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. You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts. 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:SharabSalam

SharabSalam continues to remove relevant and properly sourced information from articles regarding Islam, most recently Muhammad in the Quran. This user has been mentioned at WikiProject Islam and has been warned multiple times about obvious POV pushing. I've tried to be civil with this user, I've never reported anyone at ANI before, but I feel this is the only way to prevent further disruption. Thanks! GrammarDamner (talk) 17:11, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Please use DIFFS to support each of your claims. Thanks! Usedtobecool ☎️ 17:22, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Why not attempt to discuss the dispute on the article talk page, instead of bringing your content dispute to ANI? El_C 17:24, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

I attempted to discuss this and other issues on the user's talk page. This is not a simple content dispute. This user persistently attempts to remove potentially negative information from Wikipedia articles. This user is trying to paint their own picture on Wikipedia. This user also recently marked a large removal as a minor edit. I will provide diffs soon. I apologize that I do not know how to link diffs. I will try to figure it out. Thanks! GrammarDamner (talk) 17:39, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Usedtobecool and El_C, this [edit] is the most recent one that I was talking about. I will provide more. The page is now fully protected, and the information that this user removed has not been restored. Thanks! GrammarDamner (talk) 17:46, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

He rollbacks you, you rvv him — it does not inspire confidence. I know it's protected — I'm the one who protected it. El_C 17:47, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

This link [[1]] is the page WikiProject Islam. On point number 4, this user is referenced and COI issues are pointed out. GrammarDamner (talk) 17:54, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

With this edit [[2]]], the user removed a large amount of information. In the edit summary, the user said that it's not what the source said, but it's actually exactly what the source said. GrammarDamner (talk) 18:00, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

With this edit [[3]], the user removed information regarding human rights abuses. GrammarDamner (talk) 18:03, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes. With an edit summary explaining why. And I think the reason given (WP:BLP concerns when citing a webpage that is discussing Kuwait rather then the individual) is at least sufficient to justify discussing the matter on the talk page (or on WP:BLPN). On its own, without any attempt to discuss, it doesn't appear to me to be worthy of raising at WP:ANI. 86.134.74.102 (talk) 20:40, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

• Usedtobecool, El_C, here are the diffs and what exactly happened, this started when an IP editor removed a content without explaining why, I reverted but I investigated one of the sources which I saw was so uninformed about what its talking about. I did some research about the source and I found that it is famously anti-Muslim. I went to WP:RSN and discussed this there and JzG later removed the whole paragraph because it is sourced to apologists who are not experts in the topic. Here, where GrammarDamner came and reverted JzG saying "not sure why this was removed". I then reverted him and told him the reason why this was removed. He added the content again (with undo edit filter) but with a different source which is also an op-ed by a non-expert person and on top of that, does not source the whole content. I reverted again and said that the content is an op-ed written by a non-expert. He reverted me saying "well, yes, it's mentioning criticism, so it's fine. Thanks!" The source literally says that author personally "don't believe Muhammad's revelations were divine, nor those of any other prophet or religion for that matter." Another issue is that how is this even criticism. I let the content in the article and went to his talk page then an editor posted stuff about me and I didnt want to continue. After 6 days an IP editor removed the content, Drmies reverted the IP but then Drmies probably noticed the source is an op-ed and self-reverted, then Grammar reverted Drmies while making an edit summary about the IP. After 7 days I reverted Grammar and here we are.
• About the post in Islam or Quran wikiproject. There is an editor named Koreangauteng who is probably trolling and also following me during any dispute I am having with any editor he posts a message in their talk page, as a matter of fact, he posted in El_C's talk page and when this dispute happened he posted in GrammarDamner's talk page. He said in a post that because I am a Yemeni, my native language is Arabic, I love my religion, prophet, etc that I have WP:COI. And GrammarDamner also said that I have WP:COI because I am a Muslim. He posted this after a similar issue happened between me and him in Taqiya article, he added some content that doesnt IMO make any sense using a book from LuLu a self-publishing company, I reverted citing WP:SPS and he reverted with a new book that it is again sourced to a christian apologist who is so biased and not expert in any of what he is talking about, the book even shows how biased it is at the beginning saying While there may be millions of peaceful and tolerant Muslims, many of them our neighbors, Islam itself is hardly peaceful and tolerant..--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 18:10, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

• The source literally says that author personally "don't believe Muhammad's revelations were divine, nor those of any other prophet or religion for that matter." — so? That's a prefectly valid scholarly position. And GrammarDamner also said that I have WP:COI because I am a Muslim — diff? El_C 18:15, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

  El C, he is not a scholar! and Grammar above that I have a COI just above and cited what that editor said:

  • With respect, for a Wiki Editor self-describing as a "Yemeni !", "with a native language of العربية (Arabic)", having a "Muslim" religion, who "loves Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم very much", who "is impressed by Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم" and edits as per: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Al-Baqarah&diff=932969817&oldid=932950799

  - suggest he/she should consider WP:COI

  --SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 18:21, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

