, that he is fairly clueless about notability even beyond his lack of WP:BEFORE, and that he is over-AfDing. Therefore, a good start would be a topic ban from computer/tech-related AfDs. I would also like his PROD log to be easily visible (he shouldn't be deliberately hiding it as he admits to doing), so we could also propose that he enable the PROD log feature of Twinkle, as power~enwiki recommended. Softlavender (talk) 14:25, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Agree to just be tech deletion, and PROD log. Widefox; talk 15:14, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

• I'm concerned about comments like this one which imply that sources were not properly evaluated when first looked at before making the AfD. PaleAqua (talk) 05:18, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

• There does seem to be some of the AFDs here that are in the right ballpark (in terms of the articles not really showing how the GNG is met, or issues with the sourcing), these are not flat out bad nominations or nominations made in bad faith, and some of the logic to keep these is questionable too (feeling more like pile-on !voting to keep them). Wumbolo's AFD noms are asking proper questions as to why we are keeping these articles (particularly on these small commercial or free-software packages, which do fall into the realm of WP:NCORP's stronger sourcing aspects). The only issue that really can be begged is the frequency/rate of nomination, which belies a proper BEFORE step, suggesting that they be warned to only nominate one or two a week and see if there's potential other merge targets for information first. --Masem (t) 14:35, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

" ... suggesting that they be warned to only nominate one or two a week and see if there's potential other merge targets for information first." That was my initial proposal; I would support that. Softlavender (talk) 14:40, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Note quite - WP:BEFORE is clear that sources don't have to be in the article not a proper basis for a nomination, so they aren't proper noms. Yes to the rest. Widefox; talk 15:14, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

• This complaint is utterly ridiculous. Wumbolo's AFD nominations are clearly in good faith. Wumobolo's always pulled up articles that are extremely problematic or lacking in references. Problem is, other editors who are Linux people or whatever immediately get offended that their favorite little piece of free software or whatever is getting nominated for deletion, and then vote Speedy Keep with a shitty rationale. This discussion is a reflection of WP:Systemic bias that is all too common on WP:AFD, which is why we see tons of crappy software articles get kept with the justification "oh I use it so...there must be sources...?". This is a REALLY terrible mindset, and shame on the person who brought this to ANI. Just because we're not all worshippers of free software doesn't mean you need to bring people to ANI. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 15:54, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

My favorite piece of free software is GIMP, not anything ever nommed by Wumbolo, and I don't see this complaint as anything near meritless. WP:BEFORE states that an editor should "...take reasonable steps to search for reliable sources." which is the problem, as I see it. Wumbolo is not searching to see if reliable sources exist, he's simply glancing at the reflist to see if any are used. Nomming these for deletion isn't improving the project (when the obvious "quick" solution would be to hatnote the article), it's simply creating a disruptive atmosphere. No-one has, to my knowledge, suggested that Wumbolo is not nomming these in good faith. They're simply suggesting that Wumbolo is making the same mistake over and over and not correcting themself. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:04, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

What evidence is there that Wumbolo hasn't been doing a search or two? People are just assuming that Wumbolo hasn't done their homework, because they're biased in favor of these free software articles. "Xmonad? Oh yeah, I use that, that's totally notable, Wumbolo clearly hasn't made reasonable attempts to look for sources" -- the line of thinking for this accusation of not following WP:BEFORE. This is a very serious accusation based on shoddy evidence. As someone who uses free software a bunch too, I'm also a little surprised whenever I see some of these nominations. But I don't take personal offense at free software being nominated for deletion, and realize someone who may not be a free software user might not immediately realize that certain software is widely known among free software users. And in fact, editors who aren't involved with free software may end up being the best judges for whether free software articles are truly notable. I try to objectively evaluate free software articles instead of rely on gut feelings or my personal biases in favor of them. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 17:08, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Proof of a negative isn't a reasonable burden per se. But..the evidence of many AfDs together (rather than just Xmonad which you've selected out of ~40) how do you explain trying to delete xterm (and those other major articles) if BEFORE was done? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/X window manager nom is just Spam version of Comparison of X window managers. Not notable that's fairly random and incorrect, then there's trying to delete the opposite - the list rather than the article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of X Window System desktop environments "...seems like an advertisement of one company's products which is in no way notable" which is about open source software, it appears they haven't even read the article let alone searched for sources! On balance, sources were found for all, some very quickly so its either not done or it's competence. Either way, it shouldn't happen on mass, should it? Widefox; talk 18:55, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

What evidence is there that Wumbolo hasn't been doing a search or two? How about the fact that a google search for "X.Org Server" returns 222 million results including multiple RSes on the first page? Now please try to explain to me how any reasonable person who did that search (which would constitute the bare minimum an editor could do to look for sources) could think that X.Org Server was not notable.

Look, Wumbolo's not a major computer geek. That's fine, there's nothing wrong with that, hence there's nothing wrong with him not being aware of some of these things. There's also no rule saying that an editor must add sources if they find them. Finally, there's no-one suggesting Wumbolo is doing any of this maliciously. I'm certainly not. But these noms are obviously not flying, and so Wumbolo needs to either get serious about WP:BEFORE or stop nomming stuff, because it's a waste of time for multiple people. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:29, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't see multiple RSes on the first page. TechRepublic has some routine coverage. The rest are garbage (primary, forums, help desks, obviously not about x.org, etc.) on the first page for me. TheRegister has some more routine coverage. So, no, I would reject the WP:GOOGLE numbers argument as well as your failure to cite specific sources which indicate notability under the general notability guideline. But perhaps this is an argument for AFD? :) --Izno (talk) 22:46, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Well, when you run a completely different search, you should expect completely different results. I linked my search, and there I see Techrepublic, Ars Technica and PC Magazine, all on the first page. And on the second page? More Ars Technica, Tech Radar, The Register (escaping the walled garden of tech sites, even!) and more Techrepublic. Although, to be fair, I actually work in IT and read more X.Org news than X.org specs, and google's probably figured that out by now. But that doesn't change the fact that a google search is the bare minimum one can do to find sources. And question: How many sites do "routine coverage" of non-notable software?

But if that's our standard (delete anything obscure, whether it's notable or not), then we should probably delete pages like Yukawa interaction because I doubt many non-physicists have heard of that, either. Or maybe, we should rely on coverage in RSes ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:21, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

So, permit me to comment some more on those sources:

1. TechRepublic 1 is somewhere in the realm between routine and maybe enough detail to stub an article. It's basically a HOWTO. (I would be concerned about basically copying the entire article.)
2. PCMag is a passing mention and is a bit NOTVERSIONHISTORY. "Ubuntu's default (GNOME and X) somewhat supports touchscreens, though Wayland is supposedly the preferred windowing system going forward for such implementations."
3. Ars 1. "Ubuntu made Wayland the default display manager for 17.10, but it has reverted to X.org for the LTS release. It's a sensible change upon reflection given Wayland's long list of incomplete features like, for example, the lack of support for screen sharing in chat/VoIP apps and spotty support for VNC tools." This also is passing. It gives an immediate reason for the above item but is really about Ubuntu.
4. Ars 2. "Ubuntu had settled on the Wayland display server for 17.10 as a default because Canonical wanted to boost 3D graphics capabilities, but it has switched back to X.org graphics server as the default for 18.04, mostly because Wayland's support for screen sharing in applications such as Google Hangouts and Skype isn't quite there." Basically reports the exact same thing as Ars 1.
5. TechRadar "X.Org, for example, is a bit long in the tooth now. It was never really designed with secure computing in mind. So it’s fairly easy— well, not necessarily X.Org actually, but the whole OS; if something is running as a root, or it’s running as your user, then it has the permissions of that user that’s running it." doesn't tell me anything that #1 didn't already.
6. The Register. #1 repeat.

So, maybe it's notable, maybe it's not. But coverage like that I would definitely put in the, "a reasonable BEFORE search could have caused someone to come to the conclusion that X.org isn't notable, even if we were looking at the same Google search" (which clearly has tuned to your interests). It's not about being obscure without evidence of being obscure. It's about what the GNG asks us for: "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (emphasis original). Computing and software articles are problematic in this regard, because while they document the software great in many cases via WP:PRIMARY sources, they often do a garbage job at telling us what independent sources have said about them. I won't get into physics articles, but I agree some of those more-obscure topics can tend toward "is this really a reasonable article or should it be summarized elsewhere"? However, that's offtopic to this case (WP:OSE) and I wouldn't want to judge those without access to those sources anyway.

I might suggest that users here might want to take a look at AFD stats and AFD stats noms-only. I'll be taking a look at these later I suppose. --Izno (talk) 14:40, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Again, you're arguing in favor of deletion, which is accomplishing very little except convincing me that you don't work in IT. If that's your goal here, congrats. If your goal is to prove you're capable of wikilawyering, then congrats because you've done that, too. But if your goal is to show that Wumbolo actually did follow WP:BEFORE then I'm afraid you've failed quite thoroughly. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:48, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

You're arguing in favor of deletion and you're capable of wikilawyerin. No. I'm assessing the sources you provided, which is exactly the job we do when we have to decide whether an article is worth keeping or deleting (or one of the other conclusions). I have no strong opinion on the article topic and clearly have no intention to go !vote--I'm leaving my comment here instead so that we don't all decide that Wumbolo has done some grievous thing without actually backing up and saying "is he right?". you don't work in IT I work in the aerospace and defense industry; one of my company's products makes use of X11. Thanks for playing. --Izno (talk) 14:52, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

No. I'm assessing the sources you provided, which is exactly the job we do when we have to decide whether an article is worth keeping or deleting Ummm.... Have you considered the fact that you literally just contradicted yourself? In one sentence? Probably not. Nothing in the rest of your comment is worth responding to (it's worth a laugh, though) so have a nice life. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:08, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

(←) I have not argued for deletion. I have not argued for keeping. I have not argued for any other x, y, or z outcome that would be typical of an AFD. So when you claim that I am "arguing in favor of deletion", you are wrong. It is your extrapolation that what I have said favors deletion, that I am arguing for such. (Please, do try to find where I said "the article should be kept/deleted/x/y/zd".) But I chose deliberately not to argue over whether the article should be deleted because the point of this section is "did Wumbolo get it right?". (Else, you might have found me at WP:Articles for deletion/X.org instead, where perhaps you should provide those sources to aid the closing admin in determining whether the article should be deleted.) To which I gave an opinion, separate to those AFDs, that in this case, he made a reasonable nomination of the article topic, where I questioned some of the sourcing that were "found" to support the belief he did not perform a WP:BEFORE search. The reason I included the AFD stats link a few replies above is that people who comment here in this section should also come to their own conclusions on whether he has acted reasonably, by doing some of the research for those AFDs he has either nominated (or commented in). I plan to do so, separate to this little engagement with you, because that's what's fair. --Izno (talk) 17:11, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Maybe you should go to some of the AfDs and see what is being said. Comments like this that immediately present 5 impeccable sources along with pointing out the lack of WP:BEFORE only to be responded to by Wumbolo with the eye-poppingly false claim that the Fedora/Red Hat bible and the CentOS bible are "identical" paint a very different picture of what's going on than you do. So instead of arguing in favor of deletion here (which you absolutely are doing, whether that fact suits you or not) while ignoring the fact that a rather large number of editors are saying the same exact thing about these noms, maybe you should be off browsing the AfDs and learning that they don't, in any way, need me to come drop off a couple of good google hits to end in a WP:SNOW close. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:02, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Systemic bias correction

User:FenixFeather is on a mission to reduce systemic bias "Explain to me how trying to reduce systemic bias is a violation of AGF. I believe that it's a serious issue that's limiting the quality of the project. Are you denying the reality and importance of systemic bias?" (in fairness they pull back "I'm not even using systemic bias as a justification for deletion here"), "The point of this thread was to call you out for not following AGF and perpetuating Systemic bias". The drama "dick move", "shame on both of you", accusation of "stalking" would be better brought here, rather than at these AfDs. How many articles have been deleted? How long has this been going on? AfDs like Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Youtube-dl were 14 days ago, where Wumbolo nommed, and only FenixFeather and one other editor !voted. Youtube-dl was included in Comparison of YouTube downloaders, there's two more AfDs of articles there - one nom each for the two editors. Clearly they aren't the same editor. Widefox; talk 22:47, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

What is the point of this? I was addressing the fact that someone had accused another editor of bad faith without considering that maybe that editor had just made a mistake due to lack of knowledge on the topic. Are you saying I'm User:Wumbolo or? – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 22:59, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

On second reading, it does seem like you're accusing me of being the same editor. You should bring this to WP:SPI. This isn't the right place for this. And no, there's no conspiracy to delete articles. There were literally no sources for youtube-dl; I looked. I don't know why you think we're on some weird crusade to delete articles. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 23:01, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Let me address the stalking claim as well. You went into Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Airy_(software) and voted to keep, way after the AFD was created. I thought this was really weird because this was right after we were getting into discussion here and other articles. And apparently you think Wumbolo and I are in on some conspiracy to delete youtube downloader articles and free software articles. I personally do believe that youtube downloader articles must have a very high standard of inclusion to belong on Wikipedia, being WP:MILL stuff, and after Wumbolo nominated youtube-dl someone else suggested that the other youtube downloader articles were "just as notable", so I looked through the other youtube downloader articles and nominated the one I thought had the worst sourcing. Being new to AFD, I didn't want to nominate all of the youtube downloader articles at once, so I wanted to take it one at a time. Anyways, I hope this satisfies your theory about the conspiracy to delete youtube downloader articles. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 23:09, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

The point is: you and Wumbolo should immediately stop new AfDs, stop BLUDGEONING AfD participants and stop creating disruption just because other editors are !voting to keep stuff that goes against your mission. Your example is good Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Airy (software) is your nom, 1 !voter (Keep), (relisted), Wumbolo (Delete), and I (Keep). The other AfDs are generally you and Wumbolo delete, everyone else keep. That seems dangerous when there's only one other !voter as per Youtube-dl. You're evidence for stalking is that I !voted at AfD? or you don't like my !vote? Looks like more participation is needed to me. Isn't a lack of scrutiny combined with mass and sometimes reckless PROD and AfD from Wumbolo (combined with your deletions) something that we need to scrutinise? Widefox; talk 00:17, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

I won't deny that I'm new to AFD, and that I'm still learning. What I don't appreciate is this intense hostility from you throughout AFD, and that random vote today really meshes with your story of how you're trying to fight the FenixFeather-Wumbolo conspiracy to delete youtube downloader articles. I'm not bludgeoning anyone; the comments you link to above are an attempt to get you and Bradv to recognize that it's not a good idea to immediately accuse someone in bad faith for having stated something wrong in the AFD justification. As I stated on that thread, I wasn't arguing about the !vote itself, but about the unnecessary and unfounded accusation of bad faith. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 00:28, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Also you really want me to stop making AFD noms? I've only made two recently, because like I said, I'm still learning so I'm proceeding cautiously. Go ahead and take a look at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Timeline_of_the_Left-wing_insurgency_in_Greece and see how it fits into your conspiracy theory. You really want to make me stop nominating AFDs just because I'm concerned about systemic bias? – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 00:33, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

"As far as I know, I'm the only one who's been actively pointing out systemic bias in tech articles." It's about stopping the disruption or others here may have to intervene. Widefox; talk 01:35, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

I still don't understand your point. You were asking me whether Wumbolo also was discussing systemic bias. I said no, I don't believe Wumbolo has. What are you trying to prove here? That Wumbolo and I are the same editor? If so, take it to WP:SPI. If you're trying to prove that I'm against systemic bias, then yes, I am. Systemic bias is a widely recognized problem on Wikipedia because most editors are Western, male, and in some sort of STEM field. Can you clarify what I'm supposed to defend myself against here? – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 02:21, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

See WP:POVFIGHTER / WP:ADVOCACY#I only want to help Wikipedia! If a significant number of editors protest that an editor is biased, the editor should listen to feedback and either change their editing style, or refrain from editing topics where they cannot be sufficiently neutral There's a significant number editors at the AfDs who are complaining about Wumbolo's AfDs, backed by you, battleground disruption, and not convincing others per WP:REHASH, I'm asking you to refrain to prevent ongoing disruption on mass AfDs. Can you? Widefox; talk 12:07, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Wow. You're really stretching that definition. I've pointed out systemic bias on... two AFD articles I think? Once where someone voted on "gut feeling" and another time where someone accused the nominator of bad faith upon getting something technically wrong, both of which I thought were legitimate instances of perpetuating systemic bias. That makes me an advocate that a significant number of editors find annoying? This is actually absurd. I have no idea why you want administrative action against me because I guess I kinda pissed you off in an AFD? Can you let your feelings go for a moment and realize how unnecessarily stressful you're making this experience? I literally had a nightmare about this because you dragged me to ANI and are trying your hardest to drive me away by taking things I say out of context. People like you is why I quit Wikipedia the first time I tried editing. It's a hostile environment that immediately tries to shut down any identification of systemic issues. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 16:49, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

The civility "dick move" and AfD disruption (mass nom, and BLUDGEONING in the AfDs from both of you) - diffs are above. Have you seen how many editors are complaining about these AfDs? Widefox; talk 19:06, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

I've only nominated 2 AFDs recently, and 3 AFDs in my entire Wikipedia career, two of which have been uncontroversial deletes. That's massive disruption? Look at what you're doing. You're taking a novice editor, with only about 3k edits, to ANI simply for having voted for a few AFDs that you dislike and for suggesting that systemic bias might be the cause of perspective issues. What kind of atmosphere are you creating here? And what about that WP:SPI accusation? Are you going to report me as a sockpuppet or was that just a character attack designed to further alienate me from the project? If your intent is to protect the project, instead of simply retaliating against me for I don't know how I hurt you, then you should be taking actions to report me as a sockpuppet instead of just sitting here and engaging in mudslinging. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 20:34, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Are you two just going to continue this back-and-forth thing indefinitely? If so, maybe you should do it on someone's talk page. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:51, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Well, I feel obligated to defend myself here since I think an admin will be evaluating this at some point? I apologize if I'm not supposed to do that here. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 20:54, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I'm just going to leave a closing argument to summarize here, since further back and forth may not be productive. I've only recently begun browsing AFDs a few days ago. Because a few of my votes happened to match with Wumbolo's, I've been dragged into here and accused of sockpuppeting and violating AGF, despite the fact that I was only trying to point out that sometimes, perspective issues can cloud our judgement. I've not accused anyone of acting in bad faith. Using the phrase "dick move" has been labeled as "uncivil" here but my intent was not to personally attack anyone, but instead describe how accusing someone of acting in bad faith for having gotten something wrong can be mean and unwelcoming. In response, Widefox has been WP:WIKIHOUNDING me, as shown by their going through all my AFD votes relating to software and voting on them. Widefox even dredged up youtube-dl which goes back several weeks. For evidence of this Wikihounding, please see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Comparison_of_X_Window_System_desktop_environments, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/DownThemAll!_(2nd_nomination), and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Airy_(software) and note the timestamps on those comments. Widefox also attempted to canvas Bradv to this ANI on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Comparison_of_X_Window_System_desktop_environments after seeing that most editors on this ANI discussion agree that Wumbolo, while mistaken sometimes, was most likely acting in good faith and not being disruptive. As demonstrated by this ANI thread, Widefox believes that Wumbolo and I are on some sort of crusade to "mass delete" software articles, and this belief has driven their labeling of me as disruptive and their Wikihounding in an attempt to protect Wikipedia from this deletion campaign. While this may be in good faith, it's unfounded and has caused me considerable stress and made me feel unwelcome, and is a form of harassment I would like to stop. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 21:26, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