  And not to mention that the editor has said that my edit is vandalism and yet saying that it is hard for him to be civil.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 18:23, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

• SharabSalam, please just keep it simple: El C, that ridiculous COI diff, it's this--a really shortsighted remark by Koreangauteng, whose contributions may need further scrutiny, and who shot themselves in the foot with this odd claim. Drmies (talk) 18:31, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

The removal by SharabSalam of the first section linked by GrammarDamner looks entirely justified to me. It cites a Guardian 'comment is free' piece (questionable in of itself as WP:RS) for quotations which do not appear in the piece being cited, and for other statements not supported by the source. 86.134.74.102 (talk) 18:16, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

The Guardian is a reliable source, cited in many other Wikipedia articles. And just because an editor disagrees with you multiple times does not mean that they are "probably trolling". GrammarDamner (talk) 18:25, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

The Guardian is a reliable source, and yet we still do not accept opinion pieces, unascribed, for this kind of content. The IP is absolutely correct and you, GrammarDamner, are wrong. I have not read the Guardian comment, but it seems the IP has and I'll take their word for it. And let me add that in all the cases where you provided diffs, SharabSalam was correct. Drmies (talk) 18:33, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

All of those were correct? Is it correct to mark removal of content as a minor edit? Is it correct to mention that a source doesn't say something (when it in fact does and is directly quoted) in the edit summary? Is it correct to remove negative content? Or should Wikipedia articles present both sides of an issue for balance and neutrality? GrammarDamner (talk) 18:38, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

The words in quotation marks in this passage [4] beginning with the words "Why must he..." do not appear in the Guardian opinion piece cited. Or are you suggesting that the material is in fact a quotation from the Quran? 86.134.74.102 (talk) 19:41, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

No, I was not suggesting that the material is in fact a quotation from the Quran. When I mentioned quotes, I was talking about this edit [[5]] where SharabSalam removed content and in the edit summary (falsely) said that it was not what the source says. GrammarDamner (talk) 19:49, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

As I previously stated, I was referring to the first edit you linked [6] in the article your raised in your first post (Muhammad in the Quran), after being requested to provide a diff. It contains a 'quotation' not in the source. Accordingly, the deletion was valid, contrary to your claim in your original post that SharabSalam had removed "properly sourced information". 86.134.74.102 (talk) 20:25, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

GrammarDamner, wait.. what? how is that even related to this issue? Have you even edited in there? I dont recall seeing you there. Are you searching for an excuse for this ? I have removed the duplicated content and readded it because it was suggesting that the UN report has been released but the source says that the UN report has not been released to public and that it was only seen by Reuters, I did add it to the article with the accurate description from the source and removed the duplicated content. You are obviously trying to change the subject of this thread. This is an obvious case of WP:Boomerang.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 20:13, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Actually, that was the subject of this thread. I reported that you continue to remove information that should not be removed. I was asked to provide diffs, so I did. GrammarDamner (talk) 20:19, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

GrammarDamner, you are desperately searching for an excuse for this embarrassing, failed attempt to report me, you even made it more embarrassing by searching through my edits trying to find something to report me for. I did add the content as accurately described by the Reuters exclusive report. How is this related to what you reported me for and I quote remove relevant and properly sourced information from articles regarding Islam, most recently Muhammad in the Quran. How is an op-ed/commentisfree and LuLu.com are "properly sourced information"? .--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 20:36, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Well, according to that diff, you only added some of the content. And as I've pointed out, your edit summary said that the content was not in the source, but it was. As for the op-ed, we're talking about criticism of something, which by definition will often be in an op-ed or opinion piece. Should the Guardian have published a second article stating "Some people feel that..."? GrammarDamner (talk) 20:42, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

No, we don't add content in Wikipedia about how some ordinary people feel per WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE, we only add experts criticism. Also, for the Abqiaq thing the Reuters report says that the report was seen by Reuters, the content in the infobox was suggest that the report has been released. I have contributed in that article. Almost all of the content in that article is written by me. Again this is not related to Islam, you said "remove relevant and properly sourced information from articles regarding Islam". I need evidence for this accusation.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 20:52, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Expert is a loosely defined term, and I respectfully disagree. I feel that it is not undue. GrammarDamner (talk) 21:37, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

If a dispute about article content comes down to what you (or anyone else) 'feels', such discussion should take place on the relevant article talk page. It isn't a matter for WP:ANI. 86.134.74.102 (talk) 22:12, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

@SharabSalam: still waiting for that diff to that COI passage... You are unclear as to its origins. Also, asking GrammarDamner Did you join Wikipedia yesterday?^[7] was not your finest moment, I challenge. El_C 18:33, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

El C, see it now? Look up. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 18:33, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

@Drmies: I see it, thanks. But I got the impression from SharabSalam that it was GrammarDamner who made that COI claim. Perhaps I misread, then. That's why having diffs from the outset is really helpful. El_C 18:36, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

El C, I know, and I thought the same thing initially. SharabShalam is not an L1 speaker of English, I think, but hey, we found it, and that was indeed a crappy put-down. If that constitutes a COI, then we should all stop editing what we're editing. Drmies (talk) 18:39, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, totally ridiculous. El_C 18:42, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

El_C the comment was made by that editor who has also posted a comment on your talk page just mins after I had with you some conversation, I linked it above in my long comment, also this editor has referenced the COI in this thread saying "On point number 4, this user is referenced and COI issues are pointed out". I said that because the editor is ignoring what other editors are saying and editwarring. The editor has reverted a removal of content that was removed by JzG after we discussed this in WP:RSN, saying that he is not sure why the content was removed. Do you think that is true? Nonsense, JzG was absolutely clear in the edit summary when he said that the sources are from apologists not experts. Then when I reverted him, he undo my edit but changed the source with a similar source, an op-ed or commentisfree, from a person who is not an expert.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 19:05, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

• I can't help but wonder who GrammerDamner is, and why they make so many edits to change a few little things, all marked as "grammar" when, certainly in this case, none of them are actually grammatical. Drmies (talk) 18:39, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  • What is wrong with that edit? GrammarDamner (talk) 18:51, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
    • It's ten edits, and it's not about grammar. That's all. Drmies (talk) 21:28, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
      • Drmies which edits? The edit you highlighted is just a few grammar fixes. Also, I wasn't being rhetorical with my questions above. I'm actually wondering are all those things correct? Please answer when you get a chance. Thank you. GrammarDamner (talk) 21:37, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
        • None of those edits were grammatical. All the diffs I looked at, SharabSalam was correct, particularly the one sourced to that comment in The Guardian. Drmies (talk) 00:54, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
          • Drmies, with all due respect, you must be mistaken. In those edits, I added a comma, removed an erroneous word, added a comma, changed a verb tense, added a preposition, corrected capitalization, added a comma, added a comma, added a comma, changed a conjunction (edit summary "wording"), and added a comma. How are those not grammatical? I'm genuinely confused. GrammarDamner (talk) 03:40, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
            • GrammarDamner, commas aren't a matter of grammar but of style. Changing a conjunction (from "but" to "and") is a matter of semantics. You didn't change any verb tenses or "correct" capitalization. (Capitalization also is not a grammatical matter.) I think your confusion is between grammar and style. Your comma after "22", for instance, is typically mandatory for US students but not in other varieties of English. Drmies (talk) 16:05, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
              • Drmies, with all due respect, all of those are matters of grammar. Yes, some of them fall under other categories as well, but they are all grammar issues. GrammarDamner (talk) 17:18, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

A question for GrammarDamner

In your second post above,[8] you state that you "attempted to discuss this and other issues on the user's talk page". Can you provide a link to the relevant posts? Because all I can locate from you in the history for User talk:SharabSalam is a section entitled 'Persistent vandalism' [9] followed by an ANI notification for this thread. [10] Are you suggesting that these posts constitute adequate 'discussion' by you, or has there been such discussion somewhere else? 86.134.74.102 (talk) 21:39, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

It was also discussed on my talk page. Given SharabSalam's history of edit warring and personal attacks, I felt it was time to bring it here. GrammarDamner (talk) 21:46, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

If the 'discussion' you are referring to is the one here [11], I suggest that you immediately request that this discussion be closed, before a WP:BOOMERANG appears. That does not even remotely constitute an attempt by you to discuss anything. 86.134.74.102 (talk) 21:58, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

I see some tit-for-tat; but nothing I would call discussion – which should have occurred on the article TP. Someone should have brought this up at WP:AN3. But, I think it was a mistake for you to bring this here considering you were both warring. As for Koreangauteng, someone needs to inform them that their COI comment was way out of line. (Or, as I worship of beef bourguignon, I’ll need to remove my edits in that article). O3000 (talk) 22:06, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I brought this to the wrong place. I'm not even sure what AN3 is, but I will look it up now. I'm still relatively new to all of this. As for "my warring", I thought I was doing everything right, not violating 3RR, trying to restore the article. Perhaps I forgot to mention SharabSalam's personal attacks in my first post, but that was part of the reason I brought it here. GrammarDamner (talk) 22:13, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

You have repeatedly referred to supposed 'personal attacks' by SharabSalam. As far as I can see, you haven't however provided links to any of them. I suggest you do so, because repeatedly accusing someone of making such attacks, without providing evidence, may itself constitute a personal attack. And while SharabSalam's "Did you join Wikipedia yesterday?" [12] wasn't exactly polite, I don't think that on its own is going to justify sanctions against him. Better phrased, it might even have passed as a fair comment, I'd have to suggest, given your apparent lack of understanding of several key Wikipedia policies. Policies such as discussing disputed content on article talk pages, as was suggested in that very post. 86.134.74.102 (talk) 22:54, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that was the personal attack against me by SharabSalam. You can also look at SharabSalam's block log to see the user being blocked for personal attacks before. I'm sorry that I don't know how to post a link to a user's block log. I'm not asking for any sanctions against SharabSalam. I was hoping that someone else could help explain that Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral, meaning the articles should include relevant information, even if it's negative. GrammarDamner (talk) 23:00, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