• Comment This one was created on the 16th of September Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Capella (notation program). Szzuk (talk) 08:41, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
• A bit late to the party, but I understand where Wumbolo is coming from and I do understand the concerns of systemic bias and I very much agree, I have seem many articles relating to Linux/Open Source Software which are of questionable notability, so I agree they ought to have at least some discussion. I am a Linux user myself, but as an editor that is not relevant and there are plenty of articles which I myself have nominated for deletion that I would personally like to keep solely because WP:ILIKEIT. FYI, I am currently neutral on a topic ban, however that may be subject to change. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 09:16, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Sanctions

I think we are all concerned about the root cause of improving the quality of sourcing on many Wikipedia articles, the issues occur about how we go about it. I'm concerned about the 'discussions' on several AfDs especially recently on WP:Articles for deletion/FireTune and cooling off is surely called for. Are there any suggestions for WP:TBANs or WP:IBANs (I'm aware I coud be affected by an WP:IBAN and I am an an inclusionist and not neutral in this mess but i likely have work to do in it). Any TBAN would need I think to limit PRODs and AfDs and possibly content edits. However a cooling no-fault IBAN may be currrently useful. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:15, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

• Strong oppose Editors here are pushing for a WP:COMPETENCE ban on the basis of Wumbolo nominating articles that have been "overwhelmingly kept" (I think we all agree that Wumbolo is acting in good faith) – however, this is entirely misleading because the same group of editors (Djm, Bradv, Widefox) are following Wumbolo around and voting keep on Wumbolo's software AFDs, often with the justification that Wumbolo is "mass nominating overwhelmingly keep" AFDs, a self fulfilling prophecy. A simple glance through Wumbolo's AFDs will show that these editors have followed Wumbolo around far more than I ever have, which is surprising because Widefox accused me of being a Wumbolo sock. Unfortunately, as far as I've seen, Wumbolo is actually nominating borderline articles. A lot of these software have debatably reliable/significant sources. I'm strongly against silencing Wumbolo simply because they would like to judge software based on policy rather than based on "well, it's used widely in industry. Me and all of my friends use it. Don't you know the industry? Don't you work in IT fields?". This sort of silencing is exclusionary and explicitly advances WP:Systemic bias, where those who have different perspectives from us are shut down. Silencing different perspectives is not the solution here; the solution here is to set aside our own expectations about what is notable or not, and consider each AFD objectively. And trust that other editors and admins will do their due diligence and catch the articles that should be kept. Instead, what's happening is an emotional overreaction because of the fear that certain beloved articles like X.org were nominated for deletion. A lot of these "obviously notable" software in the Linux/software world is not notable in the broader world, and that's okay. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 20:32, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

That polemic nicely illustrates why you've been included in this ANI thread. Disruption furthering systemic bias correction against consensus. It is just WP:BABY delete content that is actually properly sourced, and citations which are valid, by misunderstanding our sourcing-related policies and guidelines. - the exact opposite of policy, and there's overwhelming consensus against it. The link does not include an accusation of sock. Can you either provide a diff or strike it, as it's a straw man. I said the opposite ". Clearly they aren't the same editor.". Do you have evidence for the rest of this diversion from Wumbolo's editing? Wumbolo's AfD success rate is 27% [9] - that's before the bulk of these articles are closed, so before those named editors (presumably), so how do the facts support a conspiracy and circular logic? e.g. [10] and [11] I'm the first to !vote Merge, an exceptional one has merit "Delete per nom". Those three named editors don't have the same voting record. Other editors (not of those three) have said "Seems like Wumbulo is spreading AfD over the Wikipedi. ... See also the list of AfD's" -Bassklampfe "This is a private and completely wrong opinion by user "wumbolo"... destruction of knowledge?" -L.Willms, Xterm - SNOW keep (I did not !vote), "I'm uneasy about this mass AfD/Prod" -Michael Bednarek, "I think Wumbolo's interpretation of when sources count as "independent" is excessively strict." -SJK "not a valid cause for deletion" -JavierCantero "I think Wumbolo's interpretation ... overly strict." -SJK "With this reason you may want to tag all Download managers...a clear Keep" -Denniss, "Disruptive nomination" -2a01:4c8:b:7127:f201:a496:c036:897c (SNOW keep), "With a simple WP:BEFORE ... per policy, should be WP:PRESERVE..." -Mark viking, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/X window manager closed Wikipedia:SKCRIT#3 The nomination is so erroneous that it indicates the nominator has not even read the article in question. -by Power~enwiki "", KWin closed The result was keep. Overwhelming Keep consensus and a failure to check WP:BEFORE -AmericanAir88 "Keep and BAN User:Wumbolo from any further Wikipedia editing or deletion requests. Eradicate those in the anti-information army!" -206.169.91.66 . Misrepresenting consensus as anything else is AGF without evidence, and the three named editors shouldn't have to defend themselves with no diffs or specific case. The quotes used are not from any AfD I've seen. No such argument has been made, have they? (no diffs provided) Widefox; talk 17:15, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Regarding WP:Articles for deletion/FireTune, I think it's also disingenuous to claim that the discussion is "concerning". I'm assuming Djm is referring to the fact that Wumbolo lashed out a little bit over the course of the discussion. Yet I think it's excusable that Wumbolo is a little frustrated, because I can't imagine having a group of the same editors constantly breathing down my neck in AFDs. That's gotta be incredibly frustrating. It shows both an unconcern for other editors' well being and a strong distrust of the AFD process. The same can be said of draggin me to ANI simply because I voted delete on a few of Wumbolo AFDs, far fewer AFDs than this group of editors has hounded Wumbolo for. This kind of adverserial editing where WP:ANI is used to shut down unwanted opinions and voices is really saddening to me, especially coming from editors who have so much more experience than me and that I would have looked up to in the past. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 20:37, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support per my comment on previous section. This is only about unconvincing BEFORE, COMPETENCE, BLUDGEON, AGF/civility (See FenixFeather above) and LISTEN/IDHT over an unknown number of articles, over at least 3 months, combined with an attempt at systemic bias correction without adequate scrutiny (e.g. no PROD/AfD logs, deleted articles can't be seen by non-admins). There's no evidence to be portrayed as inclusionist(s)/deletionist(s) or cabals/sock/meat. It's not clear how many articles have been deleted by PROD, but deletion is still ongoing and AfD nom success is 27% [12] (that will drop when these are closed): a July PROD [13] has been REFUNDed [14] then AfD [15], there's been incorrect PROD [16] after PROD [17] now Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FoxyTunes. National school programming competitions have been targeted, which seems aligned with our core values. Wouldn't readers wanting National Olympiad in Informatics, China, Syrian Olympiad in Informatics be better served by being redirected to International Olympiad in Informatics rather than being PRODed? This lack of BEFORE / attempt at countering systemic bias has unintended consequences of deleting undersourced content (against WP:NEXIST), in this case deleting underrepresented geo regions increasing systemic bias. Widefox; talk 00:36, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
• Strong oppose per everything FenixFeather said. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 16:09, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Care to reason it, as FenixFeather has misrepresented the only thing quoted, and provided no evidence for the rest. Widefox; talk 17:43, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

In a word: no. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 18:52, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose No severe issues with AfD nominations of Wumbolo. He has nominated a few articles that could easily result in delete but consensus was against that. Mayne wumbolo will learn what community currently prefers to keep or delete but that can be done without sanctions. GenuineArt (talk) 07:33, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. He very obviously didn't conduct before on a spate of nominations but I don't think this behaviour is long standing enough to warrant an afd ban. I may support a mandatory prod log if it was separately discussed. Szzuk (talk) 12:11, 23 September 2018 (UTC) I'm redacting my own vote, I'm just too undecided and too uncertain of the process so i will leave it to others. Szzuk (talk) 16:05, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

He is not here to build an encyclopedia

Stefka Bulgaria does not seem to be here for building an encyclopedia. I provide some diffs and leave the judgment to you admins:

1- He removes the contents on the ground that he can't find them in the cited sources, this is while they are indeed supported by the source:

A) Here, he keeps on removing contents. while they are supported by the sources. Again, he removes same content from another article, while the content is clearly seen in the source.

B) Again, the materials he removes here are fully supported by the cited source and I fixed his false removal.

C) In this edit he removes contents regarding bombing of US buildings by MEK, this is while the content is really supported by the source.

2- He writes a misleading edit summary for his edits and dishonestly removes other contents in between (some sort of Gaming):

A) Here, he removes some sourced content from the lead writing in the lead that Aaron Schwartz's source, here labeled as 'PSJLIA', is not reliable. This is while the most of the materials he removes has nothing to do with the Schwartz's source and are supported by the book by Jonathan R. White.

B) In this edit he removes a well sourced sentence, alleging in the edit summary that one of the sources (infoplease.com) is not reliable. Stefka refers to the discussion I started at RSN, where there is no consensus over using 'infoplease.com' and the springer book which uses 'infoplease.com' to cite the 16,000 figure. However there was not any objections against using other sources cited for 10,000 figure. In that discussion, Stefka Bulgaria himself says "...hence this figure [i.e. 16,000] cannot considered reliable". Stefka is clearly GAMING us by removing the 10,000 figure which is supported by other sources.

C) In this edit he removes two sentences each supported by two different sources. In the edit summary Stefka writes ‘Strategic Culture’ is a Fringe source but removes the second sentence cited to another reliable source.

D) Here and here, he pretends to be inserting quotes from a source, but is in fact removing the sourced materials.

3- Miscellaneous:

A) In this edit, he removes a whole section he does not like to see in the article, only because the title of the section is not matching with its content. He could simply edit the title and keep the well-sourced material.

The above diffs are only a brief overview of his recent edits in MEK and this editing pattern is just repeated in his previous edits. I've already discussed some of the points on the article talk page, although I think this is a behavioral issue and should be addressed by the admins. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:00, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Stefka, whether he is doing right edits or not (I don't have a opinion on that), is made in good faith. Saying he is "not here to build an encyclopedia" is really exaggerating. This shouldn't have gone to ANI, you should have waited for his response at the very least. He does a lot of constructive stuff on this site. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:31, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

But those diffs speak for themselves. --Mhhossein ^talk 17:10, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

• This repeated filing of complaints towards editors attempting to balance the MEK related articles (which are heavily skewed to the Iranian gvmt POV) - is not reasonable. In regards to the supplied, diffs - 1A - It would seem Stefka removed un-referenced information (as well as info sourced to the Christian Science Monitor) in a BLP article. 1B - is a rather CHERRYPICKED account of the thenation article (including removal this was "one website"). 1C - the first half of the paragraph is sourced to what appears to be a position paper which seems a somewhat dubious source for unattributed use. 2A - this is a student-edited journal that was removed - quite a sketchy source. 2B - [18] seems like a sketchy source, however it says "Total: Since 1979 over 10,000 people have died in the conflict. - which does not support - As a result, more than 10,000 people have been killed in MEK's violent attacks since 1979 - or rather is a blatant misrepresentation (as a large portion of the fatalities in the conflict were killed by the Iranian government). 2C - The econd sentence is sourced to a state department report - which is sketchy. 2D - seems like an expansion of content based on the source. 3A - perhaps one shouldn't add off-topic content to a section to begin with? Icewhiz (talk) 20:41, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

  And all that being said - that a bit of information passes WP:V ("supported by the source") - does guarantee inclusion - e.g. per WP:NPOV. Icewhiz (talk) 20:41, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

  • • Note to viewers: Icewhiz appears up (needless to say it's sort of hounding) almost when ever I file things against users. @IW: Sketchy sketchy sketchy sketchy...Be realistic. Don't defend others at any price, editors will certainly judge your words and won't be mislead by your comments. You had the same behavior at AE and the other guy you always used to defend, got blocked for the third time. This is not good for you. --Mhhossein ^talk 05:09, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

I had not intended to comment on this thread until I saw Mhhossein's above comment. I do not believe a user who defended a neo-nazi sock puppet (Expectant of Light) has much room to comment on who or what other users should defend, and I'd further recommend that MH keep WP:NPA in mind. While I do not feel Mhhossein has done much that is actionable, I have found them notably obtuse and overzealous at ANI. Icarosaurvus (talk) 06:24, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Icarosaurvus: Be careful about what you say. You can take it as warning against making personal attacks. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:40, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Unless you didn't actualy defend Expectant of Light the above statement is nowhere near a personal attack. MPJ-DK (talk) 12:47, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

That's a point we can rest on...Cheers! --Mhhossein ^talk 18:56, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Given that the user did indeed defend Expectant of Light, I'd say it's most certainly not a personal attack. While I do not believe the two are connected in any meaningful way, other than sharing an interest in Iran, one has to be careful about defending another user simply because they share one's POV; something which Mhhossein has been less than stellar about in the past. Thus, I do not believe the user in question is particularly well qualified to comment on what one should or should not defend. Icarosaurvus (talk) 21:54, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Icarosaurvus, with your 43 edits to mainspace in 4 years, I really think you should tone it down some lest someone think you're not here. Now, it is true that those who file reports an ANI should expect to come under scrutiny, but what you're doing here is not scrutinizing--it's simply casting aspersions. And whether someone defended a neo-Nazi or not has, as it happens, very little to do with this particular case, unless you can make a connection that somehow involves Stefka Bulgaria's edits. If you can't, stay away. Yes, please consider this a warning for a violation of [{WP:NPA]]. Drmies (talk) 00:49, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

I primarily edit portals; specifically, Portal:Current events. The idea that only mainspace edits should or do count is ludicrous; mainspace is only part of what keeps our encyclopedia functional. A large part, granted, but if we neglected the other components of this great work, it would not be the respectable site which it is today. While I disagree with your assessment of the above as a personal attack, I will leave this thread alone, unless pinged. Icarosaurvus (talk) 01:05, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

• Unless requested otherwise, I'll reply to Mhhossein's remarks on the article's Talk page. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:59, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

• As requested, here's my review of Mhhossein's comments above:

1. A) Content I removed was concerning Masoud Keshmiri’s alleged affiliation with the MEK: The first source I removed does not mention the MEK, and second source says "The office of the revolutionary prosecutor identified one Masud Kashmiri, a Mojahed, as the secretary of the Prime Minister's office...", which is not the same as confirming that Keshmiri was a MEK member (I have not found a source that confirms the MEK took responsibility for Keshmiri). The IRI blamed numerous incidents on the MEK, many of which turned out to be false allegations. As discussed on WikiProject Iran’s Talk page (and as user Mhhossein is well aware of), IRI sources are not suitable for fact-checking of political opposition groups.
B) The Nation source is being used to support the MEK’s “Alleged involvement in Syrian Civil War”, but source does not mention Syria at all.
C) The section in question was titled “Anti-American campaign”, and the text in the article said: “In 1973 ten major American-owned buildings were bombed including those of the Plan Organization, Pan-American Airlines, Shell Oil Company, Hotel International, and Radio City Cinema.” What the source actually says is “The Mojahedin intensified their armed operations in the years between 1973 and 1975. In 1973 they fought two street battles with the Tehran police, and bombed ten major buildings including those of the Plan Organization, Pan-American Airlines, Shell Oil Company, Hotel International, Radio City Cinema, and an export company owned by a prominent Bha'i businessman.” Nothing in the sources here suggest that there was an anti-American campaign by the MEK (rather, it comes across as deliberate misrepresantation of the source), and I ended up including this information without the misleading insinuation.
2. A) A graduate student (Aaron Schwartz ) thesis was used to confirm that the MEK is currently a militant organization. The following text: “advocates the violent overthrow of the current government in Iran, while claiming itself as the replacing government in exile.” is also misleading (and not encyclopedic). This, on the other hand, would be more a accurate/encyclopedic description: “It was ‘based on Islamic and Socialist ideology’ and advocated ‘overthrowing the Iranian government and installing its own leadership’” (Katzman 2001; Country of Origin Research Information 2009, p.2).
B) This is user Snooganssnoogans’s assessment about using infoplease.com (and the springer book that uses 'infoplease.com') to cite that 16,000 have been killed by the MEK: “The stringency and quality of editorial oversight and peer review varies in publications by commercial academic publishers. That the book cites infoplease.com for that fact is an indication of poor editorial oversight and poor peer review, and reflects poorly on the author. It is sometimes the case that editorial collections (such as this book) are not independently peer-reviewed, and are only comprehensively edited (in terms of substance, not copyediting) by the editor of the edited collection. The book should not be considered a RS for the 16,000 figure.”
C) This report on the MEK reads like it was heavily influenced by the IRI (and there are reasons to believe that this may be the case). Big claims such as that the MEK "conducted attacks and assassinations on Western targets" should be backed up by more than a single report (that has since been taken down).
D) I don’t understand what the complaint is in the first instance (there is a typo error by me, but for the rest I simply updated the text from the Abrahamian source). In the second instance, I used better sources to clarify the sequence of events: The MEK accused the IRI of monopolizing power, which led to a protest where MEK sympathizers were killed, which led to the MEK retaliating against the IRI, which let to the IRI retaliating against the MEK, etc.)
3. A) There isn’t any evidence in the provided sources that the MEK was involved in the Syria conflict, yet Mhhossein continues to make this allegation. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 12:52, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Comments in response to the above allegations. (@Drimes: can you please see my explanation on his misinterpretations?):

1.

A) Besides the point that 'WikiProject Iran’s Talk page' is not the right venue for making global decisions regarding sources, I can say that there's absolutely no consensus over IRI sources being "not suitable for fact-checking of political opposition." Even you can't find any mentions of 'fact checking' in this semi private discussion he refers to. However, the dispute is not over the reliability of the Iranian sources. Above, he alleged that he had removed ([19], [20] and [21]) the first source since it had "not mention[ed] the MEK". This is while, in P:27 it reads"...subsequent investigations revealed that Kashmiri was an agent of the leftist People's Mujahedin of Iran (MEK), supported by Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein and blamed for 17,000 Iranian deaths during the Iran-Iraq war of 1980-1988," and in P:28 it repeats the same thing: " Although the Bahonar-Rajai assassination was solved with identification of bomber Massoud Kashmiri as an MEK agent he remained unpunished."

B) This source clearly supports "MEK website gave a triumphalist account of the conquest, referring to ISIS as “revolutionary forces.”" Although the source is commenting on MEK's reaction to ISIL's activities in Iraq, not Syria, it's not a suitable reason to remove such a sourced content.

C) He removed materials regarding MEK's armed acts against U.S. personnel and civil bodies only since the section title. i.e. Anti-American campaign, was not suitable. I've already changed the title, but Stefka gradually removed the whole section based on his self-made allegations. I've now simply restored the section with a new title.

2.

A) Stefka already revealed that his edit summary was not in accordance with his edit.

'B) I think Stefka is digging himself deeper regarding the '10,000 deaths' issue, since we're not even talking about whether or not figure 16,000 is reliable. He has removed the well-sourced figure of 10,000. @Stefka: So, don't say infoplease is reliable or not, since that has nothing to do with our dispute. Stefka is GAMING us by removing the well-sourced 10,000 on an irrelevant basis. Yes, there were no consensus over 16,000 being supported by a reliable source, but we're not talking about that.

C) Again Stefka admits having used a misleading edit summary. In this edit stefka removed, among others, materials cited to a U.S. state report and now he revealed that the removal was only because he though the US report was heavily influenced by Iran!!! So we need to know Stefka's definition of reliable sources. In that edit, the edit summary tell us he's only removed the the materials cited to 'Strategic Culture', which is not correct.

D) Stefka's edit summary ([22] and [23]) reads "Quote from the source[s]". Are the edits only inserting quotes from a source into the article?

3.

I don't say there's "any evidence in the provided sources that the MEK was involved in the Syria conflict", rather I say Stefka "could simply edit the title and keep the well-sourced material" instead of removing them.

The case is really getting time wasting but I think it's worth trying to let the others know what I mean by Stefka's "dishonest" edits.--Mhhossein ^talk 13:24, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

A majority vote at WikiProjet Iran contended that IRI-controlled sources should be used for IRI positions. The majority vote argued that IRI-controlled sources are subject to censorship, particularly concerning political topics (where covering certain political topics can lead to imprisonment or execution).

Based on the fact that the IRI executes MEK sympathizers, I’ve tried to bring some neutrality to the article by making a distinction between IRI and non-IRI sources; as well as replacing weak sources / fringe statements with quotes from more established scholarly works. Many of these have been objected/reverted by Mhhossein, who comes across as having POV issue here. Mhhossein’s POV-pushing edits include:

• Restoring “Anti-American campaign” title (despite it being deliberately deceptive).

• Trying to establish the MEK is referred to with the derogatory term “Hypocrites” in Iran 1, 2, 3

• Removing well-sourced content: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

• POV summaries from sources:

Source: The U.S. government has accused the group of helping Saddam brutally put down a Kurdish rebellion in the early 1990s, and of launching numerous attacks inside Iran.

Mhhossein: MEK assisted Saddam Hussein in "brutally" suppressing the 1991 uprisings in Iraq.

Source: In the wake of the revolution, Khomeini grew suspicious of Rajavi’s ambitions and of the MeK’s Marxist slant and widespread popularity.

Mhhossein: After the fall of the Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, when Khomeini got "suspicious of Rajavi’s ambitions and of the MeK’s Marxist slant.”

About Mhhossein’s points above, here’s my reply:

1A. “Keshmiri” is spelled “Kashmiri” in the source, which may be the reason why my word search initially gave no returns when I searched for it. Nevertheless, it was the IRI who identified Keshmiri as a MEK agent. Considering that the IRI was pinning whatever it could on the MEK at the time, these need to be presented as allegations rather than facts.

B. @Mhhossein, how is the statement "MEK website gave a triumphalist account of the conquest, referring to ISIS as ‘revolutionary forces’” a valid attribute to the “MeK’s alleged involved in Syria”?

C. @Mhhossein, again, the section was titled “Anti-American campaign” (a title that you you included). Here, I already made a point concerning Mhhossein’s misrepresantation of sources.

2A. As pointed out, there is a POV issue there.

B. First, the source says “Since 1979 over 10,000 people have died in the conflict, which is not the same as “As a result, more than 10,000 people have been killed in MEK's violent attacks since 1979”. Second, Ploughshares report is not RS, particularly on account of its links to the IRI.

3. Finding titles to random remarks is not my objective at the MEK page.

Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:31, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Too much boring...hey look, be careful about how you use the sources and edit the articles. You edit as if others are keeping their eyes closed. Already wasted my time on this. --Mhhossein ^talk 16:55, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

I have explained my edits. The issue here is your POV pushing and constant reporting of editors that disagree with your edits, which you have yet to explain. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 06:55, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Boomerang

A WP:BOOMERANG is in order, due to repeated unactionable complaints filed here and in particular due to this diff Mhhossein brought himself - [24] that was blanket reverted by Mhhossein - beyond the sketchy source this is a blatant misrepresention of the source and a serious POV problem - transforming "Total: Since 1979 over 10,000 people have died in the conflict. - in the cited source into - As a result, more than 10,000 people have been killed in MEK's violent attacks since 1979 - turning a two sided casulty count (MEK-regime, regime-MEK) into a one sided one (MEK-regime) with highly POV language.Icewhiz (talk) 05:35, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Previous complaint here by blocked sock - [25] supported by Mhhossein. Another one by the blocked sock - [26] supported by Mhhossein (the sock got blocked for the nature of their comments prior to being discovered as a sock). Filing baseless ANI complaints every month or so against Stefka Bulgaria over a content dispite (in this case - without even engaging in the talk page of the article) - is not reasonable. @CaroleHenson: has been attempting to mediate in the content dispite(s) and might have input.Icewhiz (talk) 06:16, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Additional recent complaint against another user at ANI over content - [27].Icewhiz (talk) 06:39, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

The very providing of this diff clealry demonstrates your bad faith approach towards me. In that ANI, the reported user was to be sanctioned but survived after he changed his behavior. Read ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 12:28, 5 August 2018 (UTC) and Icarosaurvus (talk) 02:46, 9 August 2018 (UTC). --Mhhossein ^talk 12:38, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

• Support - Article issues could have been dwelt on the article's Talk page. Mhhossein has resorted to making unactionable complaints against editors that disagree with him much too often. His POV pushing and inability to work constructively with others that do not share his perspective is disruptive. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:50, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose pending some evidence. @Icewhiz: Do you have any diffs or archive links of these "repeated unactionable complaints"? The two links above are to threads started by a different editor, and smearing the present OP by attempting to associate them with "a blocked sock" is clearly inappropriate. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:05, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

BTW, it's not the first time folks have attempted to link Mhh with the David Duke fan in question. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:15, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Note that #WP:IUC by Pahlevun is about the same dispute.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:16, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, but that thread was opened neither by Mhhossein nor about Stefka Bulgaria, and from what I can establish (by looking at who edit-warred with whom, which is as far as I'm willing to delve into this content dispute) Pahlevun's "side" is ... not Stefka Bulgaria's, whatever either one is, so the existence of that thread doesn't back up Icewhiz's claim. And I should point out that while I was on Icewhiz's "side" during the EoL mess, that was purely because EoL was a DavidDuke-citing, antisemiticcanard-spouting Holocaust-denier; from what I can see, nothing about this mess that isn't ... that ... is black-and-white. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:58, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Just one note to show the guy is wrong. On the killings issue, this scholarly source clearly supports the quote in question. It reads: "...Mojahedin was an organization of questionable reputation responsible for “the deaths of morethan 10,000Iranians” since its exile. Or you can read here: "...and its leader even boasted about killing thousands of Iranians while this cult served ex-Iraqi dictator's expansionist ambition," here: "...the group returned the favor and killed by its own claim more than two thousand regime leaders," here: "..."Since 1981 the [MEK] have claimed responsibility for murdering thousands of Iranians they describe as agents of the regime," the report said." Also, this source suggests that this archive Washington Times article supports the figure in question. Where are those "repeated unactionable complaints" or those "baseless ANI complaints every month or so [filed] against Stefka Bulgaria" by me? --Mhhossein ^talk 12:32, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

  Mhhossein restored this (which seems somewhat sketchy) as a source, and it does ineed read ""Total: Since 1979 over 10,000 people have died in the conflict." Nearly all sources, unless quoting the Iranian regime, refer to bi-sided conflict deaths - MEK's militia sustained quite a bit of casulties.Icewhiz (talk) 13:31, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

• Comment - Responding to Mhhossein's points above:

1. According to Piazza's article, the alleged "death of more than 10,000 Iranians" figure derived from an alleged U.S. Senate statement published on The Iran Times (Islamic Republic of Iran-controlled media has been proposed inadequate for fact-checking for political opposition groups on account of current censorship issues in Iran, including a misinformation campaign by the Islamic Republic of Iran against the MEK).

References

2. Mhhossein's second source is an Opinion Piece on USA today written by Hamid Babaei, who appears to have links the Islamic Republic of Iran (the article is reminiscent of the misinformation campaign noted above).
3. Mhhossein's third source is far from being RS.
4. Mhhossein's fourth source quotes a State Department report that does not mention a particular figure of how many died. Also considering that there have been thousands of deaths on both sides, resuming in the article that As a result, more than 10,000 people have been killed in MEK's violent attacks since 1979 is clearly POV pushing.
5. Here's a list of Mhhossein's unactionable complaints against different editors: [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37] Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 17:33, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Also, here are a couple of previous reports against user Mhhossein for POV-pushing: [38], [39] Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 17:50, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Oh...sorry. Both are some years old cases. The first was opened by a sock and the second was nearly ending into a Boomerang for the user commencing the report. Claearly shows you're doing your best to find something against me.--Mhhossein ^talk 19:13, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Those are to show that Drmies had already warned you that your POV pushing was disruptive. Some of your unactionable complaints against different editors, however, are more recent. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 22:41, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Stefka Bulgaria, said Drmies has a pretty good track record when it comes to POV warnings, but one wonders how that is relevant here. Now, in the section above you said you'd reply to the charges on the article talk page. I suggest you answer them here. You really don't want me and a bunch of other admins to turn off the Alabama game, make a pot of coffee, and wake up to investigate these charges and draw our conclusions without your input. Drmies (talk) 00:53, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Stefka Bulgaria is not sad with the marginal discussions distracting the admin's eyes from the the diffs I provided. Thanks to the Icewhiz's defenses, Stefka's failure at replying to them is losing its importance. Anyway, I'd like to add one point in response to Stefka; His in vain 'censorship' accusations aside, Piazza's article makes use of an Iran Times article dealing with a U.S. Senate statement. The simple point is that The Iran Times, in contrast to what Stefka alleged, was ‬"founded‭ ‬in Washington‭ ‬D‭.‬C‭. ‬in‭ ‬1970‭, ‬in‭ ‬accordance‭ ‬with‭ ‬U‭.‬S‭. ‬federal‭ ‬and‭ ‬local regulations‭,‬" hence has nothing to do with the Iranian government. Had Stefka bothered to check the sources and contents of the articles before making edits, there would not be such a discussion. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:28, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

The Iran Times is a fringe publication with a sole editor, does not qualiy as RS. I have responded to Dmries request above. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:03, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

At first it was unreliable since it had some relations with Iran and now that otherwise is proved, it's a fringe source! Maybe John Wiley & Sons and editors of 'Digest of Middle East Studies' need to get aware of it. Btw, your link does not say the mentioned guy is the sole editor of the source. --Mhhossein ^talk 14:09, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

"Javad Khakbaz, the sole owner and editor of the Iran Times". Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:11, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

He might be the sole owner but not certainly the sole editor. Anyway, it's a time wasting discussion. The John Wiley & Sons source refers to a Senate report. See WP:SCHOLARSHIP.--Mhhossein ^talk 11:23, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Iran Times is not RS, and no link/reference is provided to the alleged US report (all of which simply reflects on the author). Your John Wiley & Sons source has a number of other fascinating statements such as:

• "This resistance is depicted as the vanguard of a popular struggle against a traitorous clique that has betrayed both ideals of the 1979 Iranian revolution and the memories of those martyred in it." (page 10)
• "The Mojahedin present themselves as a liberating Islamist alternative." (page 10)
• "The Mojahedin are, and continue to be, an ideological party committed to a radical, progressive interpretation of Islam tempered with familiar themes of liberation found in Shi’I doctrine."(page 11)
• "Specifically, the MEK look toward the creation, by armed popular struggle, of a society in which ethic, gender, or class discrimination would be obliterated."(page 11)

And many more.... Can you guess why I haven't included these in the article, despite it coming from a John Wiley & Sons publication? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 06:55, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

We don't edit based on YOUR standards, including your own definition of Reliable Sources. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:43, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Nabil Gabol 2

• Nabil Gabol (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Saqib (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Balochworld (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I've just blocked both of these users for perpetuating an edit war on this article, after the page had been protected due to their previous edit warring and one of them had already been blocked for it. Saqib clued me in to this discussion where it seems this issue has already been brought up, and on investigation it appears I've erred, but I'd like some more opinions on what is the best course of action here.

Saqib has been trying to add some allegations of criminal activity on this Pakistani politician's article, which appear on the surface to be reliably sourced (I'm not very familiar with sources from this part of the world so I have not investigated in great depth). This, approximately, is Saqib's proposed edit. Balochworld objects to negative information being added to the BLP, but has been advised by at least one admin besides myself that this material does not qualify for the WP:BLPREMOVE exemption from 3RR.

Unlike last time there has been discussion on the talk page, but I'm concerned that it amounts to Saqib and SheriffIsInTown talking past Balochworld and implementing contested edits before consensus has really been established. However it could also be that Balochworld is filibustering to ensure no negative material is added at all, and the previous discussion does seem to have concluded that they were at fault. I'm leaning towards proposing topic-banning Balochworld from the article, and reducing Saqib's block to time-served, but I don't want to issue a one-sided sanction without some more uninvolved opinions. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:00, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

• Looks like a content dispute and the blocks are warranted. I don't see ANI as the correct venue for the content dispute itself and suggest reverting back to Black Kite's stable version and holding on to that till the dispute is sorted out. --regentspark (comment) 19:23, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
• All of Balochworld's mainspace edits since 2012 have been to three articles: Nabil Gabol, Gabol, and Allah Bakhsh Gabol. I think it's about time they were encouraged to contribute elsewhere, possibly with a t-ban. Unfortunately, they haven't been warned about ARBIPA DS that I can see, so that may have to wait. I also see that they may have been using sockpuppets. That said; their behavior was not so egregious that Saqib should have been warring with them, and even if it had been, as an experienced editor he should have known to ask for admin attention rather that to continue edit-warring. As such I think both blocks were warranted. Saqib has, at least, admitted error, so I wouldn't be against lifting the block for a persuasive unblock request. Vanamonde (talk) 19:50, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I wasn't sure if this fell under ARBIPA since it doesn't seem to concern India, but I alerted both to the ARBBLP discretionary sanctions. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:52, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I have removed the description of the 2013 murder allegations as a BLP violation, since he has not been arrested, tried or convicted. Major Pakistani press coverage of him in recent years does not even mention these five year old unproven allegations of involvement in a murder. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:02, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

@Cullen328: I do not think there was any thing wrong in Saqib's edit. It was balanced and NPOV'd and covered all aspects of the allegation, from allegation to investigation to exoneration to rejection of investigation findings by the other party. As long as the content is sticking to the sources, there is nothing wrong in its inclusion and I do not think it is a BLPVIO in anyway. We cannot appease folks by removing information which they do not like. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 21:53, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I am sorry but I must disagree with you about this matter, SheriffIsInTown. Coverage of a completely unproven allegation of involvement in murder, made five years ago by the father of the victim, without any evidence, and without a trial, let alone a conviction, is a serious BLP violation in my judgment. Removing such content does not "appease" anyone. It is required by policy. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:13, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

@Cullen328: He was accused of murder, a joint investigation team was formed to investigate the allegations. This was all reported in reliable sources. I thought it was fair to tell the whole story in the article as per the sources instead of just completely removing the mention at all. This was not the only allegation against this individual so I think it is fair to mention the murder allegation in addition to other allegations and let the reader decide for themselves. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 23:43, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

SheriffIsInTown, I removed a single sentence which read ""In September 2013, Gabol was named in the murder of Zafar Baloch, leader of Peoples' Aman Committee," and two supporting references. There was nothing there about an investigation or an exoneration. This sentence by itself is most definitely a BLP violation. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:53, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

A fundamental problem that everyone should have with the section that Saqib added is the section header "Criminal activities". Activities ... meaning Gabol did something ... but everything in the section is accusation and investigations that apparently led to absolutely nothing. That's a falt out BLP violation that should be removed on the spot. Unless you want an article that doubles as a hit piece. Ravensfire (talk) 02:35, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

@Ivanvector and Cullen328: The only problem I see with Saqib's version is the section heading as pointed out by Ravensfire otherwise I see everything fine. Some of the content was agreed upon by me beforehand and with everything else I am agreeing now. If you disagree then let us discuss every bit and piece of that edit so we can come to a conclusion. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 04:08, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

@Ravensfire: I acknowledge the section header was not appropriate. I'll be more careful next time. --Saqib (talk) 05:44, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Balochworld is an SPA and they had made very less contributions outside that page. Nabil Gabol was created by them which was filled with POV and puffery languages. Saqib attempted to improve that page which involved removal of praise and introduction of negative information about the individual which was well sourced. Balochworld did not like it and wanted to censor it and was met with resistance by Saqib. Balochworld attacked Saqib personally and Saqib reported them at ANI. Balochworld accused Saqib of having ill-will towards Nabil Gabol and requested involvement of another editor to vet out Saqib's edits. Me being involved in another ANI thread at the time saw Balochworld's request decided to fulfill Balochworld's request and play a role of mediator. My involvement resulted in content going in favor of Balochworld in some aspects and in favor of Saqib in other aspects. Saqib accepted the decision which went against him but Balochworld did not which went against him. The edit referenced above by Ivanvector has parts which were agreed upon by me. I stopped following that page thinking the issue between these two editors was already addressed. They just had to follow the consensus achieved at talk. Considering all this, I would not blame the admin for his actions but I personally think that Saqib's block is a bit harsh as he tried whatever he could to resolve this issue but sometimes tenaciousness of POV pushers can get best of us and we tend to go overboard. Wikipedia is a way better off without editors like Balochworld. They are not here to build encyclopedia but that is not the case with Saqib. Saqib has displayed time and again how valuable he is for the project. Blocking Saqib is the loss of the project not his! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 21:36, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
• Balochworld offered this comment via their talk page: "I have read the discussion so far and completely agree with Observance22 Cullen328 and Ravensfire. Saqib is clearly making the article about the BLP a hit piece by including accusations that are over 5 years old. In Pakistani politics accusations come on a daily basis and are purely politically motivated. I clearly requested on several occasions that it should be removed because these accusations did not result in an investigation let alone any conviction. I thank SheriffsinTown for his effort but he will agree that the only thing all three of us reached consensus on was removal of 1990 and 1997 election results because clearly it was a common case of a candidate simply submitting nomination papers as his party's covering candidate (someone who has gotten several thousands votes in the same election cannot possibly get 24 votes at the same time). Hence after consensus a protected edit request was made successfully. Once the protection on the page expired Saqib went ahead with his own agenda and added information that was never even discussed let alone agreed upon. I did not expect this from an experienced editor like Saqib. I initiated a discussion on the article's talk page but Saqib seemed bent upon sticking to his version and that is when I warned him on his talk page and involved other editors. Balochworld (talk) 05:58, 15 September 2018 (UTC)" added by Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:48, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
• For my part, I was not intending for this post to substitute for discussion that should be occurring on the article's talk page, and I encourage everyone who's commented on the subject matter to continue discussion at Talk:Nabil Gabol. My question is about the blocks. I think it's reasonably clear that both of the blocked editors have reasonable points worth discussing, since others are now discussing them, so this was clear edit-warring-in-place-of-discussion, and since protection didn't work then removing the two edit warriors is a reasonable next step. Of course this comment is me reviewing my own action, so I'd still like to hear from others on the matter of the sanctions. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:53, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: As suggested by User:Vanamonde93, I too recommend that Balochworld (talk · contribs) be topic banned for sake of WP:N because he has a clear conflict of interest with this particular BLP. --Saqib (talk) 06:24, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

• Please note: WP:BLPCRIME applies in this case. Softlavender (talk) 23:33, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

NG2 proposal: topic ban

If I'm not wrong @Vanamonde93: above suggested a topic ban for Balochworld so here I propose a t/ban for Balochworld (talk · contribs) because of ownership and COI issues. Nabil Gabol, Gabol, and Allah Bakhsh Gabol are the only topic he ever edits since joining WP a decade ago. I'm not the only who think the user has COI on this BLP. (see [40] and this). Balochworld said here that xe's the original author of this BLP and that I should not edit it - a clear example of ownership behaviour. As one can here, xe claims to be an expert on the subject but I guess we don't need his expertise on this particular BLP and xe better contribute elsewhere to avoid further disruption.