GrammarDamner, Where is the personal attack? huh? I personally attacked you because I was blocked for personal attack? The content I removed is not negative or positive, it was a mix and I am not the one who firstly removed it, it was removed an admin first and you added it again. Also you edited warred, two admins and me removed that content.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 00:00, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

The personal attack was when you posted "Did you join Wikipedia yesterday?" on my talk page. GrammarDamner (talk) 00:05, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

GrammarDamner, What? thats a personal attack? I told you that because you were obviously not informed about reliable sourced and editwarring as well. Thats not a personal attack. That is saying that you are not informed about the wikipedia policies.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 00:10, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm too much of a softie (wouldn't be the first time someone has said that about me, haha), but I felt offended. GrammarDamner (talk) 00:13, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

What you did was like a new editor. You removed the content saying not sure why it was removed, yet there is an edit summary by JzG saying why he removed the content, you re-added the content using a source from commentisfree source in the Guardian, all 3 months old editors know that content like that, that make criticism should be sourced to experts per WP:FRINGE. We dont just add what an ordinary man said. We would have 1 million MBs if we are going to just write what a random person says. Also, you said that the there is a COI, right? Above you said [o]n point number 4, this user is referenced and COI issues are pointed out. Do you still think that there is a COI issues with me?--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 00:28, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Thats not even assuming bad faith. You assumed bad faith and called my edit WP:vandalism at first I thought it is a typo when you said rvv but you went to the talk page said that I am vandalising, wow.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 00:14, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Exactly. You want to widen the discussion, not narrow it by limiting it to the two editors in dispute. Bring some outside input to the matter under contention. That's what the article talk page is for — and if that somehow stalls, there's dispute resolution and its accompanying requests. El_C 23:04, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, El_C, I should have thought of that, even though SharabSalam first brought it to my talk page with a personal attack. I have commented on the article's talk page, and I hope others will too. GrammarDamner (talk) 23:06, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

An issue regarding any Wikipedia editor with (any) strong personal belief

I first raised the issue of a possible COI. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Islam#Some_issues_with_the_current_Wikipedia_Quran_articles

On 2 January 2020 I made an unreserved apology for the use any descriptor other than a belief system. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Islam&diff=933696430&oldid=933606413

I believe (note, that is my 'belief') it is not unreasonable to raise potential COI Wikipedia editor issues for any editor with any strong, self-identified belief system. Koreangauteng (talk) 23:18, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't think that it is ever 'reasonable' to use the talk page of a Wikiproject to make COI accusations concerning a named Wikipedia contributor in the manner that you did. There is an appropriate place for such discussions (Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard), and unless there are very good reasons not to, the individual concerned should be notified.

As for your interpretation of WP:COI policy, I strongly believe that the Earth is (approximately) spherical. Do I have a COI if I edit an article on our home planet? I assume not. But in any case, this isn't the place to discuss the limits of WP:COI policy, and Wikipedia certainly isn't going to ban people from editing articles on subject matter they have beliefs about. 86.134.74.102 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:40, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

El C, what about this editor Koreangauteng who is adding sources like memri and stuff like that to Islam related articles and also following me in every dispute or conversation posting a link to his post which says that I have a COI. This is absolutely unacceptable. I told this editor before that it does not constitute as WP:COI if I love my prophet peace be upon him. Also, now the discussion that it is opened in the talk page of Talk:Muhammad in the Quran is about that link!--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 00:12, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

If you have an issue with Koreangauteng's behaviour, and you can't resolve it by discussing it with him/her (have you tried?), then maybe it should be raised here, but I really wouldn't recommend trying to find a resolution in this particular discussion. It is a disjointed mess already, and I doubt anyone will want to see it develop into a three-way dispute. Hopefully though, Koreangauteng will have realised that naming you in that way on the Wikiproject page was wrong, and won't do it again. 86.134.74.102 (talk) 00:32, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

well, I have told him that it is not a COI to be a Muslim and that his comment is polemic. After that I just ignored him although he is still following me. Also, I know that he is still adding poorly sourced content and using primary sources in his edits but I dont really want to bother right now.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 00:56, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm on it. As for Koreangauteng consistently adding poorly-sourced content to Islamic articles out of righting great wrongs or whatever impetus, that is something which they may be sanctioned for. But the evidentiary basis for that disruption has to exist (be compiled in a cogent format) first. El_C 02:46, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

I think Koreangauteng's understanding of our RS policy is fairly flawed.

E.g. [13] where they re-added a self-published (Lulu.com) source called "A 15 Minute Tactical Guide to Islam" by an apparently non notable author (I don't just mean because we have no article, but a search for this author only finds stuff like they also self-published "Islam: Y Tho?"). And used the argument below 'you have to be able to show that they're breaching other core policies because of their bias for it to be actionable' even though it was removed as an unreliable source, so by definition, an argument of a breach of a core policy was made.

They used the same argument when re-adding this [14]. At least that time it was not selfpublished (Thomas Nelson (publisher)) and the author is apparently notable Hank Hanegraaff. Still a quick read of the author's wikipedia article suggests there's no reason to think they has any particular expertise on Islam or the Quran. Anyway at least the argument for reinstatement made a little more sense there since it was in response to the removal reason 'The source is not reliable it is written by a Christian apologists'. But of course the point they seem to be missing is there's a big difference between an editor having a COI, and a RS having one. Although the big issue here isn't so much the COI, but as I said, there's no reason to think that work should be consider an RS for Islam or the Quran.

This case where they used FrontPage Magazine also caught my eye [15] although it's a complicated case since it's someone's reply to criticism of their work. In any event, they're still fairly new, so KoreanGauteng should be given the opportunity to learn about our RS policy before any action.

Nil Einne (talk) 12:35, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

• No, religious beliefs themselves are never sufficient to constitute a COI (holding a formal position like a priest theoretically could, but I suspect it would generally only apply to things directly related to the religious hierarchy for that religion rather than the faith as a whole.) This is spelled out on WP:COI: Beliefs and desires may lead to biased editing, but they do not constitute a COI. COI emerges from an editor's roles and relationships, and the tendency to bias that we assume exists when those roles and relationships conflict. The pope's personal aide cannot edit Pope or other pages directly related to the papacy due to personal relationships, but ordinary Catholics can. Imagine if we, for instance, banned every Christian from editing articles related to Christianity - it would not be tenable. As WP:COINOTBIAS says, of course, such editors can still be biased and can get in trouble if they end up consistently falling afoul of WP:ADVOCACY, but note that that is fairly specific itself - Advocacy is the use of Wikipedia to promote personal beliefs or agendas at the expense of Wikipedia's goals and core content policies, including verifiability and neutral point of view, ie. you have to be able to show that they're breaching other core policies because of their bias for it to be actionable, you can't just wave your hands at their strong beliefs and assume it. This is because in many cases (especially when it comes to religion) the most knowledgeable editors and the ones with the most interest in the topic are also going to have biases; we wouldn't want to just ban them all at once. Instead, the important question is whether they can edit constructively and evenhandedly despite their bias. --Aquillion (talk) 03:23, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Aquillion Thank you. Koreangauteng (talk) 05:34, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Humans are inherently biased towards humans. Let's ban humans from editing any article related to humanity. -- a lad insane (Channel 2) 04:40, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Ms96 issues with User:SharabSalam

To be concise, I summarize two issues I'm having with him:

1. Persistent teasing: This user keeps teasing others. regarding me: explaining CC for me, explaining the difference between AN and ANI for me. regarding others: Did you join Wikipedia yesterday?. I think common sense is the only thing needed to categorize this teasing behavior out of good faith boundaries.

Also see this edit: "not surprised after seeing their comment about "the enemy"". WP:LIBEL

1. Reverting this edit of mine.

• I believe "weight training in local gyms", "practicing Karate", and "being a fitness trainer" are irrelevant issues regarding Soleimani.
• "He was described as having a calm presence and as carrying himself "inconspicuously and rarely rais[ing] his voice", exhibiting understated charisma", and "he usually did not appear in his official military clothing" are WP:PROPAGANDA, especially when sourced to a blog in one case.
• Regarding that poll survey, I refer to our conversation on his talk page here (Please read carefully). He says "that doesnt count as a dispute about the content but with the source", well I previously expressed my concerns also about the content as well here.
• He insists that Iranians view Soleimani as a "selfless hero" and love him here and doesn't even compromise on "mixed view" of him among Iranians despite these: (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f). Iranian protesters have actually called him a murderer and tore up his pictures [16], [17], [18], [19], [20]. I can take tens of other sources. MS 会話 16:07, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Is anybody else going to weigh in on this? I apologize for my apparent misuse of the term COI, but it now appears we have a clear case of WP:Advocacy. I feel like I should ping the other editors who were discussing this before, but perhaps it is best for Ms96 to start a new thread, since this is a separate incident. Thanks! GrammarDamner (talk) 20:50, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

GrammarDamner Thanks, already done. MS 会話 04:55, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Editor WilliamJE refusal to discuss on article's Talk page

Context: This report involves aviation accident Galaxy Airlines Flight 203, and relates to sole survivor George Lamson Jr. Lamson is notable and has WP:LASTING coverage in reliable sources, but his notability is largely in relation to this accident. Per WP:BIO1E, I believe it's appropriate that Lamson is discussed in this article. (I'd recommend starting with this revision of mine for a demonstration.)

Editor WilliamJE removed substantial, sourced content from the page regarding Lamson, including both his name and the fact that a notable documentary was made about the sole survivor of the accident. I restored the content, added further content and sources supporting notability for Lamson in relation to the event, and added to the article's Talk page. WilliamJE then continued to revert my edits, but more importantly, has refused to discuss on the article's Talk page. He is only willing to explain himself via edit summaries, and he refuses to address the central point I made on the article's Talk page.