• Support as nom. --Saqib (talk) 19:33, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
• Note There's also an account User:Balochworlds (note the extra "s") with exactly the same focus. I presume they're the same editor, and there is some overlap in 2008, but this account hasn't edited for ten years. Black Kite (talk) 21:00, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

@Black Kite: Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Balochworlds Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 21:22, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Due to their previous socking and recent socking during their current block, I do not think they should be allowed to even edit anytime soon but if somehow admins consider them useful for the project and decide to unblock them then I will support the topic ban otherwise Wikipedia is better off without them and their block should continue indefinitely! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 21:22, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support I was mistaken about their block period. They are only blocked for one week after all this. After their block is over, they should only be able to edit with a topic ban on Nabil Gabol, his family members, and the Gabol tribe overall! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 22:43, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Balochworld has been closed with no finding of fault against Balochworld. No evidence has been presented here that justifies a topic ban, in particular, zero convincing evidence of a conflict of interest. It seems instead that a few other editors are engaged in a content dispute with Balochworld. This looks to me like an attempt to prevail in a content dispute by removing one party to the dispute. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:23, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

  @Cullen328: Did you check their editing history? Their third edit, 10 years ago on 23 April 2008 was on Nabil Gabol and since then they almost exclusively edited that page. They had access to almost every picture ever taken of Gabol. Doesn't that signal an SPA and would not it be a good idea to force them to edit something else for a while? Your assessment about few editors attempting to prevail in content dispute is wrong, there is a genuine concern about this editor. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 00:27, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

  SheriffIsInTown, please read WP:SPA and tell me where it says that an editor should be topic banned just for being an SPA. No, it would not be a good idea to force them to edit something else for a while, unless there is solid evidence that their edits violate policies and guidelines. Yes, the editor seems to have a pro-Gabol point of view, just as you and several others seem to have an anti-Gabol point of view. Concerns are "genuine" only when convincing evidence of misconduct is furnished. Where is the evidence? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:36, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

  @Cullen328: You again accused me of having anti-Gabol view but if I must describe my views in this matter then I will brand them as anti-censorship. I saw an attempt to censor by an SPA on Nabil Gabol and I tried to prevent that because I believe that censorship is not good for the health of encyclopedia. You can see this discussion where you will see me opposing Saqib and supporting Balochworld which resulted in removal of negative information about Gabol. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 01:08, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

  SheriffIsInTown, it is not censorship to place a high priority on BLP policy. It is not censorship to exercise good editorial judgment. It is not censorship to remove completely unproven allegations of murder from five years ago that resulted in no arrest, no trial and no conviction. But my main point, which you have not addressed, is that no evidence has been furnished here that justifies a topic ban for Balochworld. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:53, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

  @Cullen328: This is the picture of Allah Bakhsh Gabol with Fatima Jinnah. Allah Bakhsh Gabol who died in 1972 was the grandfather of Nabil Gabol. The uploader User:Balochworld claims, it is "my own picture". Such claim can only come from a close family member and that family member could possibly be the grandson himself, we cannot say for sure. A user with COI issues would never say that they are the subject themselves or related to the subject. We can only use the evidence at hand to come to a conclusion whether user has COI issues or not. And, in this user's case, we have multiple indications that the user has COI issues which includes user's edit history which tells us that they mostly only edited Allah Bakhsh Gabol and Nabil Gabol, access to such pictures to which only a family member can have access to, and claim that Nabil Gabol's grandfather's picture is their own picture. What other proof we need? If we allow a user with COI issues to edit their own or their family member's article then they ought to try to censor everything negative! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 04:28, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

  SheriffIsInTown, please take a look at the photo of the bearded man at Jules Eichorn#Environmental leader, which is my own photo. I took it 40 years ago in the Sierra Nevada mountains of California. Do you think that is evidence that Eichorn is a relative of mine, and that I have a conflict of interest regarding Eichorn? If you think that, you would be wrong. I met him only once on that mountaineering trip. Take a look at the infobox photo at Arlene Blum. Is she my relative? I took that photo 41 years ago at a mountaineering equipment shop in Berkeley, California, where she was giving a fundraising pitch, and that was the only time I ever met her. Do I have a conflict of interest about Blum? No. Bottom line: The photos are not evidence of a conflict of interest requiring a topic ban. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:55, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

@Cullen328: For the record, I'm not anti-Gabol. Other than making a bunch of edits in January 2015, I never edited this BLP until recently as you can see the history. I significantly contribute to BLPs on Pakistani politicians and that's how I found this article. Nadirgabol (talk · contribs) was renamed Balochworlds (talk · contribs) in 2008 as per this request. Nadlr Gabol is son of Nabil Gabol as per this news story. This indeed establish COI. I'm posting this information after checking with Black Kite to avoid outing concerns. --Saqib (talk) 06:52, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

This is concerning, and makes sense (it also explains the oddly incongruous username "Balochworld" as a sort of disguise). I'm going to strike my !vote, but I'm not going to !vote support because the edits Saqib has made on the article are serious policy violations. Softlavender (talk) 07:02, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

@Softlavender: I acknowledge the header was not appropriate. Will be more careful next time. --Saqib (talk) 08:49, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

It's not just the header. Most of that text was problematical in some way. Softlavender (talk) 08:52, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

I thought it was covered by WP:WELLKNOWN. --Saqib (talk) 11:43, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose per Cullen. Please also note that WP:BLPCRIME applies in this case. Please work out the content dispute on the talkpage of the article, utilizing appropriate dispute resolution procedures if necessary. Softlavender (talk) 23:33, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

  @Softlavender: WP:BLPCRIME does not apply on this individual instead WP:WELLKNOWN applies. Since you based your vote on argument by Cullen328 thus please see my reply to Cullen 328 above! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 00:31, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

  To have a section in a BLP titled "Criminal activities" [41], full of unproven allegations, is most definitely a BLP violation and a violation of WP:BLPCRIME. -- Softlavender (talk) 00:41, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

  @Softlavender: I opposed that section heading and it was added during the time I was not watching the article but we cannot remove all content just because of a bad heading. A bad heading can be changed into a good heading! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 00:55, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: I think it may be appropriate to allow Balochworld to make edit requests on the talkpage of the articles. He may have a blatant COI but it should probably be his right to sometimes request changes if the articles start to become hit pieces again. We generally allow COI editors to make edit requests and ask for administrative review. As long as he does not bludgeon conversations or press his points beyond seeking administrative input, this may be a good way to go. Softlavender (talk) 11:17, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

@Softlavender: I don't have any problem with your proposal but xe is likely to engage in filibustering. --Saqib (talk) 11:35, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Not if it's properly worded. He could be allowed one request for any given edit he wanted to see made, and an administrator would review it and either make the change or not. It would be like an edit request to a full-protected page. If an admin decided to make the change, it could only be reverted by another admin. No bludgeoning or filibustering allowed. Softlavender (talk) 11:44, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

@Softlavender: I am okay with the proposal as long as we recognize that there are COI issues. Allowing them to make edits through edit requests will ensure that there are no edit-wars in future on this article involving this user. On the side note, I will like to understand why you think that WP:BLPCRIME applies for Nabil Gabol and not WP:WELLKNOWN as WP:BLPCRIME states This section (WP:BLPCRIME) applies to individuals who are not public figures; that is, individuals not covered by WP:WELLKNOWN.. Myself and Saqib thought and I think we are still of the same opinion that this individual is not a relatively unknown individual, he is a public figure and WP:WELLKNOWN applies in his case which states If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article-even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 13:38, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

• Comment from Balochworld - the user asked me to post a comment here that they made on their talk page; I've copied two that seemed directed at this conversation.

• [42] - Saqib is proposing that I be topic banned because I have conflict of interest. I strictly deny this accusation. I never claimed ownership of the article either. I am however well read on the subject and have been cotributing to the article for over 10 years. If anyone should be banned from the topic it should be saqib as he made a decade old article unstable and controversial. Further, one of the comments above by "Faithfullguy" appears to be sock-puppetry by Saqib. I request that SPA investigation be initiated against Saqib as Faithfullguy has been blocked already and was used while Saqibs account was blocked. Thank you Balochworld (talk) 18:27, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
• [43] - While I'm not being allowed to contribute Saqib continues to hurl false allegations now against me. He is now claiming that I am Nadir Gabol son of Nabil Gabol. This is insane. First of all I am not going to disclose my real name as that is a privacy issue but even if my name was Nadir Gabol do you all seriously think there is only one person with that name in the whole world? Balochworld (talk) 10:41, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

-- Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:39, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

My concern was genuine when I said someone is trying to impersonate me via Faithfullguy (talk · contribs) to give an impression that I'm socking while blocked. --Saqib (talk) 12:54, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

The sockpuppet investigation is just confusing things here. It would be best to consider it closed (because it is) and focus on the matter at hand here. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:09, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban - after a few rounds of admin-moderated discussion it's become apparent that Balochworld has valid concerns about the article, and this only led to edit warring and blocks because the editors proposing this ban declined to discuss the matter in good faith. Balochworld was not the [only] guilty party in that dispute. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:13, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree Balochworld is by no means the only guilty party. However he does have a very noticeable COI no matter how you look at it (deny it though he may): the old username; in possession of all kinds of family photos. So that tips the balance. I don't know what the best solution is. We can't let the article(s) be a hit piece, but we must also be cautious with COIs. Maybe if we full-protect the article(s) longterm. Softlavender (talk) 13:39, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

The best way to handle COI is through edit requests and discussion as you suggested further up. If we feel that the conflicted editor's direct contributions are serially problematic then it wouldn't be unusual to restrict them to edit requests, which I would prefer to topic banning them outright. I don't think that we're that far with Balochworld on this article, though, this was a matter where the editors should have discussed but didn't. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:10, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban as draconian measure to silence disagreement. Support possible editing restriction(s) – such as using talkpage edit requests – if needed due to COI. Softlavender (talk) 14:29, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. Yes, I know I suggested this, but since BW has now been cleared of socking, this would be overkill. BalochWorld, might I suggest that you broaden your participation a little? Vanamonde (talk) 16:16, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. I have been reading this sorry mess. User:Cullen328's forensic arguments lead me to believe this is just a way of silencing an 'opponent'. Would support measures indicated by User:Softlavender above. Simon Adler (talk) 16:32, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support (alternatively also support Softlavender's talkpage-only solution). There's far more going on here. The images uploaded by Balochworld/Balochworlds on the subject (File:Gabolandpm.jpg and File:ABGABOLJINNAH.jpg), are currently both up for deletion. Balochworld is still claiming, even now, that they took both of the photographs. Unfortunately, the first is from a video of the Pakistani PM and Gabol that can be found on the Internet Tineye and the second would have had to be taken in 1967 or before as Fatima Jinnah is in the photo (possible, but very unlikely). Of the latter, this one has been previously uploaded a couple of times by Balochworld(s) with the claim "Picture provided courtesy of Mir Nadir Khan Gabol" - i.e. they didn't take it themselves, even if they are close to the family. That's just straight-up lying (either then or now). Then there's the insertion of massive amounts of OR into Gabol articles ... and the fact that the SPI still came up  Likely, if not conclusive. Balochworld(s) has been here for 11 years and hasn't edited on any other subject. They clearly can't keep a NPOV on the subject and therefore they should be steered away from it. Black Kite (talk) 18:40, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
• Comment Balochworld has been indefinitely blocked by User:Huon for persistent copyright violations - see their talk page. Black Kite (talk) 22:17, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

NG2 proposal: talk page restriction

See what Black Kite wrote above; it seems at this point somewhat unlikely that the user will be back, but in the event they successfully navigate their copyright issue, it's pretty apparent that they have a conflict of interest on this topic leading to some disruptive editing. As an alternative to an outright topic ban from all of the topics they've ever edited (effectively a site ban) I suggest adopting Softlavender's solution of restricting Balochworld to suggesting edits via the articles' talk pages, so that they can participate but their edits are vetted. Let's say this is for "all pages related to the Gabol tribe, broadly construed". Several others have implicitly or explicitly endorsed this outcome already, let's make it formal. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:43, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

After reading everything on this page (under NG2 proposal: topic ban) I am under the impression that editors think I was not acting in good faith. I'm still unsure whether a BLP violation was committed on my part but I acknowledge the information was indeed controversial and wider community consensus was required. But my intention was not to malign Nabil Gabol, as some of the comments here would suggest. I relied on WP:PUBLICFIGURE and added the negative information because WP:PROUD states The neutral point of view (NPOV) policy will ensure that both the good and the bad about you will be told, and that whitewashing is not allowed. As the principle other guilty party, I am voluntarily placing myself under editing restriction which means I will stay away from making additions to this BLP (but I may revert controversial or OR edits such as this) and will recommend the changes on talk page when and if needed. --Saqib (talk) 17:03, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:43, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support Though I initially was in favor of a topic ban, but as long Balochworld does not engage in filibustering, I'm willing to support this proposal. --Saqib (talk) 14:46, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support As the goal is to prevent a COI user from controlling the articles to which they have COI and engage in endless edit-warring. A talk page restriction will provide necessary cushion against this behavior! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:08, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support, and in fact we could use this as a test of the new block features when rolled out. Guy (Help!) 17:52, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

IP spreading questionable information about dormant professional basketball players

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

This IP is adding unsourced info about the status of professional basketball players. The editor behind this IP is editing pages, mainly of basketball players in their 30s and presently without a team, under the assumption that they are all retired. Examples include Jason Terry, Rashad McCants, Larry Sanders (basketball), Samuel Dalembert, etc. (S)he edits that they are retired, despite a lack of official announcement saying such, and also having no reliable source. This has been a long-term occurrence, and the IP made an edit after being given a final warning not to do so. Also, here would be a typical edit from this IP. Mungo Kitsch (talk) 00:07, 19 September 2018 (UTC)..

This is a noob, the IP address is a static IP from the Philippines. I wouldn't call leaving him a third and final warning as a great way to start up communication with him. Just a suggestion try writing him a friendly note offering to help him figure out the problem is? If there is edit warring, take him to ANEW. Outside of that, this is a content dispute. Did you notice that his contributions consist of just simple phrases? It's quite possible that there is a language barrier. Basically, the only actionable thing in your report is BITE, and that doesn't point to the IP. John from Idegon (talk) 08:10, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

@John from Idegon: Fair point. Thank you for your input. Mungo Kitsch (talk) 18:12, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Rather than assuming bad faith here, I think it may be a good-faith difference in terminology. Many players never officially hold a press conference or have a press release and declare themselves retired; they just sort of can't find teams to hire them and quit playing. There's no magic threshold where a player goes from "could still play and is maybe still looking for a team" and "too old and probably not actively trying to play sports anymore". To take the reductio ad absurdum argument: What if those players aren't on a team for 5 years? 10 years? 40 years? If they never announce anything, when do we call them retired? I see nothing really disruptive with what they are doing. If there is a disagreement over what is already a very fuzzy definition. If we have a Wikipedia-specific consensus as to what that threshold is, link to it. If not, then you can't tell him he's wrong. Instead, start a discussion somewhere to establish a consensus on how to proceed before telling someone they are wrong, when you have no evidence they are. --Jayron32 18:17, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

I see your point. Come to think of it, some of the folks have not been on a team since 2015 or 2016 (or only played four games in the last four years). I'll keep your input in mind for the future. Mungo Kitsch (talk) 21:48, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

I don’t know about the NBA, but in Major League Baseball “retired” is a legal status with a very specific meaning. A player’s contract is rendered null and void and his pay stopped upon official retirement; if he’s still owed money on that contract he likely won’t officially retire, and especially not if he stopped playing due to a work-related injury (e.g. Prince Fielder). He may not be playing, but his legal status is absolutely not “retired”. --24.76.103.169 (talk) 10:57, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Problematic WP:SPA/WP:NOTHERE edits

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

Prolific SPA account that replaces references to the United States with references to China in articles about the foreign policies of countries in South East Asia and the wider region. Often grossly misrepresents the sources used. Here is one of the more outrageous examples: none of the references provided claim that Thailand "remains a major ally of China"—they're simply articles about Thai-Chinese foreign policy.

Some more examples:

• [44] Australia
• [45] Foreign relations of the Philippines
• [46] Philippines
• [47] Thailand
• [48] Foreign relations of Australia

Although some of the content added is of value, it usually comes with a heavy editorial bias, and I have had to check the references to find whether the claims are actually supported. Here, for instance, they've claimed that China is "the linchpin in the foreign policy of Australia and New Zealand", which is neither true nor supported by any of the references provided. I doubt anyone has sufficient time to police their edits (I certainly don't). Endymion.12 (talk) 12:58, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

I'd appreciate it if someone could address this. Endymion.12 (talk) 11:24, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

As a new user, I'd also be interested to know why no one is commenting on this. Am I in the wrong place? Endymion.12 (talk) 22:10, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

No, you are in a right place, it just seems to be a complex matter which requires an analysis of many diffs. I see for example, that the user was edit-warring without ever visited the talk page of the article, and that they outright dismissed [49] a complaint on their talk page without any reaction. This clearly means they have communication problems. But whether those are sufficient for a block, and how promotional their edits are, requires quite some time to analyze, and I currently just do not have this time (I might have or might not have it tomorrow evening). I hope someone will take the task of wading through these diffs.--Ymblanter (talk) 23:27, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

I was just considering posting something like this. Yes, Endymion.12, you couldn't have brought this to a better place; however, this is a complex case about behavior that may constitute subtle POV pushing and misrepresentation of sources, which will take time to analyze. The result of that analysis may be that the editor is engaging in problematic behavior, but that it is not sufficiently actionable beyond perhaps a warning, as well. Lastly, beyond all the aforementioned, there may simply be a lack of interest because the case is not dramatic enough and—this being the drama board—that unfortunately matters. If it is not a good enough show, the peanut gallery may remain empty.

I am saying this without reviewing the case myself, as well, so I have no comment on its merits or actionability. I am also not an administrator (and I typically just observe proceedings on this page), so I doubt I will be able to help much anyway. Regardless, thanks for taking the time to report. Even if it is meritless or unactionable, at least you are showing a commitment to be bold when it comes to problems you think need to be addressed. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 23:50, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Edit warring in Malaysia Airlines Flight 17

John (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) He decided to remove from the article correct quotations from sources where the term "SA-11" was mentioned, replacing it with a more general term "Buk".

"SA-11" was in the article since July 2014: a damage pattern indicative of a SA-11. Further:

1. Change in the consensus version: [50] - the revert to consensus: [51]

2. Start of the edit war, re-introduction of non-consensus changes: [52] and the righteous revert: [53]

3. Third addition of non-consensus changes: [54] and the righteous revert: [55]

4. Further, new participants join the war of edits. Andrewgprout have made the fourth entering of non-consensus changes: [56].