Here's a timeline (Edit: Now with diffs) (I omitted my most minor cleanup edits, which I don't believe are relevant to the timeline):

• Flight 203 page: December 24, 2019 - 16:01 CST - WilliamJE removes content on Lamson (Consensus is we don't list, name survivors, dead, or those who miss the plane unless they are WP notable.)
• Flight 203 page: December 24, 2019 - 18:19 CST - WilliamJE removes content on Lamson (Consensus is we don't list, name survivors, dead, or those who miss the plane unless they are WP notable.)
• Flight 203 page: January 20, 2020 - 18:33 CST - I undid last edit (Undid revision 932311233 by WilliamJE (talk) (that's just a general rule; in this case, notability is due to individual being sole survivor. please discuss on article talk page if you disagree.)
• Flight 203 Talk page: January 20, 2020 - 18:43 CST - I created new Talk page section explaining why Lamson content belongs in this article
• Flight 203: January 20, 2020 - 21:57 CST - WilliamJE reverts my edits (See- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:1943_Gibraltar_B-24_crash#Question)
• Flight 203 page: January 20, 2020 - 22:11 CST - I revert WilliamJE (That does not address WP:BIO1E issue here -- see and discuss on this article's talk page, where I've already distinguished this)
• Flight 203 page: January 20, 2020 - 22:20 CST - I added more content and sources on Lamson to make notability clear (Aftermath: Adding more on sole survivor Lamson, including references supporting his notability connected to the incident)
• Flight 203 page: January 20, 2020 - 22:33 CST - WilliamJE both reverts and removes newly added content, still without engaging on Talk page (Reverted to revision 936804500 by WilliamJE (talk): See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Northwest_Airlines_Flight_255#Should_Cecelia_Cichan_be_mentioned_by_name? (TW))
• Flight 203 page: January 20, 2020 - 22:34 CST - I reverted, appealing for discussion on Talk page (Undid revision 936808834 by WilliamJE (talk) (again, discuss on this article's talk page)
• Flight 203 page: January 20, 2020 - 22:35 CST - WilliamJE reverts again (You read. Consensus we don't name)
• My user Talk page: January 20, 2020 - 22:39 CST - WilliamJE leaves a two-word reply on my personal Talk page, linking to an archived conversation from their personal Talk page as if it is a source of policy, still refusing to engage on the Flight 203 Talk page (→‎Also here: new section)
• My user Talk page: January 20, 2020 - 22:40 CST - I revert his attempt to avoid discussing on article's Talk page (Continued refusal to discuss on article talk page will be reported)

To be clear, WilliamJE has (as of the time I'm posting this here) not engaged on the article's Talk page, not addressed or even acknowledged the WP:BIO1E issue I raised, and continued to act like individual discussions on individual other article Talk pages somehow override general Wikipedia policies like WP:GNG and WP:BIO1E, which combined suggest that (1) Lamson is sufficiently notable and (2) the appropriate place to discuss him is on the article for the related event, which is Galaxy Airlines Flight 203. Reasonable editors could disagree, but he isn't being reasonable and he isn't disagreeing, instead he's just citing to "consensus" where there actually isn't a policy consensus so broad and rigid it can be explained in edit summaries. Shelbystripes (talk) 04:33, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi. When you left a notice on the editor's talk page (if it was you who left it), you forgot to leave your name by striking the tilde key four times. You also left the message at the top of the page rather than the bottom, where the most recent messages should go. Would you want to correct those errors? Thanks. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 05:51, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello again. I looked at the links you posted above, but unfortunately it is really difficult to ascertain the changes that the other editor posted. It would be far better if you could link to the WP:Diffs that you can get from the History page. Then we could easily tell what the other person did. Thanks. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 06:01, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand why you're here when the discussion on the article talk page had only been open for about 5 hours when you posted, and even now it's only been open for about 8 hours. This is by no means an urgent situation, so 5 or 8 hours is way too short to conclude no discussion will take place. While I understand it may be frustrating when an editor is reverting but hasn't yet joined the discussion, you still have to give them reasonable chance to respond. The stuff in December is irrelevant as neither of you opened a discussion [21], so you can both be blamed for the lack of discussion. Nil Einne (talk) 07:40, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

• I'm beginning to think we need to ask for $20 via Paypal as a deposit before someone opens a new ANI thread. We keep the deposit if the thread turns out to be neither urgent nor about a chronic, intractable behavioral problem. This is a simple content dispute.

ANI THREAD

PROBLEM ACUTE!

CLOSED WITHOUT ACTION

"CONTENT DISPUTE"

Burma-Shave

– creffett

EEng 08:24, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

• WilliamJE has not edited since he referred OP to the prior discussion. I don;t think it's reasonable to bring this here when the user in question has tried to discuss, albeit in a manner OP dislikes, and had not edited since OP reverted that attempt. Recommend we close this as it goes nowhere and OP should seek WP:dispute resolution. -- Deepfriedokra 08:30, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Deepfriedokra The reason for no reply? I was asleep. Anyone who studied my editing will see I rarely make edits between 2100 and 0600 Eastern standard time. Last night I was up later than normal because I played bingo like normal on Monday nights.

The original poster of this thread has been referred to three different talk page discussions (There is also a guidelines page[22] which I didn't refer them to. Something about me wanting to go to sleep) on the topic they are complaining of. Two of which took place in the last 6 months and one of which[23] was absolutely on target in relation to their edits. They are whining (Take a look at their absurd reply here[24]). about consensus and took it here because they don't like what they are reading....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:20, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

@WilliamJE: Exactly. I don't feel it was reasonable of OP to report here when you had not had time to reply. ANd I do feel like you have been responsive, even if they don't think so or like the manner of your replies.-- Deepfriedokra 12:26, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

And if you don't know who posts like this you can't have wiki'd very far Eeng/creffett-- Deepfriedokra 12:30, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

All -- I apologize if this was the wrong place to bring this up; I originally wanted to request dispute resolution, but when I selected that I hadn't yet discussed on the article's Talk page, it said "It's best to discuss your concerns with the other users on the talk page of the article before seeking dispute resolution." When I went back and put that I'd tried to discuss on the article's Talk page, it then asked if the issue was about another editor's behavior, and then it said to come here. That's why I posted here. Since it appears he's finally stopped refusing to respond on the article's Talk page, I'll take it there... Shelbystripes (talk) 02:07, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

@Shelbystripes: To be blunt, I don't think there was need to start any form of dispute resolution either. Let me repeat what I said above. You waited ~5 hours before coming here. We are all volunteers. It's completely unreasonable to expect editors must just the discussion right this minute. Especially when there is zero urgency on the issue. This applies even if they reverted you. So your comment "it appears he's finally stopped refusing to respond on the article's Talk page" is inappropriate. I'd even say offensive and almost if not crossing the personal attack line. You should stop expecting editors edit according to your schedule and instead give them reasonable time to respond to any discussion. And you should only try to use some form of dispute resolution when it's clear you cannot resolve the situation just with whoever joins the discussion on the talk page. This generally means you should give it a few days. Definitely not 5 hours. And you should only bring behavioural complaints when it's clear there is a intractable problem with an editor's behaviour and not simply because you are demanding they respond to you in 5 hours! Nil Einne (talk) 09:23, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

@Nil Einne:, I take your point about giving things time (days), which I promise to take to heart. I'd also like to offer an apology to @WilliamJE:, for inappropriately handling my frustration. I am sorry, to everyone, for wasting your time posting here. Shelbystripes (talk) 04:19, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

AT ANI

LESS STURM UND DRANG

HELPS AVOID

THE BOOMERANG

Burma-Shave

Guy (help!) 18:51, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Doesn't work if one pronounces Sturm und Drang in accordance with the proper German pronunciation. Moaz786 (talk to me or see what I've been doing) 01:47, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Well then don't do that. DUH. Modification: AT ANI / YOUR STURM AND DRANG / MIGHT GET YOU / A BOOMERANG / B-S EEng 04:34, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Moaz786, eh? The "ang" of Drang is pretty much the same as the "ang" of boomerang. At least in the Hochdeutsch I learned as a singer of Schubert liede and the English I learned at my thousand-year-old school. Guy (help!) 08:58, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Um, well, did they teach you that the plural of Lied is Lieder? EEng 09:51, 23 January 2020 (UTC) We must protest this treatment, Hubert / says each newspaper reader / As someone once remarked to Schubert / "Take us to your Lieder"

I can spell just fine, but I can't type for tooffe. Srsly. Guy (help!) 15:06, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

AND IF YOU HAVE

THE ADMIN TOOLS

JUST WHIP THEM OUT

AND BLOCK THE FOOLS

Burma-Shave

Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:32, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

I have it on good authority that the "a" in "Drang" is to be pronounced as the "a" in father, though my dad insisted I was learning "low German" whereas he spoke "high German".-- Deepfriedokra 06:20, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

OK, anyone want to chime in now on how to pronounce boomerang? EEng 07:21, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

ˈbuməɹæŋ.-- Deepfriedokra 07:34, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Big help you are. EEng 15:14, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

• I also found some borderline WP:POINTing within the last two days, mostly within one hour, mostly involving sole survivors: [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35]. ミラP 01:07, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

  @Miraclepine: Your edit above is totally clueless. I have been cleaning up aviation accident article for years. Have gotten a couple of barnstars[36] for it. I have absolute shit out of articles like this[37]. Here is another case of a GA which had bunch of bs[38] in it too. Both cleaned up. Oh and I have been taking non-notable names out of accident articles for at least two years[39]. You should really study an editor before sticking your foot in your mouth....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:30, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