5. FlightTime have made the same: [57].

I tried to discuss this with John on his talk page, but he advised to "shut up" and close discussion: [58]. On the article talk page they just scoff: [59]. I'm completely at a loss and do not know what to do now.--Nicoljaus (talk) 23:14, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

I am not edit warring, I reverted the article to a stable version before this all started and posted a request for page protection and that's all I've done. - FlightTime (open channel) 23:24, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Tell me please. You see the history of revisions. Why do you think, that only the version of 22:19, 18 September 2018‎ is a stable version? Why not the version of 18:36, 18 September 2018‎, which were stable from 2014?--Nicoljaus (talk) 23:29, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

@Nicoljaus: It's the first version before the edit warring started. - FlightTime (open channel) 23:54, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Nope. This is a new version, which was pushed by the edit warring. All diffs are here.--Nicoljaus (talk) 00:05, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Not sure what you're seeing, but I'm not going to argue with you. This is the version I reverted to. - FlightTime (open channel) 00:16, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

It's strange for me, why the opposite side failed to see the start of the BRD cycle. Not one user, but two, three, four...--Nicoljaus (talk) 04:54, 20 September 2018 (UTC)--Nicoljaus (talk) 08:38, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Stable in 2014 is not stable in 2018. --Tarage (talk) 00:45, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

The changes were made 22:19, 18 September 2018 and first time reverted 22:54, 18 September 2018. When the new version became "stable"?--Nicoljaus (talk) 04:43, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

We told you above. It was the version before the edit warring started. --Tarage (talk) 05:08, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

No, personally you talk me about "stable version". When it became stable?--Nicoljaus (talk) 05:50, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

When the edit war started. --Tarage (talk) 09:17, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

How interesting. You mean, the article has no stable version until the edit war?--Nicoljaus (talk) 10:07, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

• I've left an only warning for personal attacks on Nicoljaus's Talk page. I was tempted to block, and if another administrator feels a block is warranted without the warning, that's fine with me.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:13, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  • This is another interesting edit from the OP. --John (talk) 09:05, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

    I would not be surprised if that IP is the same as 37.151.19.210 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), and the contributions of the latter are not really constructive. I just ignore them, but some users choose to reply.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:19, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

    And what's interesting there? IP-user tried to think up a story, and I said that his story seems like nonsense.--Nicoljaus (talk) 10:04, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

    What's interesting to me is that you described a living person as a "Drug&whore dealer". WP:BLP applies on talk pages and you need to be mindful of this going forward. --John (talk) 11:44, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

    It's funny. But in fact I wrote that the story in which a person is represented as a "Drug&whore dealer" is a complete nonsense.--Nicoljaus (talk) 12:01, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

    Your entire message was Drug&whore dealer try to generate attention of authorities to his business? It does not make sense, as for me. It's not obvious to me that this meant what you say it meant. Is the problem your command of English? --John (talk) 17:05, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

    May be. But, may be here is the same reason, why so many experienced users failed to find the start of BRD cycle.--Nicoljaus (talk) 17:13, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

    So you are justifying your dubious comment about a BLP by the fact that the consensus has gone against you at a different article? Again, it's really hard to figure out what you are saying. Are you still accusing me of recruiting meatpuppets to that discussion? That's a very serious allegation and it needs to be backed up with evidence or withdrawn, with or without an apology. --John (talk) 17:31, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

    No, you are drawing the wrong conclusions to me. However, I do not want to continue to talk with you, as you have already told me to "shut up" on your talk page. However, if you will explain, why so many experienced users failed to find the start of BRD cycle, I will be happy.--Nicoljaus (talk) 19:15, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

I request a block of Nicoljaus on grounds of competency and aspersions. Whether the user's infelicity with the English language is real or assumed, it makes it very difficult to communicate with them. And the editor has accused me of meatpuppetry, but in spite of being given many opportunities, refuses to withdraw the allegation or present evidence to support it. --John (talk) 19:36, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Obviously, this request was made to divert attention from his own behavior (edit warring). In spite of being given many opportunities John ignored the question "why so many experienced users failed to find the start of BRD cycle".--Nicoljaus (talk) 20:12, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Nicoljaus, is hardly helping himself by making aspersions. BUT he is quite correct, the stable version (stable since at least 2016) is the one that he reverted to (as did I), not the one that John and some others favour. Discussion continues on talk and no clear consensus has yet been established for the new version, or some modification. Nicoljaus and I were I believe quite correct to revert to the stable version until that discussion is resolved. The edit warring is being done by those who favour the new version and either don't know, or don't care what the stable version was. Perhaps their changes are correct, but they have to win the argument on talk first. Pincrete (talk) 20:59, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm not weighing in on the edit war, but Nicoljaus' question regarding BRD is, frankly, nonsensical. I don't know if that's difficulty with English, or just trying to needle John. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:00, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Continued reverts over the span of several months

Some months ago (early July), I was involved in an ANI thread due to my incorrect usage of AWB to update the use of "U.S." to "US" in usages of {{Episode table}}. After this thread, the general consensus was that editors should determine the usage of "U.S." or "US" on each article separately, and implement it thus. I understood the consequences of this, I was allowed to reapply for and was granted AWB rights for my account, and everything ended all well and smooth.

My question is that, while I understood and came to terms with the wrongdoing of my edits, it then acceptable for an editor (The Optimistic One (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) to mass revert those edits over the span of several months via the revert function, spamming my notifications in the process? Here are screenshots of these reverts. This continues despite my requests to cease this by moving to editing the article rather than reverting, firstly at User talk:The Optimistic One#Reverts (at a later point, a seemingly passive-aggressive comment was added in another language; the text in the diff apparently translates to "Oh, and thank you for the heads up."), then User talk:The Optimistic One#September 2018 today when I received a further nine revert notifications, after the first thread (indicating that the editor is doing this deliberately to spite me).

The biggest issue with this so far is that these edits are becoming disruptive in the fact that the editor is blinding reverting edits that are just by me without checking that it's the right edit, and thus reverting the incorrect edit. As a "punishment" for my edits, which I already received through the removal of the AWB right to my account, do I now have to deal with this for however many more months? Is my "punishment" for the linked thread to wake up in the morning at the end of next year to another dozen reverts? -- Alex^TW 05:15, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Firstly, most of those reverts happened around the time Alex made the edits, I told Alex; Those edits had to be reverted, I have a job to do just like every other Wikipedian, and part of that job is reverting disruptive edits. That revert was a fluke, I don't how it turned out like that. By the time Alex had messaged me, I was reverting his disruptive edits. Every recent revert I made was because I stumbled across Alex's edits of a particular season, I would then revert all the edits made to the rest of the seasons. Why should I waste time scrolling through sections of articles when I can just revert his edits? If he's going to get worked up about it then why doesn't he self-revert his own edits. It's been nearly three months, they're up there long enough and all should be removed. I'm going to stop reverting them from now on due to the backlash. The Optimistic One (talk) 05:39, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

As can be seen from the screenshots, most of them are actually recent, so they're not around the time the edits were made. That revert wasn't a "fluke", it was you not checking what you were reverting and just doing it blindly. To paraphrase you: Why should you waste time scrolling through histories of articles when you can just edit a single section? As for the reverting, they didn't have to be reverted, see my initial paragraph - After this thread, the general consensus was that editors should determine the usage of "U.S." or "US" on each article separately, and implement it thus. It was up to the editors of each of the separate articles to determine it, it wasn't a "had to" revert, nor was it a case where I had to self-revert - I actually opened up a second thread and I was strongly recommended against doing that.

If you're going to stop reverting them, then this thread could be closed, but I'm still curious, just as a single editor, as to whether it's acceptable. -- Alex^TW 05:46, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Reverting your edits was the quickest way of getting the job done. I would have scrolled through sections and histories if I couldn't revert your edits. I told you, if your going to get worked up about it then why don't you self-revert your own edits. Those edits were disruptive. The Optimistic One (talk) 06:00, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Did you not read? I already said nor was it a case where I had to self-revert - I actually opened up a second thread and I was strongly recommended against doing that. -- Alex^TW 06:24, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

I did. Can you send me a link to the thread? The Optimistic One (talk) 12:49, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT by Sameem123

• Sameem123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sameem123 has already been blocked twice in the past year for disruptive editing. Lately, he has been persistent with WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Briefly, he wants to add Rising Stars Challenge to the infobox of participants of that annual exhibition game. After his intial bold edits, I reverted and left a message on his talk page at 10:30, 30 June 2018, explaining my objection and inviting him to get consensus. Subsequently, he has not gotten a single supporter, but will not drop the WP:STICK. His responses:

1. User talk:Bagumba 12:18, 30 June 2018 I don’t want to create Wikipedia articles all I want to add to nba players who participate it on event can’t believe you took it off everybody would agree with me except you.
2. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Basketball_Association/Archive_34#NBA_rising_stars_challenge 06:42, 1 July 2018 Rising stars challenge is accomplishment to any nba players in their first or second year in NBA.
   • 17:07, 3 July 2018 Rising stars challenge is accomplishment to any nba players in their first or second year in NBA. You’re not gonna convince me that not necessary to add infobox.
   • 17:10, 3 July 2018 There is consensus to add it info box to any nba players who made in their first or second year in nba just like all stars appearances like LeBron, Jordan, Kobe, KD.
   • 16:49, 4 July 2018 I warned him to WP:LISTEN and to not fabricate "consensus".
3. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Basketball_Association/Archive_34#Rising_stars_challenge 10:27, 1 August 2018 Please add it to nba player in their first or second year in NBA.
   • 13:31, 1 August 2018 I asked: "What is different now than when you brought this up last month ..."
4. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Basketball_Association#NBA_Rising_Stars_Challenge 23:40, 17 September 2018 It’s award for nba players in their first and second year in NBA. Please add this award in nba players.
   • 07:56, 18 September 2018 Sabbatino disagreed with Sameem123
   • 10:28, 18 September 2018 I warned Sameem123 about WP:NOTGETTINGIT
5. User talk:Sabbatino 05:01, 20 September 2018 So nba all star game on Sunday is exhibition game and that counts as all star appearances and winning mvp in all star game is same as rising stars challenge please stop making this hard on me and yourself I just wanted to be award.
   • 08:01, 20 September 2018‎ Sabbatino reverts with edit summary of "I'm not going to discuss anything with you, because you keep ignoring what has been told to you by other users"

Sameem123's behavior is captured by guideline WP:CTDAPE, disrupting at "a low level that might not exhaust the general community's patience, but that operates toward an end of exhausting the patience of productive rule-abiding editors on certain articles."

Given their last block was for a week, 2 weeks now seems reasonable.—Bagumba (talk) 10:41, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't appear that the user will post to this thread. How will we handle their continuing unresponsive behavior?—Bagumba (talk) 12:08, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Could someone please have a look at Talk:Rajiv Gandhi Proudyogiki Vishwavidyalaya#Multiple MOS and other guideline violations

I would appreciate if someone had a look at the edits at Rajiv Gandhi Proudyogiki Vishwavidyalaya and the discussion at Talk:Rajiv Gandhi Proudyogiki Vishwavidyalaya#Multiple MOS and other guideline violations. An IP made six reverts in a day (changing address in the middle). I try to be civil and explain what is wrong with their edit, but to no avail. I warned them more than enough times about violating guidelines but they don't care. Help appreciated. --Muhandes (talk) 14:35, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

I've put in my two cents after history-merging the article, but other opinions would also be helpful. Graham87 08:20, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, indeed, other opinions would be helpful. --Muhandes (talk) 15:00, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Persistent WP:CIR issue

Srbernadette (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
At the help desk, Srbernadette (and often logged out as IP addresses) constantly asks the same questions. They are always about referencing errors, and nearly always about CS1 errors that they have caused. The fact that they have been editing for ~2 years and constantly ask the same questions, with an inability to learn from their mistakes and act on clear, simple advice shows that their level of competency is insufficient to edit Wikipedia in my opinion. WP:CIR says that " A mess created in a sincere effort to help is still a mess. For that reason, it can become necessary for the community to intervene when an editor has shown, through a pattern of behavior, the likelihood that they are not capable of contributing in a constructive manner." This user has spent years asking the same questions, multiple people have been endlessly patient with them at the Help Desk, yet they show an inability to do basic referencing. Therefore, as per the CIR quote above, I believe that it is time for the Wikipedia community to intervene. Evidence of their lack of competency is just shown my the number of CIR-related complaints (and there have been many more on the IPs they have used, although I don't have the IP addresses). Joseph2302 (talk) 17:56, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Recent IPs include User:175.33.45.21 and User:203.132.68.1. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:19, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Just so it's clear, I don't think a topic ban from the Help Desk would help, as they'd still make the persistent errors. I'm instead requesting a block as they lack the competency required to edit English Wikipedia. Don't know if it's because they're young, or their first language isn't English, but they aren't competent enough, and haven't acknowledged any attempts to reach out to them. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:00, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

I've lost count of the number of times I've had to warn the editor at the Help desk to not deliberately make errors and come to the Help desk asking for assistance. That's the basic system they operate in; create a deliberate error, then rush to the Help desk with a sorrow-laden request (which would have terms like "I am sorry I couldn't correct the error"; while there're no significant attempts to do the same). This seems to be an attention seeking issue. While the editor has claimed sometime in the past (I may be wrong here, so don't quote me) that they are some kind of an educator in some institution, I think it's a red herring to keep the issue away from bloating up. They also have started editing using IPs to avoid their edits being connected. Despite being warned on their talk page by me to not do the same, they've continued editing while being logged out.

If the editor strictly agrees to edit without being logged out, and to first undo their edits which created the problem in the first place, before reaching the Help desk, they may be allowed to continue with a zero-tolerance warning note. I don't think the editor will even reply here – if they don't comment and give explanations here, just block them indefinitely because this is absolutely disruptive. Simply topic banning them from Help desk is not going to help; they will continue deliberately inserting errors in articles, and maybe go to the talk pages of individual editors. Lourdes 00:28, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree that this editor is problematic. If they think that making their requests at the Help Desk logged out will avoid calling attention to them, that is a mistake. Any Help Desk editor who has seen their requests recognizes them from IP addresses, and their making the requests from IP addresses is just annoying. I would assume good faith that they don't make the mistakes on purpose, but I agree that there is a competence problem, and that they should at least be topic-banned from the Help Desk and probably given an indefinite but not infinite block. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:21, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Well, she's back at the Help desk, again asking the mess she has created to be rectified. This isn't going to stop. Lourdes 08:14, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

• For the benefit of non-help-desk-regulars, the situation has already been discussed in Wikipedia_talk:Help_desk/Archive_12#What_is_the_Help_Desk? a couple years ago. Pinging all editors from that discussion: @Dismas, David Biddulph, Eagleash, Robert McClenon, Maproom, and NQ:. I will also leave notice of that discussion at the HD talk page, since (as far as I can see) this has not been done yet. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 13:15, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

And they're at it again under IP 175.33.45.21 - they have five sections on the help desk today alone! Joseph2302 (talk) 10:46, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Srbernadette topic ban from HD and indefinite block proposal

Given the IDHT behaviour of Srbernadette (in not agreeing to undo their error-laden edits, despite being told multiple times) and lack of response at this desk, and given their continuing disruption of articles and at the Help desk by either deliberately or unknowingly inserting errors and then asking other editors to clean up after them, I propose that the community considers topic banning Srbernadette from the Help desk, combining the same with (striking post Ivan and Guy's comments; hopefully isn't an issue with the previous supporters. Lourdes 13:47, 21 September 2018 (UTC)) an indefinite block, until the editor agrees explicitly to not continue such editing behaviour. Lourdes 08:21, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Lourdes 08:21, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support as per my initial comments. I would only support unblock if they agree that whenever they get errors, they undo their issue, and then read the relevant error messages. I assume this is also applies to their multiple IP addresses, as blocks are given to people not accounts? Joseph2302 (talk) 08:42, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support with misgivings - I think this is as close to a "pure" CIR as they come; the editor has nothing but good intentions but a completely baffling incapacity for learning even the simplest fixes for their constant errors. This feels mean but necessary. Note, I think the block is the important bit here - merely keeping the issues away from the Helpdesk will only mask them. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:20, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support indefinite block for the editor (including IPs so perhaps the block needs supporting with a ban). I have tried countless times to advise this editor, but he never takes notice of what he's told. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:47, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
• This looks like a WP:CIR block, not a TBAN. Which are we being asked to discuss? Guy (Help!) 11:17, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose the combination as ... weird. Why would we topic-ban them and also block them? One or the other, not both. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:47, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

  Guy, Ivanvector, point noted and modified. Lourdes 13:47, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

• In that case, support an attention-getting softblock until the user responds and acknowledges the problem and accepts advice on how not to create these errors in the first place. I'm worried, though, that we're just going to send the user into logged-out block-evasion sockpuppetry and end up with them banned, so I hope if that happens admins will consider some leniency. If it's evident they're just disinterested in learning how to fix the errors themselves, then we'll be heading into a CIR indef anyway, I just don't want to jump there right away for someone who is apparently trying to help but doing it all wrong. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:57, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support at least a softblock, per CIR. Guy (Help!) 14:49, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. This editor works in areas very far from my interests, and I do have sympathy for those at the Help Desk who have tried to help them, and I admit I am new to the case. But the editor appears to be adding referenced content. I see no evidence of an English problem, although I note people have said their spelling is weak (that's hardly unusual). What I do see is someone who has used the citation templates from the get-go and appears to find them very difficult. I note that our guidance for new editors these days assumes the use of citation templates, and also advocates asking at the Help Desk when one has a problem ... so I've followed a hunch and pointed out on the editor's talk page that the templates are not mandatory. I think the editor has a problem with templates, and since they really are not mandatory, that should not be a deal-breaker. I may of course be wrong, but I thought it couldn't hurt in the spirit of AGF. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:15, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

  I think the Help desk regulars have attempted the spirit of AGF since ages. The problem is not their understanding of the citation template; the problem is their erroneous entries. One example from their innumerable postings – on 13 September 2015, three years ago, the editor edited an article and entered the date in the citation template as 13 September 20115.[60] Immediately thereafter, within two minutes of doing this, they leave a message at the Help desk claiming "ref number 100 is a mess - what is wrong?". Cut to three years later, and the story is absolutely the same, with their innumerable postings in-between on the Help desk already resulting in as many amounts of advice to the editor to use simpler referencing systems, or to undo their errors, or to read the letters in red.... The Help desk regulars have seen this for years. You may be new on the scene but you should know what you are AGFing. And of course, please do ping me if the editor ever replies to your note of advice. Thanks, Lourdes 16:31, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose I've seen this person around the help desk a lot. I'm sure it does get annoying seeing the same person with the same problem over and over. If I were to guess, I'd say this person is probably older - 60s, 70s, somewhere in there, and finds technology daunting. They've learned that if they screw up the reference they can go to the help desk and someone will fix it for them. I think that's the problem, is that people have been fixing it for them. I know people have tried to explain how to fix it, but has anyone actually combined explaining how to fix it with then making them fix it themselves? ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 17:05, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

  On countless occasions he has been told what the problem is and how to fix it, but he repeatedly comes back and asks the help desk to fix the same sort of problems (as mentioned above, such as obviously invalid dates). --David Biddulph (talk) 18:24, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

  Right, that's what I said, people tell them how to fix the problems, but they don't make them fix it. Some people only learn by doing. Stop doing it for them. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 19:40, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

  I have no way to "make them fix it"; I can leave it with the error in place, or revert the edit which inserted the error. I agree that those who keep correcting the errors when requested to do so by the incompetent editor are just encouraging the continuation of the disruptive editing. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:56, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

  From my reading of the situation I'm with David, though I dislike some of the aggressive language he's used in reply. It seems that the editor has been advised several times how to fix their errors, but they don't. They don't take the advice and don't try to fix it, they just run off and make another of the same errors and then run back to the help desk. WP:CIR is precisely correct here - you can explain all you want to an editor how to fix a thing, but if they won't do it then somebody has to. You can't force anyone to do anything, we can only prevent them from keeping on with making the same mistakes. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:05, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

  ONUnicorn, the editor simply refuses to hear any advice – as they have chosen to do by not responding to Yngvadottir's message, to the Help desk regulars innumerable messages over years, to this ANI discussion... With all due respects, if you are proposing that you will lead the way to engage the editor in discussions and are able to evoke a response from them agreeing to change their behaviour, I will withdraw this proposal. Otherwise, you cannot expect Help desk volunteers to again go through more years of similar behaviour. When the editor makes a mistake and runs away after noting it on the Help desk, they simply don't respond to any message to correct their error. How do you propose to handle that? We are proposing a block till they change this behaviour. If you have a better administrative method that you will take up personally (and not expect others to do it), please do mention here and I will be okay to withdraw the proposal. Thanks, Lourdes 03:08, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose I do not believe there is any reasonable hope that Srbernadette reform her ways; we could try a stern warning, but the real choice is between indef-block and tolerating the negatives because of the positives. (TBANning from the HD is certainly worse than either option.) For the positive, see the contributions, my non-expert view is that Srbernadette is rather productive in the niche topic of British nobility.

The negatives come in two spades: breaking article or reflist layout because of technical mishaps, and disrupting the help desk because of repeated hand-wringing queries; neither of which come even close to outweighing the positive in my view. About the former, adding a reference to the article and breaking the formatting along the way is in my view even a positive; yes, it would be better not to break the layout, but at the end it still gives us a useful ref. About the latter, the volume of queries is rather low (maybe 2-3 per week) and is not impeding the help desk's operation in any significant way.

On the whole I stand by my comment at Wikipedia_talk:Help_desk/Archive_12#What_is_the_Help_Desk?: if you don't want to correct her mistakes, don't do it, but don't complain that others do so. Tell others they should not be fixing the mistakes because it encourages the bad behavior, sure, but don't force them not to help either. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 13:15, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. I believe that Srbernadette is an asset to Wikipedia, adding referenced content, albeit on topics of no interest to me such as the British royal family. Yes, she is incompetent, but she is invariably polite and is not argumentative or disruptive. I find it easy to carry out her requests, by e.g. moving the date of a ref into the "date" field, and have no objection to doing so. I cannot explain her incompetence, but I acknowledge it, just as I acknowledge that there are people who can't calculate 57+26 in their head, and will never be able to despite any amount of nagging. The continuing reprimands issued to Srbernadette by some of the experienced editors listed above remind me of the quotation "insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results". A block, or the threat of a block, will not reform Srbernadette's behaviour, it will just cause the loss of a useful contributor, who has not violated any rule. If you believe that disruption of the Help Desk is a serious issue, then please try to get Srbernadette to direct her requests to my talk page instead; she has once made a request there (and I realise now that I should have answered it by correcting what she had done, rather than just giving factual answers). Maproom (talk) 13:49, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Agree with Tigrann and Maproom. This editor may have some difficulty grasping usage of citation templates but overall is a positive contributor and not causing any significant disruption.MB 16:43, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
• Comment I am very much undecided on this issue. I would agree that SB overall contributes to the encyclopedia but also share the frustrations expressed by other editors. I quite often fix their errors after requests at the help desk and then return to their thread pointing out what was wrong in the hope that they will gain some knowledge: that doesn't seem to work! Joseph2302 will, I think, remember a now indef'd IP-hopping, disruptive (though possibly well-intentioned) editor to Formula One pages, who, it was eventually discovered, had a connection to a school for special-needs pupils (for which Wikipedia has a page). Some similarities in the two editors' behaviour might suggest something similar happening here. This however, does not grant a licence for disruption as WP:AUTIST and WP:NOTTHERAPY suggest. The IP editor was disruptive in multiple ways though not just in lacking the skills. Overall I think a block or ban to be a bit harsh; it may ultimately come to that but I do not know if there's an effective way of getting SB to improve in these small ways. (Thanks Tigraan for the 'ping'). Eagleash (talk) 19:55, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

  I'm strongly on the Oppose side, but I've seen enough of SB's activity to believe nothing will get her to improve her editing skills. Incidentally - we see plenty of editors who add references in the form of bare URLs - that's more annoying than the behaviour of SB, but no-one threatens them with blocks, eventually some drudge just gets round to filling in the details. Which is worse, adding a ref incompetently and walking away, or adding a ref incompetently and reporting what you've done? Maproom (talk) 20:38, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

  If there is any problem here, it seems to be with the edit errors and not necessarily their reporting those errors to the Help desk. The latter is a product of the former; if the former kinds of edits are banned, such as in some sort of topic ban on certain MediaWiki markup (like citation templates and perhaps tables or wherever else the errors tend to occur), then the Help desk behavior is no longer problematic and any violation of the topic ban results in a block, anyway. I suggested as much below as an alternative to blocking, since I ultimately want to ensure productive editors are retained and support for a block is already significant. (I hope you don't mind the minor refactoring.)

  As for the bare URL references, they may be inferior to well-formated and wikified citations (and in that sense annoying), but they are at least leads for WikiGnomes and the like to clean up. The community tolerates users like me for exactly that reason. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 22:48, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

  Considering the significant number of editors with Asperger syndrome and autism who have no problem with competence (and those are only the self-identifying ones!), I do not think it matters whether this editor is among them. Perhaps you meant low-functioning autism in specific, but that is not what WP:AUTIST is about. Regardless, if I am understanding you correctly, I do not think speculating about the cognitive conditions of editors is productive (and may be taken as uncivil), nor is it ultimately relevant. It may, in principle, explain certain behavior; however, what matters is the competence as such as not whatever might be affecting it. Given what you said, I suspect you agree. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 22:17, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

•  Comment: I am unfamiliar with this case and have not reviewed it, so I have no comment on whether any action should be taken, but I do have a suggestion for everyone to consider: If the problem seems to be with the use of CS1 and CS2 templates, or even templates generally, then perhaps a specific ban on using them would solve it? I do not know if that has ever been done, and I generally only cite in CS1 myself; however, if the editor is otherwise productive in providing worthwhile prose and sourcing, then sticking to plain-text contributions with minimal MediaWiki (and HTML?) markup may resolve this. There are plenty such users; the wikification can be left to others, like me.
  If retaining this editor is a net positive for the project, and bare URL references count as a net positive, then this is a way that might achieve that. If not, the conditions of the ban would involve a block for violation, anyway. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 22:17, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
•  Comment: It's late, so I'm not going to say much now except to point out that SB has only ever edited their own talk page once. And that was to ask for help in a section started by SineBot. I'd be more inclined to help a person if they showed the least amount of effort to respond to questions or guidance. SB has not done that. We only get "I can't do it" type replies followed by another request to make the fixes. †dismas†|^(talk) 02:05, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
• For better or worse, I'm going to point out that Category:CS1 errors has 185,622 pages in it at the moment. One editor creating a handful more errors once in a while probably isn't that big a deal. The problem as I understand it is the repetitive help desk posting: asking for help for the same problem repeatedly after being given advice on how to fix it seems more like deliberate carelessness, like the user has come to expect that someone will just clean up after them. I don't really know what to suggest but I'll try anyway: next time the user comes to the help desk with this same problem, tell them how to fix it, but leave it for them to fix it themselves. If they fix it, great! If they don't, then WP:CIR. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:38, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

IP continuing to add copyvio links to YouTube

47.201.190.53 (talk · contribs) IP has been reverted several times. I note that a claim at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion#Sri Somesvara Temple that " The TV Asia producer posted this video himself, so no copyright problem" but I'm not convinced, as IMDB[61] calls him (or he calls himself) " passionate volunteer Video Journalist for TV ASIA". IP also calls Gowri Goli the owner of TV Asia but that's nonsense. I think I am within my rights to block but would prefer someone uninvolved to act. He's also been removing a 2017 template from Michael Mamas although how the IP can be so sure I have no idea, and a self-published template on the grounds Mamas writes for the media, although his books seem self-published. That article's a mess anyway. Doug Weller talk 13:42, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Blocked for 31h, WP:3RR is pretty clear, and they have been warned for edit-warring. Concerning videos of doubtful provenance, isn't it what we have OTRS for?--Ymblanter (talk) 14:01, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Rangeblock requested for grammar warrior

Ponyo blocked the Los Angeles range Special:Contributions/2605:E000:1301:4462:0:0:0:0/64 for three days ending earlier today, but the person has started up again with grammar warring of the exact same nature, changing "crew was" to "crew were".[62] The IP Special:Contributions/2605:E000:1301:4462:C049:D05D:2B1D:A481 has come out of the rangeblock to resume this kind of grammar warring. Parsecboy was also dealing with this person before the earlier block.

The person behind this IP range was offering unhelpful Teahouse contributions, for instance this rude invitation to self-destruct, and this incomprehensible complaint which required Cullen328 and Nick Moyes to perform further research. The number of Teahouse contributions from this range is large, and most of them are time wasters, not helpful.

A third area of disruption by this person has been in film plot sections, where he/she tangled with TheOldJacobite over The Last Samurai and The Departed, among others. Binksternet (talk) 18:49, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Additional context. GMG^talk 19:33, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Just at this moment I don't see how the disruptive behaviour has resumed, they're just making grammar corrections, unless you're saying those corrections are wrong? Also, just noting that an IPv6 /64 is functionally equivalent to a single IPv4 address - all addresses within the /64 should be presumed to be the same user in the same way that discrete IPv4 addresses should be presumed to be the same user (at one time, they're dynamic, etc). I'm not even really sure why we *can* block individual IPv6 addresses - should just always block the /64. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:44, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

The grammatical corrections are, in fact, correct. That is: unless any of the ships affected really did have a crew of just one person (plain impossible). Since crews are resolutely plural, then "the crew were rescued" is entirely correct and plural. TheVicarsCat (talk) 16:04, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Not necessarily. It is more of an English variation matter, since collective nouns are given a different grammatical number depending on the variation. For example, at least in British English, collective nouns (which "crew" can be) tend to be treated as plural ("...the crew were...") rather than singular, the latter being more common in other variations and especially in American English. Moreover, "crew" can refer to a single crew member, in which case singular forms are due irrespective of English variation; likewise with ships whose crew comprises one member, which may be the case in certain contexts however rare. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 23:10, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Per Nøkkenbuer, there is no universal correct way to refer to collective nouns of a singular form. There are two approaches: treat the collective as what it represents (called notional agreement), and treat the collective as a unit unto itself (called formal agreement). It also is NOT as simple as "British English does one, and American English does the other". There are situations within each dialect where one form is favored over the other, but there are some cases that BrEng treats notionally and AmEng treats formally, and vice-versa. The problem comes not from people, in good faith, changing one they think is wrong because they are only exposed to one variety of English, the problem comes when people are informed of the fact that multiple varieties of English exist, and refuse to believe it. --Jayron32 23:25, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

English varieties does not come into it. With the exception of one article affected, all the ships are British registered and therefore British English is the language variety that should be used. The sole exception (French frigate Vénus (1780)) is about a French registered ship. However the edit to that article was not a grammatical correction but a minor CE)). TheVicarsCat (talk) 09:08, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

From: Collins Dictionary of [British] English Usage. "A collective noun meaning 'a number of' can mean either 'some' or 'a large (or small) number', and is accordingly treated as plural." It does note an exception where the collective noun is qualified by what it is a number of. Thus 'the crew were rescued' is correct (because 'crew' means 'a [large] number of [sailors]'), but the cumbersome 'crew of sailors was rescued' would be similarly correct (because there is only one 'crew of sailors'). TheVicarsCat (talk) 09:32, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: I think it's fair to say here that this rangeblock isn't going to be actioned at the moment - it now appears to be a content dispute of some sort (a grammar dispute - the best sort). Would it be possible to continue this discussion on the talk page of the articles in question, or more appropriately in this matter, some sort of dispute resolution page? Much appreciated y'all - TNT ^💖 09:50, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

OldSumo326227 Cannon: HERE?

• OldSumo326227 Cannon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I've noticed strange edits by this account including copyright violations (some pages were copies from biography.com and had to be deleted, but also material from their talk page), then section blanking here. Never have used a talk page other than to copy material from elsewhere, despite attempts to reach out to them like here. It's unclear what they are trying to do and will not attempt to explain. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 21:20, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Not really. Though it is fine to wait some more before indeffing the user. Capitals00 (talk) 19:31, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

WP:HOUNDING me with the intention of WP:DAPE, reporting as per WP:DDE advice

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

WP:HOUNDING me with the intention of driving me away as per WP:DAPE

16 April 2018 I created the article People's Vote (diff) and expanded it to include the article "Britain for Europe" (see draft version of "Britain for Europe") diff.

17 April 2018 I created an extra section for Template:United Kingdom in the European Union including a link to the article "Britain for Europe" diff (rationale: Creation of "Calls for a second vote" section).

I also created Template:People's Vote, diff.

24 May 2018 I brought European Parliament election, 2019 (United Kingdom) back into use diff (rationale: Rewrite 27 May 2018).

4 June 2018 User:RaviC added a PROD template to European Parliament election, 2019 (United Kingdom) without notifying me diff, knowing it was a controversial deletion.

7 June 2018 RaviC added a Notability template to People's Vote with no edit summary explaining why diff.

RaviC also added a Speculation template to European Parliament election, 2019 (United Kingdom) diff.

20 June 2018 RaviC opened an Afd on Britain for Europe.

12 July 2018 I created the artcle Mike Galsworthy (diff)

16 July 2018 RaviC added a Coatrack template to the Galsworthy article diff.

22 July 2018 RaviC added a PROD template to the Galsworthy article without notifying me diff knowing it was a controversial deletion.

23 July 2018 RaviC opened WP:Articles for deletion/Mike Galsworthy without notifying me diff.

16 August 2018 RaviC restored coatrack and notability templates on the basis that the AfD "was a no consensus close" diff.

19 September 2018 Commented on WP:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 September 12#Template:People's Vote that the template is a WP:SOAPBOX. diff.

--The Vintage Feminist (talk) 01:43, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

• This is a fairly convincing argument that RaviC has strong opinions about Brexit, I'm not sure how this is supposed to prove anything about their relation with you? power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:38, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
•  Investigating.... (Swarm ♠ talk) 03:51, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
• Okay. RaviC has edited several Brexit-related articles, but it doesn't appear to be out-of-line with his overall areas involvement, which includes politics, politicians and elections, of varying levels and types, from the UK and other countries. I see nothing to indicate that Ravi is fixated on Brexit, or has strong opinions on it. So, if it's not a COI, is there evidence of WP:HOUNDING? I actually think it's reasonable suspicion. That's a lot of run-ins, all of which seem unambiguously antagonistic. If he's not targeting this behavior at TVF specifically, I'd be concerned with the clear pattern of uncollaborative/hostile behavior. Both of those are bad PRODs, obviously controversial and in need of nuanced discussion, and PRODing without notifying the article's creator is unacceptable. Also, they PRODed the articles with Twinkle, which issues the required notification by default. You have to manually disable the option to PROD without sending a notification. So that definitely seems pretty malicious. Then, the drive-by tagging/tag-warring is problematic as well. Placing maintenance tags without explaining any concerns on the talk page is unacceptable, as is reinstating contested tags without discussion. Especially concerning is this, where he tagged an article with no edit summary or explanation of any kind (and later re-added it without specifying what the problem was), and this, this and this spurious tag-bombing of an article with no explanation on the talk page, after those concerns had failed to gain a consensus backing at AfD. Incredibly, RaviC asserted in his edit summaries that the lack of consensus to support his allegations confirmed the validity of them. Unreal. Lastly, the SOAPBOX allegation here is a akin to a personal attack/aspersion. Nothing about that template is obviously or even subtly promotional unless you're assuming bad faith in regard to the creator's intentions. There's no reason to do that here, which does seem to reinforce the suspicion that Ravi has it out for TVF for some reason. No good faith editor should be subjected to this kind of treatment, and I think anyone who is subjected to it would be within reason to perceive it as harassment. If this isn't intentional HOUNDING, it's WP:CIR-level petty disruption, and I have a hard time believing that a regular editor from 2006 is unfamiliar with basic behavioral norms. I'm not going to ask for a reasonable explanation, because there is no reasonable excuse for these edits, but I'm willing to hear whether Ravi has any sort of apology to offer, and whether he would be willing to voluntarily avoid interactions with TVF going forward. As it stands now, I'd be inclined to block if there are further incidents. (Swarm ♠ talk) 05:18, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
• I don't personally see this situation as being as serious as Swarm describes. RaviC's participation in some of these articles is curious, but as Swarm observed it's definitely not outside their regular interests, which in this case have happened to intersect with TVF, and the two editors have obviously opposing political positions on this politically divisive topic. So, they clash often. If I can criticize anything, it's RaviC's tag-bombing as Swarm also observed. Posting issue tags without explaining what the issue is is generally frowned upon. Restoring the tag after it's removed in good faith and still not explaining the issue is tendentious. Equally, tagging articles for deletion (CSD, PROD, or AfD) and not notifying the article creator is a tendentious behaviour, particularly when you ought to know that the creator is your editorial opponent. The fact that RaviC tag-bombed and suggested deletion of several of TVF's articles without notifying her maybe, in isolation, suggests that these actions were not done in good faith. But I think it's more of a competence issue than a hounding issue, in that these particular actions are not obviously targeted against TVF. RaviC does not maintain a CSD or PROD log, but does seem to work with tags and deletions often yet has not edited an article talk page since July. As for some of the specific edits: tagging this revision as a WP:COATRACK was warranted, and pushing for deletion of such an article is endorsed by the WP:BLP policy; RaviC's soapbox comment was parroting Rich Farmbrough's comment ([63]) from earlier in that discussion. I don't think there's really much for admins to do here, except to advise RaviC to explain when they tag an article, and recommend advising an article's creator and any significant contributors when proposing it for deletion. As far as I can tell none of these are compelled by policy, but these are normal expectations for community participation. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:55, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

• Yes, I was on the fence as to whether this was 'CIR-level petty disruption' or targeted harassment. What made me inclined to believe it's the latter is the fact that Ravi is a long-established editor with no blocks and no apparent behavioral complaints to his name. However, I didn't investigate whether this behavior occurs in any unrelated areas. I agree that simply articulating to them what the problems are what the solutions would be will probably be the reasonable result of this thread. Ravi is a sporadic editor who may not return for some time, so I don't think we should hold our breath for their reply here. (Swarm ♠ talk) 20:14, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Both the PROD and the AFD for Mike Galsworthy were created with Twinkle. Why does this make a difference? Well, whilst no-one is "required" to notify the creator of the article (it is only considered "courteous" to do so), Twinkle defaults to doing so. That means RaviC deliberately unchecked the boxes to notify the OP, which for me pushes it towards tendentiousness. Compare for example the Britain for Europe AfD where he did notify the creator. Colour me distinctly unimpressed. Black Kite (talk) 19:49, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

• Also, just to be clear, notifications are optional via AfD, but they're a required part of the PROD process. (Swarm ♠ talk) 20:14, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

• Yes, you're right. That makes it worse, IMO. Looking through the other diffs, the Notability template on People's Vote was ludicrous ("Do not use this tag merely because the page requires significant work. Notability requires only that appropriate sources have been published about the subject." - there were plenty of those in the article) which RaviC may have realised as he didn't even try to justify it via the talk page or an edit summary. Black Kite (talk) 20:29, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

• If notifications are required for PROD, why does Twinkle allow suppressing the notification? General question, I'm not disputing your reading of the PROD guideline. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:49, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

• It's not required if the creator isn't active. (Swarm ♠ talk) 00:30, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
• Probably because the wording was only changed in January 2018, it was similar to the AfD wording previously. Presumably no-one notified the maintainers of Twinkle. Having said that, as far as I can see there doesn't appear to have been a discussion about the change anyway. Black Kite (talk) 01:00, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

• (edit conflict × a few) I don't have a lot going on today, so I pulled together all of RaviC's PROD and AfD nominations going back to the start of 2017 (some of these diffs are deleted):
  • 23 Jul 2018: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Galsworthy - TVF creation, RaviC did not notify
  • 22 Jul 2018: Mike Galsworthy PROD, TVF creation, RaviC did not notify
  • 8 Jul 2018: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zara Kitson (2nd nomination) - not TVF, RaviC didn't notify
  • 20 Jun 2018: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Britain for Europe - not TVF, creator notified
  • 12 Jun 2018: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Europeans - not TVF, creator notified
  • 7 Jun 2018: British Influence PROD - not a TVF creation; didn't notify
  • 7 Jun 2018: New Europeans PROD - not TVF, didn't notify
  • 7 Jun 2018: Britain for Europe PROD - not TVF, didn't notify
  • 3 Jun 2018: European Parliament election, 2019 PROD - not TVF technically, TVF expanded a redirect but Twinkle doesn't know how to check for that; RaviC didn't notify TVF or the creator in any case
  • 16 Jul 2017: List of United Progressive Alliance candidates in the Indian general election, 2019 PROD - not TVF, didn't notify
  • 13 Jun 2017: Jonathan Davies (politician) PROD - not TVF, didn't notify
  • 11 Jun 2017: Liz Leffman PROD - not TVF, didn't notify
  • 22 May 2017: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Turner (journalist) - not TVF, notified
  • 20 May 2017: George Turner (journalist) PROD - not TVF, didn't notify

It is, of course, possible that I missed some, but of these ones that I did find, it seems RaviC makes a habit of not notifying anyone when they PROD or AfD an article - all of these were done with Twinkle, so 11 out of 14 times RaviC disabled the automatic notifications. So their failing to notify TVF in the two (three if you include the expanded redirect) instances of suggesting deletion of TVF's articles seems like it is not targeted against TVF, rather just RaviC making an effort to never notify significant contributors in general. That's not good, and probably still tendentious, but it's at least unfair to say it's targeted hounding. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:47, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

• TVF talks about WP:DDE yet fails to discuss the issue with me prior to this.[64] Furthermore Swarm, you are completely mistaken when you consider two interactions from August and September as "reasonable suspicion". You are not required to notify anyone of a deletion discussion. I am not sure why TVF is still arguing or disputing that even after being already told on Wikipedia talk:Proposed_deletion/Archive_16#Non-notification_of_a_PROD that no one is required to notify of a PROD. I don't dispute my tagging (and PRODDING) were not accurate on two of the particular articles and I had to discuss them, however, these issues are too old for consideration since I never pursued them further. It is indeed true that a "no consensus" AfD does not prohibit anyone to tag the article for notability especially when notability is not established. Talk page discussion (see comments of EddieHugh) show the coatrack tag was justified at that moment.

If you have such a strong opinion with the notability tag then you should consider providing evidence of notability rather than misrepresenting the general rule since the notability tag is still there. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Britain for Europe also appears to have been a correct AfD. Later on TVF resorted to creating a redirect and uploaded+added a non-free media image on the redirect in violation of WP:COPYVIO.[65] Once the image was deleted, the AfD closure was unsuccessfully disputed by TVF at DRV.[66] Would you call it WP:DE or failure to drop WP:STICK or both? Why would I have had to notify TVF when I prodded European Parliament election, 2019 (United Kingdom)? As for the TfD comment, I said it was a soapbox because the articles in the infobox were only tangentially related to each other and some were not even formal members of the campaign in question. Now unless you can consider otherwise, I would like to make sure if you are also accusing Rich Farmbrough of personal attacks.[67] I was browsing the Brexit articles and a TfD notice appeared for that template. Even my !vote came when it was relisted, which means that I am not particularly eyeing on the deletion discussions related to TVF. If you think that I am editing the pages only because TVF has edited them, then you can say the same for TVF as well who edited a number of pages after I had edited them.[68][69] Even the main article on Brexit had been edited by me far before TVF edited it.[70]

Thus, your claim that I edit Brexit-related articles only because TVF has edited them is completely false. I am not accusing TVF of Wikihounding; the truth is that we share a common interest and happen to edit the same subject and accusing your opponent of Wikihounding is clearly an attempt to get rid of a reasonable opposition. TVF has been making these accusations of "WP:FOLLOWING"[71] since last month and admins like RoySmith responded to TVF by asking "do you have any WP:COI here?"[72], while Joe Roe described TVF as "emotionally overly-invested" on this topic.[73] Given my absence in that DRV, it is absurd to assume that I am hounding. Now, unless you want to "block" only for eliminating a reasonable opposition of a specific subject, I would like you to provide better reasoning for your analysis. I mean seriously? TVF also edits outside Brexit but how come we overlap only on Brexit-related articles? I don't check who is the creator of the articles or templates when I am engaging in deletion discussion and my history (as seen above) shows that I have nominated and discussed a good number of Brexit/UK-related articles for deletion and nearly all of it had nothing to do with TVF.

Furthermore, I feel it is a bit ironic that TVF has accused me of harassment, especially considering their conduct towards me in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Britain for Europe AfD which was far from exemplary, and identified by The Gnome as a violation of WP:NPA. To date, I have not received any explanation from TVF regarding their justification for that behaviour. --RaviC (talk) 22:39, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Been mulling over whether or not to comment here, I was leaning towards not, but I'll leave a succinct comment anyway. What's been presented does not suggest "targeted harassment" or "hounding" at all. TVF and RaviC have crossover, almost exclusively, on UK politics articles and neither appears to have a pattern of following the other.[74] What made me inclined to believe it's the latter [targeted harassment] is the fact that Ravi is a long-established editor with no blocks and no apparent behavioral complaints to his name - Clean block log, no known prior misbehaviour, thus reasonable to conclude that they are a harasser. *Insert gifs* of John McEnroe's "You cannot be serious" and Captain Picard(?) face palm. There's not much that needs to be done here. RaviC needs to start leaving notifications for PRODding; my reading of PROD implies that they are required, and not optional. I don't think the PRODs were appropriate, as they were going to be clearly and unambiguously controversial. They also need to be more conservative with tagging, or explain their tagging of articles in the edit summary and/or on the talk page. Admittedly, though, putting a {{speculative}} tag on an article which literally says Between 23 and 26 May 2019 if held (Speculative)[75] at the top of it's infobox doesn't seem to me to need much explaining. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:10, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Moving forward

@RaviC: Based on Ivanvector's assessment above, the issue isn't actually hounding, so we can drop that discussion entirely. That's a dead horse at this point. However, the fact remains that TVF felt that she was being harassed, and the multiple above assessments of problematic, antagonistic behavior coming from you quite reasonably explain why she would feel that way. So, that's what I mean when I say it's a reasonable suspicion to have. I may have been wrong about the impression I had, and for that, I apologize, but surely you should be concerned about your having created that impression. So, Ravi, let's address the problems we're seeing and you can let us know if you have any questions.

• Your claim that you are not required to send PROD notifications is quite simply false. This is a straightforward part of PROD policy (and yes, it is a policy), detailed in WP:PRODNOM. Someone on a talk page not understanding this and giving an incorrect answer does not overrule what the policy page says, and nowhere does it say or even imply that it is optional. As you can see, even an admin here was unaware of this, as it runs counter to AfD procedure, so it's an understandable thing to get wrong. Policy is to notify, so please send notifications going forward.
• Second, as has been explained above by myself and by other admins, it is poor form to place tags without explaining your concerns on the talk page. To do so repeatedly when the use of the tag is disputed or contentious is disruptive. Going forward, when placing a maintenance tag, please make a section on the talk page explaining your specific concerns relating to the tag. The article's editors can and will then decide how the problem can be fixed, or if the tag is unjustified. You can not unilaterally force the use of tags in an article through edit warring, and are expected to communicate effectively.
• Lastly, PRODing is for uncontentious deletion nominations only. Please refrain from using PROD to propose contentious deletions going forward.

These are all simple issues that are easily fixed. On top of that, part of the problem is your simple refusal to communicate. I notice you don't often use talk pages, and in this case, it proved to be a huge issue, and resulted in a user feeling like you were targeting her in a harassment campaign aimed at driving her away. I can't possibly imagine that's the impression you want to create for yourself as an editor, and this is another thing that is easily fixed. If you're able to do these simple things, we can all carry on with no action is necessary. (Swarm ♠ talk) 01:32, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

It's certainly best practice to notify the page-creator of a PROD, but I don't believe it's required. If it is required, the statement at the top of WP:PROD There are three steps to the PROD process should be modified to refer to four steps, and the You should notify language changed to You must notify and be listed as a separate step. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:57, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

• This is an unnecessary distraction. It’s listed as a required step in WP:PRODNOM and it’s listed as part of the first step described in the intro. Are you really trying to debate the definition of the word “should”? If a policy says you should do something, that doesn’t imply it’s optional, IMO. (Swarm ♠ talk) 03:22, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
• In terms of language, "should" is clearly used here as a more polite expression of "must." This is also shown by the many cases where "should" is qualified, e.g. "should consider" doing so and so. There can be no reasonable doubt that the policy is mandatory; there's nothing "optional" about it. The qualifier "normally" in "should normally" only links to the advice to use common sense when setting about to ignore rules. -The Gnome (talk) 05:51, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

• As Black Kite pointed out above, a significant wording change was made to the policy on 30 Jan 2018. Before that, the fourth bullet of the nomination procedure read:

The article's creator or other significant contributors should ideally be left a message at their talk page(s) informing them of the proposed deletion, except for cases where contributors are no longer regarded as active editors on Wikipedia. This should be done by adding the {{subst:Proposed deletion notify|Name of page}} tag, or other appropriate text.

Green Giant boldly changed this text to:

Inform the page creator or other significant contributors of the proposed deletion (except contributors are no longer regarded as active editors on Wikipedia), with a message on their talk page(s) by adding: [line break] {{subst:Proposed deletion notify|Name of page}} or other appropriate text.

In doing so, the instruction was changed from a suggestion to a requirement. This does not appear to have been discussed, was not publicized, and has obviously created confusion in the community about whether or not notification is actually compelled by policy. A good case study in why you should not boldly edit policies. But anyway, my point is that RaviC ought to be forgiven for not realizing this change had been made. I also suggest we should reverse that edit by changing the bolded text to "consider informing", or else immediately hold an RfC to gauge community consensus about making it a requirement. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:50, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

In response to the points raised

• On a general note I have always tried to observe WP:YESBIAS rather than pretend I have none, in the last couple of months I have not always found that reciprocated (see WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive990#European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, second submission which wasn't dealt with and drew extra insults, and this Talk:Meaningful vote#Moved from my talk page & subsequent RfC, not sure how much clearer the first ref could be).

• Consequently when The Independent newspaper came out in favour of a People's Vote I removed a ref from the article as they are no longer neutral diff. I also twice removed refs suggesting that Gina Miller backs the campaign as they have not be reliably sourced diff 1 and diff 2. If I was rampantly COI then I would have turned a blind eye to both Miller edits.

• If past blocks and sanctions are being measured then in the 6 years I have been editing I also have none against me.

• I'm currently working on an user-friendly essay to try and demysify Brexit and the Brexit negotiations for the benefit of editors / administrators as I've noted a lot of "I don't really know enough about it" type comments and the next six months are going to be very intense in this area.

• With regards this ANI

• The response I received here Wikipedia talk:Proposed_deletion/Archive_16#Non-notification_of_a_PROD is well meaning but I think incorrect WP:PRODNOM (the PRODs in question were after the change of wording). I didn't know about Twinkle putting an automatic notification and turning it off being a deliberate act, so thanks for that information.

• I don't really understand what this statement means: I don't dispute my tagging (and PRODDING) were not accurate on two of the particular articles and I had to discuss them, however, these issues are too old for consideration since I never pursued them further. - What discussion? What was there to pursue?

• It is indeed true that a "no consensus" AfD does not prohibit anyone to tag the article for notability especially when notability is not established. - but adding such a tag post-AfD is what I would call WP:DE or failure to drop WP:STICK or both?

• Yes I did ask for a deletion review on Britain for Europe, it was after I had found a sizeable quote in the Financial Times post-AfD diff, if Admins don't think it is good enough then fine. I think the accusation of having a COI was unjustified diff.

• Later on TVF resorted to creating a redirect and uploaded+added a non-free media image on the redirect in violation of WP:COPYVIO. Originally another editor added B4E's logo to the Commons diff. I created a new version of it on Wikipedia File:Britain for Europe logo.png under WP:Logos#Uploading non-free logos as a direct upload. I hoped to store it on the redirect page to prevent it being deleted as an orphan image diff. There was no copyright violation on my part.

• Yes Joe Roe did (falsely in my opinion) accuse me of being "emotionally overly-invested" and I responded unemotionally here diff. Since he didn't provide any diffs or respond I am unable to comment any further on what he may have meant.

• Furthermore, I feel it is a bit ironic that TVF has accused me of harassment, especially considering their conduct towards me in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Britain for Europe AfD which was far from exemplary, and identified by The Gnome as a violation of WP:NPA. Diffs? Allow me.

• My supposed "personal attack" diff
• The Gnome asking for clarification diff
• my clarification diff
• The Gnome thanking me for the clarification diff.

That was the full extent of it. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 16:31, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Joe DiRosa

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

For more context, look at this COIN discussion. The article about him (Joe DiRosa) appears to have been made by single-purpose accounts, possibly sockpuppets or users affiliated with him. Either this person is a shill or this is an extreme WP:CIR issue.

Basically, he began by creating a promotional article about a company named Onox, Inc. I tagged it for speedy deletion, and afterwards he made an equivalent draft, which an AFC reviewer rejected for the same reasons. I then noticed he edited the article about himself (and added a picture). The article is now under AfD. This is a very complicated situation and I'm not sure what to do about it. funplussmart (talk) 04:01, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

This editor seems to be a very strong example of WP:NOTHERE. First, he only creates promotional articles on himself or people he knows, all of which appear to be non-notable subjects: (Joe DiRosa, New York Artist Series, Draft:Onox, Inc.) and so on. Second, he has the balls to come to his own AfD and argue vociferously that he's notable, wasting everyone's time. He's at COIN for the above articles and actions. His whole approach is to use Wikipedia as a promotional noticeboard. I see no editing towards the good of the greater project.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:17, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

A Wikipedian may be in need of help

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

---

I'm not sure it's more than just vandalism, but I'm concerned about the well-being of someone with a new account. Can someone please take a look at Special:Contributions/Poise1978? —BarrelProof (talk) 04:54, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

I've emailed emergency@wikimedia.org per the procedures set out in Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm. It does look like vandalism, but I can't see a reason not to follow due procedure. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:44, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

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

User Amber Guyger engaged in mass page move disruption

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

....is right now making a massive number of moves to train related articles, with a silly spelling of "high". Urgent action needed please. HiLo48 (talk) 08:10, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

I seem to remember another similar (though smaller) clump of moves from "high" to "hihg" a day or so ago. Was this related? --David Biddulph (talk) 08:40, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

That was by Sap Aptopio (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I assume either sockpuppet or meatpuppet. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 08:42, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

This user seems on a campaign to rapdily move a large number of railway articles, "correcting" the spelling of 'high' to 'hihg'.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 08:14, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

This is ongoing vandalism, please block the user until an explanation has been received. Reported to WP:AIV ~ ToBeFree (talk) 08:18, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

I emergency blocked for 31h, now investigating whether I should reblock as vandalism only account. Please help with moving the articles back. (I did not yet template the user, will do it shortly).--Ymblanter (talk) 08:23, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)User is now blocked by Ymblanter (talk · contribs). Their moves are listed here, not all are railway. I don't have time to revert any as I need to go to work. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:24, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Reblocked indef, help with move is still needed.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:27, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm also working on cleaning up. Careful to undo bot fixes of double-redirects. DMacks (talk) 08:56, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

• Ymblanter blocked 31h, but I think this should be indef - there are no edits other than autoconfirm gaming and page move vandalism. Guy (Help!) 08:25, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
• Nb. Ymblanter Extended the block to indefinite (Block log). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:41, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
• Comment Hihg is a reasonably common typo. If the moves had been simply reverted, and the newly redirect pages tagged {{Redirect from typo}} any double redirects would have been automatically fixed, future non-admin moves blocked, and we would have gained some marginally useful redirects. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:36, 22 September 2018 (UTC).
  
• Comment 2 Talk:Madrid–Levante high-speed rail network seems to have been lost in the moves. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:45, 22 September 2018 (UTC).
  

  Thanks, I have restored the page.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:48, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

  Considering that the user picked the name of a police officer who was involved in a high profile shooting in Dallas earlier this month, it's pretty clear they had nothing but bad intentions. (Considering the deliberate misspelling in "Sap Aptopio", I'm smelling something socky in Texas.) caknuck _° needs to be running more often 16:26, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Serial IP BLP violator back again

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

---

We've had ongoing problems for two or three months with a regular IP (110.22.50.32) adding BLP-violating rubbish to some conservative Australian political figures that he's obsessed with (centrally Marcus Bastiaan, but spread to others). He has previously been blocked twice for short periods of time and then come back and resumed exactly the same behaviour. He has been warned countless times by various Australian users and the admins who've blocked him. Today, coming back from the latest block for the first time, and he's adding stuff like this. Can he clearly be blocked for a longer period of time? He's clearly the only one editing from the IP and it's an ongoing deluge of BLP-violating rubbish for as long as it's unblocked. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:10, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Blocked for 6 months. I will not be available now for some time, just in case.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:22, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

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

Aetzbarr

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

---

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

Despite multiple warnings and attempts to explain about adding original research (see talk page), user continues to push his idiosyncratic ideas about pi (most recently here, but see entire contribs, too). Not directly relevant, but for some context, they were recently blocked from the Hebrew Wikipedia for essentially the same story. I think this case is beyond hope. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 12:09, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

A clear-cut case of WP:CIR, blocked indef.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:32, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

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

Personal attacks by Inswoon

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

---

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

The user (8 years old, 96 edits) called me "a liar" [76]. I warned them that personal attacks are not acceptable [77]. Their response was that it is not a personal attack because I am an immoral liar, and it is ok to call liar a liar [78] [79] (and of course they better understand Russian than I do, as a bonus). Could we stop this please?--Ymblanter (talk) 14:08, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

See also this, which they posted a few days ago as a response to a warning from December. They have a pretty belligerent attitude on the whole. --bonadea contributions talk 14:36, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Ok, this one is actually much worse that what I presented and suggests an indef block.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:41, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

I gave them an indefinite block. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:58, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

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

• Writes pretty well for eight years old. EEng 03:52, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

  Ba-dum-chhh Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:00, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

  Like I always say, I do the best I can with the material available. EEng 07:05, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Genre warring

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

---

Yoyoman3 (talk · contribs) has been changing genres without consensus, with or without reliable sources and has not heeded multiple warnings. Reporting here because disruptive editing such as genre warring have been increasingly denied at WP:AIV. Thank you, - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 19:16, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked indef, straightforward CIR or NOTHERE case. Thanks for reporting. (Swarm ♠ talk) 20:46, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Swarm Thank you, - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 20:55, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

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

Genre warring 2

190.234.55.196 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been changing genres again, without consensus, with or without reliable sources after final warning. Reporting here because disruptive editing such as genre warring have been increasingly denied at WP:AIV. Thank you, - FlightTime (open channel) 02:08, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, both the IP and you were being mildly disruptive by edit-warring with each other. However, the issue was 12 hours ago and hopefully that's the end of it. If it starts up again, WP:AN3 is thataway. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:58, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I see nothing blockworthy here. I’ve left them a note explaining how sourcing works. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:09, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Ritchie333, I've seen you repeatedly let vandals have their way by downplaying legitimate vandal reports such as this one. What's the deal? You're out of step with decisive admins such as Swarm, Materialscientist, Widr, etc. Your laissez-faire attitude is very frustrating for veteran users who are down in the trenches working to maintain the integrity of the wiki, the people who have the best view of the pattern of disruption. Your comment about the Peru IP "being mildly disruptive" takes the cake. IP 190.234.55.196 is a dangerous falsifier with edits such as this one changing album ratings upward to falsely give the album a better score. His genre-warring extends to Spanish-language Wikipedia. But, hey, let's give the guy a free pass. Binksternet (talk) 16:23, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

That's probably because none of those admins (AFAIK) have improved over 100 articles to GA status, so they don't know what it's like to do lots of work on an article to know what's important and what isn't. This is just a silly edit war over trivial stuff in the infobox which is not as important as the main prose and sourcing in the article. Don't you remember what I did to Hammond organ to get it up to GA status, for example? Anyway, it's not vandalism. And if Swarm, Widr and Materialscientist ever want me to do a GA review for them, I will. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:27, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

You've been right many times but you're wrong about this not being vandalism. It's absolutely vandalism. Binksternet (talk) 16:41, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thank you Binksternet this is the exact reason I'm no longer going to report this type of disruption. Both Ritchie333 and TonyBallioni have been denying reports at AIV, so I started reporting them here, now they come here and deny them here also. I fell if they are not willing to handle disruption reports like these they should not act on these and let other admins who are more in touch with the SOP of genre warring. Maybe I can make reports at Swarm if they wouldn't mind. Maybe we can create Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against disruptive editing. - FlightTime (open channel) 17:04, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

I think Tony has covered adequately why the original report didn't warrant a block. When I look at disruption that is not blatant vandalism, copyvios, BLPs, I look at both sides and treat the parties as equally and fairly as I can. If you're upset because we didn't punish a user in the way you wanted them to, too bad. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:13, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

I would have made that block too: I was about to, and Swarm beat me too it. The difference there was that you had a long term SPA (3 weeks) who had been ignoring communication for just as long and editing against consensus. Here it looked like you had an IP that was swapping unsourced information for other unsourced information. An explanation beyond an essay that doesn’t have community consensus would have been helpful. Binksternet’s explanation was great: it’s stale, or I’d block. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:24, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

I know some Wikipedians think it's a very serious issue whether Led Zeppelin (album) is considered "hard rock", "blues rock" and / or "heavy metal" in the infobox, but I am pretty confident that most people in the real world couldn't give a flying monkeys one way or the other. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:50, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

The issue here is that patently adding false information like that to articles absolutely is vandalism, but genre warring isn’t (and I do not consider it a reason to block on its own without other clear disruption like edit warring or editing against consensus.) The issue here is for me and a few other admins I’ve talked to about the AIV backlog complaints (cc: K6ka as I know he has thoughts on this) established users reverting minor infobox changes of new users looks exactly like the type of content dispute that we aren’t supposed to get involved in. If someone is falsifying record sales performances and the like I care a lot. If someone is arguing that Album X is grunge metal and it’s called that in Rolling Stone but one of the page watchers thinks it’s heavy metal, yeah, I don’t think policy allows me to intervene there. We need diffs and policy based reasons to block and I typically prefer to see that new users have had citations explained to them rather than templated about changing genres. If someone continues to edit against consensus after this, then I’m fine blocking, but a random “this IP is genre warring.” with nothing else isn’t helpful. Now that it’s clear the user has been adding false information, I don’t object to a block if it starts up again, and I’ll watchlist their talk so I can deal with it quickly in the future (and anyone is free to report it on my talk.) TonyBallioni (talk) 16:55, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

In the case of blatantly falsifying information, the stock Twinkle templates aren't really of much use. They're too generic, confrontational, and cannot explain the specific instance. I find it much better to revert, and if necessary leave a message like, "Why did you change 'x' rating from 2.5 to 3.5? The source [link] clearly says 2.5". Then you can follow it up, saying, "I'm sorry, but I got no answer, so I'm going to have to block you until I get an explanation". A better result all round, in my view. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:13, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Disruptive editor at Teahouse

• Vincent Setiawan Gout has been making repeated disruptive edits at WP:TH (under this user name & 182.253.162.192) and apparently evading current block at 118.136.145.202 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). --David Biddulph (talk) 04:02, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

@David Biddulph: I think you mean Vincent Setiawan Gouta. He hasn't edited using Vincent Setiawan Gout for days. See also Vincent Setiawan G. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 04:13, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

I hadn't twigged that the name had changed, and it was the Gout version which came to my attention and had obvious connections with the blocked IP, thanks for the correction. --David Biddulph (talk) 04:23, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Based on the username overlap and continued vandalism at Kapas railway station I think we have to add User talk:Vincentonetrillion to the list. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:46, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

I think WP:RBI applies to our friend here. I have blocked all of the remaining accounts and commented at the SPI. Alex Shih (talk) 07:55, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

This user is User:Vincent9000. 331dot (talk) 08:21, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, 331dot. I have linked to the SPI above. This is not so much socking as opposed to just quacking. Alex Shih (talk) 08:25, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Revdel threat by 107.205.237.118

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

---

Can somebody please Revdel this threat made to MPants and revoke this IP’s TPA? Thanks. StormContent 06:40, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

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

Administrator conduct

• There'sNoTime (talk · contribs)
• Alex Shih (talk · contribs)

I would like to take this opportunity to invite community feedback in regards to myself and another editor that both happens to be an administrator. As a community, we have certain expectations in regards to administrator conduct. Even though this is very inconsistently applied, I think it is to the best interest of the project to occasionally remind each other, which is why I am here.

The immediate reason for me to write here is based on the following incident, where a opposing rationale of mine toward a candidate ([80]) is being met with frustration. It is my opinion that all editors needs to be able to express disagreement without the fear of having valid argument(s) to be labelled as “shit like this” ([81]) or to have their legitimate concern(s) dismissed as “stop taking yourself so fucking seriously” ([82]).

In a project that is primarily based on consensus building, it is natural to have disagreements, and many of these can justifiably be met with frustration; my concern is not about the expression of frustration, rather the inappropriate nature of expressing that frustration in a manner that 1) vilifies an individual and 2) in a blatantly escalatory tone. I find this approach particularly unacceptable coming from an editor entrusted with higher responsibilities such as adminship and functionary positions.

There are more sensible ways to express frustrations; the sentiment of many editors (myself included) that occasionally takes ourselves too seriously is a valid sentiment; I disagree that I have taken myself too seriously, but it is a valid sentiment nevertheless. I think this is also the sentiment Jimbo Wales was trying to express when he said “If we can't have a bit of fun in Wikipedia without a lot of hand wringing, we're going in the wrong direction” in this comment earlier this year. That is true, but on the other hand, we should not be reckless (as Jimbo Wales did with his unilateral page move, but that is off topic of course), as having an active participation on the 5th most popular website on the Internet carries some social responsibilities, particularly for editors in a higher position of responsibility that are more capable of managing how contents are being presented across the project. I don't find it necessary to respond to opposing sentiments with open hostility, and I think the opposite should be true. These two concepts are capable of co-existing.

There'sNoTime by all means is a good administrator, and competent with their responsibilities as a functionary and a steward. But I disagree with their approach to editor conduct. In addition to conduct expected from administrators, as Wikimedia projects becomes more closely interconnected with one another, being one of the few Wikimedia stewards based in English Wikipedia, I think it is sensible to ask an editor with similar magnitude of responsibility to conduct themselves in a more acceptable manner that can cast this project in a better light.

I had initial concerns about the commenting style of There’sNoTime when I noticed these two comments back in October 2017 ([83] [84]). But There’sNoTime immediately apologised for these remarks ([85]), which makes it safe to overlook them. But one of the sentence here, I should hold myself to a higher standard, is another reason why I am asking for potentially, simply a collective reminder from the community. There is no reason to conduct yourself in a escalatory approach when you know, and have publicly stated before that you should hold yourself to a higher standard. I'd like to invite the community to examine both of our editor conduct. Alex Shih (talk) 07:04, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

I have wondered why civility seems to be so much worse in this years CUOS than in the past; is it because Wikipedia is a less civil place, is it because of something that opposers have done differently or is it because supporters have started discussions with the opposers more than in the past (because it's not because of the candidates themselves). Having a former functionary take a current functionary straight to ANI after only one short exchange at resolving a problem where the current functionary doubled down on calling the former functionary shit seems like a big vote in favor of Wikipedia being a less civil place. I don't know what good Alex Shih hoped would come from this but whatever it is I feel there had to be other better ways of achieving it, just as I would hope that There'sNoTime could have found more productive ways to achieve their goals. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 07:34, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment Barkeep49 - I serve this community, so criticism is appreciated and always welcomed. I would like to clarify that my comment "shit like this from people like Alex" was in no way describing Alex as shit - perhaps it's a phrasing problem, but I referred to their action/vote/comment as "shit" in the general sense (i.e. "stuff like this from people like Alex"). Looking back, it does of course inflame the situation needlessly, and I regret my choice of wording. - TNT ^💖 09:02, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for starting this thread Alex Shih. I'll preface my response by stating that I've noticed my own decline in tone of comment and general optimism about Wikipedia - I'm disappointed in myself at that, and I am trying to fix it. It is a rare occurrence that I lose my cool to the extent mentioned above, but even once is one time more than I'd like.

As mentioned at User talk:There'sNoTime#CUOS (which I commend Alex for starting - I should have left my comment at his talk page), "I rarely lose my cool on this bloody website, and the number of editors who get under my skin fits on one hand - those who crash around causing drama for the sake of it are at the top of my list.". The oppose vote(s) irritated me - not because I had supported the candidate, not because of the candidate the oppose was against, but the tone in which the opposes were written. It's a fine line between criticism and attacks, which we all seem to flaunt when casting our opinion on our fellow editors. To me a fair few of the opposes seem needlessly drama-ridden.

That being said, I unfairly picked on your oppose Alex by naming you. With your permission I will strike my comment to "Well put Swarm - shit like this from people like Alex makes me wonder why I bother here. The pile-on bullshit is just the icing on the "what is wrong with Wikipedia" cake", which I hope goes some way towards de-escalating this, and that we can go back to having a good Sunday.

I welcome further community input on my conduct here, on my talk page or by email - TNT ^💖 09:02, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Pending any response from Alex in regard to "with your permission I will strike my comment", I've gone ahead and made the strike - TNT ^💖 10:49, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

• @Alex Shih: just FYI, but referencing Jimmy "utter fucking bullshit" Wales in a discussion on civility is—well, perhaps less convincing for one's argument than it ought to be ;) :D —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 11:34, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

• I think there's a fine line between incivility and plainspeaking, although I fall back on the Potter Stewart standard to locate it -- which, I guess, is the problem, as one person's fish is another one's poison. (Intent must be inferred, as well.)
  In the long run, it's always going to be virtually impossible for a broadly heterogeneous multi-national online community to agree on an acceptable standard for what is civil and what is not unless it deliberately makes very specific choices -- over the vociferous objections of some community members, of course -- publishes them, and enforces them ruthlessly. So far, we've avoided that authoritarian option for a more relaxed standard, which has the advantage of being more flexible, but the disadvantage of being differently interpreted by different editors or groups of editors. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:52, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Request for mediation in a dispute over the article on Toby Young

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

---

I'm not sure if this is the right place to do this, but I'd like to request mediation for a dispute over the language in the opening section of the article on Toby Young. In a nutshell, Fæ wants some controversial tweets by Young to be described as 'homophobic and misogynistic' and I would prefer, in the interests of neutrality, simply to note that the tweets caused controversy without taking sides in that controversy. (I would also be open to including the words Fae has been pushing for, along with a short sentence to the effect that Young has denied that his tweets were prejudiced, e.g. in a piece in Quillette, but Fae has repeatedly refused any such compromises).

Finally, I should note that when Fae brought his up on a discussion page, the preferences of the editors who wrote in were 4-1 in favour of more balanced language (including Fae and I in the count). Despite this, she's continued to revert any edits to her chosen language. As I indicated above, I'm happy to discuss the exact language we should use, but I'm not sure it's healthy to have one user blocking changes which several others are in favour of. Hence my request for mediation. Cleisthenes2 (talk) 10:04, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Hey Cleisthenes2 - I hate to be that person, but this noticeboard is for "[...] discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems". It looks like the discussion at Talk:Toby Young has gone some way to show the edit you're making does not have consensus at the moment. Perhaps dispute resolution could help give you a third-party opinion? - TNT ^💖 10:39, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

It would be worth perusing the article talk page. This looks increasingly like lobbying, when the words used have been talked through twice at BLP/N. All reliable sources confirm that misogynistic and homophobic are accurate and the most appropriate words to describe Young's offensive tweets, the same tweets that led to him losing his most senior political appointment and were commented on by the current Prime Minister. The tweets are hence highly notable in his career and worth mentioning in the lede text in a way that makes it completely clear why they are notable and remain the most notable thing anyone can remember about Young even now. Anything else would be obfuscation and misrepresenting the sources.

If necessary we can run a RFC, but as this still appears to be one person on a campaign, that feels like overkill.

P.S. c:User:Fæ#pronoun, please avoid misgendering me unless you are trying to make a point. --Fæ (talk) 10:48, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

I'd just note that the OP has been edit-warring over this (3 reverts) on Toby Young today, leading to the article being protected. Black Kite (talk) 11:02, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, TNT, I'll take this over to dispute resolution. Fæ: The point is that there's controversy over how his tweets should be described, and we have a responsibility to be neutral. I'm not lobbying on behalf of Young (someone I've never met) but defending the principle and policy of neutrality. If perseverance is evidence of lobbying, then there's as much evidence that you're lobbying than that I am. Re. pronouns: I hadn't seen that when I wrote the above, but have noted it now. Black Kite: I was trying to restore the neutrality that a large majority of users in the discussions Fae mentions supported. Anyway, it's hard to edit war on your own; there's obviously a dispute, which is why I've sought out mediation. Cleisthenes2 (talk) 11:12, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

The Quillette piece is not a reliable source, it's a biased op-ed/blog post by Young complaining about how poor he is, how his critics are a mob, and how he is (somehow or other) the real victim. Even so you are wrong to think it is not there, it was included as it does illustrate very nicely how he thinks about his public homophobic and misogynistic attacks on others, so there is no need to lobby for it to be added. See "Young later denied that he is a misogynist or a homophobe and characterized complaints as being from the "outrage mob".

As mentioned this has already been mediated, on the article talk page, on BLP/N, and effectively now here. If you keep on going it seems unlikely that consensus will suddenly ignore the reliable sources and prefer Young's post-factual view of the world. --Fæ (talk) 11:25, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

My point isn't that Young's Quillette piece is right, only that it's worth noting. If it's noted elsewhere, that's fine; noting it in the lede was only one possible suggestion for making the that section more balanced. I'm not preferring Young's view; I don't want to privilege either side. I want the introduction to look neutral, and to report the facts of what happened without us getting involved in how they should be characterized. Cleisthenes2 (talk) 11:35, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Sides are not the issue. If Young's tweets were not homophobic or misogynistic but sadly misunderstood, then we would expect to find quality reliable sources pointing that out. Instead we find all the reliable sources that express a view saying they were deliberately offensive in this bigoted way, and on the other "side" we have Toby Young. If you wish to reframe the lede text, then first find credible reliable sources, beyond what Young has written about himself or to promote himself. I'm not planning on saying more here, as highlighted this noticeboard is not the best place for content discussion. --Fæ (talk) 12:14, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

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

Orugaberuteika/Jizugatudo : COI and CIR concerns

Orugaberuteika (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a single-purpose account concerned with the article Ryuho Okawa, about a Japanese religious leader. The article about Okawa as well as that about the controversial religious organisation he started, Happy Science, have been targeted by COI accounts from time to time, who try to whitewash the articles and remove well-sourced criticism. So far, so depressingly common when it comes to articles related to religion. Orugaberuteika was registered on 31 August this year, and they have also edited as Jizugatudo and using the IP 126.33.19.67; the connection was self-disclosed here and the multiple accounts seem to have been a genuine misunderstanding.

There are two concerns: a refusal to comply with repeated requests to formally disclose their COI, and an inability to understand English, and to write in comprehensible English. They claim to "have a lot of information about Okawa"; when asked about their COI they appeared to acknowledge it; they refer to "our activities" (possibly just a language/CIR issue but I really doubt it); and they use the connected contributor request for their edit requests. All these things taken together, as well as their total focus on one article, signal COI. They have been asked repeatedly to disclose this COI, [86], [87], [88], [89], [90], [91]. After the third request on their talk page (third diff in the previous sentence), I posted this on the article's talk page, which Orugaberuiteka answered with this. My reply was maybe a bit exasperated, but it was answered graciously - after which Orugaberuteika continued making edit requests and other edits without addressing their COI in any way (even to deny it), and they have kept doing so, despite several renewed disclosure requests. I am running out of ways to say "You have to reply to this concern before you make any other edits at all", and it still hasn't registered.

That may, however, be at least in part due to their massive lack of understanding of English. I work with English language proficiency, and meet students from many different countries - I'm pretty good at deciphering what people mean and don't care whether they use "correct" English in conversation, but I honestly cannot understand this, for instance. Over and over they have demonstrated that they, too, don't understand what people say: here I asked Jizugatudo if they were the same user as Orugaberuteika and said "Please note that using more than one account to make it look as if different people are making the same argument is prohibited." They replied like this, I replied here (again not being as polite as I could have, but patience is a limited resource, especially when dealing with COI editors asking us do do their work for them). Another example: a couple of weeks ago they asked if the number of members in Happy Science could be added to the article; I responded, they appeared to understand and agree, but ten days later they requested the same thing again (two talk page sections with identical titles about the same topic).

At this point, their refusal or inability to read and comply with WP:COI, WP:V and other policies, as well as their inability to even communicate in English, is becoming disruptive. A couple of editors (including myself) recently removed Orugaberuteika's article talk page posts because they keep making new posts without addressing their COI, but that also hasn't worked. I'm not sure if there is a remedy to a total lack of comprehension, other than a CIR block - possibly if there is a Japanese speaker in the house who can explain to them what the issue is, but I'm not overly hopeful. --bonadea contributions talk 11:19, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

• yep they are clearly here to promote this person and the religion. This comment, about understanding Japanese as somehow mandatory, is very wrong-headed. The language is daunting, layered on top of their not understanding what we do here, and the bludgeoning.

About the COI thing, they do seem to have some notion that they shouldn't edit directly; they wrote here: Please reconsider. If you stop the discussion I have to make a direct fix. I also want to avoid it from the spirit of the wiki.. Do you see? And they are making edit requests. But they have not disclosed their connection. For all we know the person is a paid PR person.

I recommend indeffing both accounts. One can be unblocked, after the person discloses and understands that they cannot use WP for promotion. Jytdog (talk) 16:17, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

New user:MaraprI (sock?) with one edit made substantial changes with citation errors in article: Charles P. Rettig

Undo? I think it's either a sock or promotion. --Balintawak (talk) 16:20, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Generally, new users are welcomed, rather than reported to ANI. As for 'promotion', possibly, though it doesn't seem that blatant. And if you are going to accuse someone of being a sock, you should tell us who's sock you think it is. 86.149.219.138 (talk) 17:12, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

The added content is full of citations to a law firm web site. It doesn't look right to me. I will work on cleaning it up. --Balintawak (talk) 17:40, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

• I think all new editors should be reported on ANI immediately. This would reduce editor retention to zero, and as older editors die or drop out we'd eventually have no editors at all. At that point there would be no more edit warring, no more conduct or content disputes, and no need for Arbcom. Paradise. EEng 17:48, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Repeated BLP-violations and edit-warring by SPA-account

A new account, Perspex03, is adding a lot of dubious and potentially defamatory material. The user seems to be a SPA-account devoted to the White genocide conspiracy theory. As part of their campaign, they accuse a number of living, high-profiled individuals of being racist conspiracy theorists. Living people targeted include the leader of the main French centre-right party [92], the Hungarian PM [93], a French archbishop [94] etc. The sources used are sometimes dubious (blogs etc.), or reliable sources but not using the terms conspiracy theory. I reverted some of the more potentially defamatory material, but Perspex03 reinserted it [95]. In short, problems include:
- Repeated WP:BLP-violations.
- Edit warring by ignoring WP:BRD.
- POV-pushing; 'conspiracy theory' is a strong word, and Perspex03 uses it much more than any of the sources.
I admit I question whether Perspex03 is here for the right reasons. The user seems devoted to "exposing" people whom Perspex has decided are racist conspiracy theorists. Giving that that is a very serious accusation, and Perpex03 almost exclusive target living people, this is very problematic. Jeppiz (talk) 17:40, 23 September 2018 (UTC)