IP tagging articles with poorly written custom templates

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

See especially [40][41][42][43]. Note that they are edit warring over their tag at Criticism of postmodernism. Here's a weird edit summary [44] and here they're using a talk page as a soapbox. [45] They have no edits besides adding template tags and that talk page comment. Bringing this here because they have a suspicious familiarity with templates and the abbreviation "rv" for "revert"; they may be a sock or LTA that someone here can recognize. -Crossroads- (talk) 17:42, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Similar occurrence on MissingNo. as seen here where they argued weasel words, bias and a lack of 'negative reception' while also demanding The Cutting Room Floor, a wiki, be used as a source? They're also familiar with 'deletionists' on the site too.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:31, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Pinging Bbb23 and Berean Hunter - this appears to have fallen through the cracks. Is this IP an LTA? They are continuing with adding poorly written custom tags, being suspiciously familiar with and using WP:NOBITE as justification, [46] misusing talk pages, [47] adding poorly written synthesis to an article, [48] and so on. Even if they are not an LTA, there are major WP:CIR issues here. Something should be done. -Crossroads- (talk) 16:34, 23 January 2020 (UTC) updated -Crossroads- (talk) 17:09, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:OWN behaviour at 2020 Irish general election

This case pertains to users Bastun and Wikimucker.

To put things within context: this initially started out as a content dispute on 14 January when, right after the date for the 2020 Irish general election was confirmed, Iveagh Gardens and Number 57 boldly attempted to split the opinion polling section into a separate article, as is standard for election articles throughout Wikipedia (diff1 diff2). This was twice reverted by Bastun (diff3 diff4), under the only grounds that these had to remain in the main article "until the election is over" but without providing any sensible reason why. The issue rose up again on 20 January when a third uninvolved user, Aréat, attempted to remove the information from the main article to avoid repetition (diff5). Wikimucker then reverted them on the grounds that not all polls were in the sub article (diff6). Aréat then promptly went to update the sub article to fix the issue (diff7 diff8) but they got reverted again by Wikimucker, this time under a different reason, calling to "Seek consensus before removing this". Both parties attempted to engage a discussion on the issue at the talk page (diff10 diff11). So far, seven people have intervened in the discussion(s) (counting both #Opinion Polls. Main Article or not. and #Polls table: the aforementioned five users, as well as Bondegezou and myself. A clear consensus has emerged in favour of the split (which received unanimous support from all involved users), the main point of friction being the "when": Bastun and Wikimucker pleaded for the split to wait until the election was held, whereas all others saw no reason for this to be delayed (this is, a 5:2 consensus).

However, and despite there now being a clear consensus, both Bastun and Wikimucker have seemingly taken a scorched earth-policy where they would simply team up to keep reverting any attempt to implement such consensus (diff12 diff13) while threatening anyone who opposes them (diff14 diff15). Bastun in particular has adopted an aggressive ownership behaviour in the article, which is revealed by claims such as "It's been here since 2016, and we (who have been here for those four years) would like it to stay for the remaining three weeks", "this reader, and plenty of others would would like to be able to see everything to do with the next Irish general election, on 8th February, on the one page, thanks. It's been 4 years. You can wait 17 days", and threatening with edit warring should anyone try to implement the reached consensus, in what seems to constitute an overall WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour. Worth noting, in particular, is the 3RR warning issued by Bastun to Aréat (diff19), allegedly on the basis that "we're supposed to warn users that they're potentially about to breach 3RR"; this comes in clear contrast to Bastun's own approach towards Wikimucker, who did actually breach 3RR (revert1 revert2 revert3 revert4) yet received not a single warning from them; probably because they were just enforcing Bastun's version of the article. Further, they have both persistently accused others of WP:TE without any evidence, just because of disagreeing with them (diff21 diff22).

Bastun has also been trying to bog down the process by resorting to wikilawyering and unnecessary bureaucratization, arguing that the split was done "out of process" in the first place because of not abiding to WP:PROSPLIT (diff23 diff24). This is not true: PROSPLIT allows for any split to be done boldly if criteria for splitting are met (in this case, opinion polls account for 2/3 of the article so it seems reasonable) and no discussion is required (considering that this is customary practice elsewhere in Wikipedia and even in previous Irish election articles, I understand that Iveagh Gardens acted with the sincere conviction that no discussion was required when they created the sub article). Bastun has also repeteadly called for deleting the sub article only to have it re-created within 17 days (diff25 diff26), in what seems an unnecessary waste of everyone's time and effort responding only to their personal wishes. Ironically though, they are seeking such a deletion out of process themselves, as they were asked to open an AfD if they seriously thought the article should be deleted, to no avail.

Finally, both Bastun and Wikimucker have adopted a somewhat mocking and personal behaviour on me almost right from the beginning of my intervention in the discussion, just because of me asking for respect to consensus and to the other involved users: firstly, with unfair accusations of text-walling (in a clear case of WP:COTD), then with some random and entirely unnecessary mocking (diff29 diff30 diff31), and now the revelation that they may be acting like this because of some personal grudge on me from some discussion that took place three years ago (diff32). This despite repeated pleas and warnings from myself for this personal behaviour to stop (diff33 diff34 diff35 diff36).

I'm inclined to step down from the discussion because the content case has been made and because they are getting it so personal as to make it uncomfortable, but this does not preclude the fact that the 2020 Irish general election article has been hijacked by two people who are preventing any third party from making any significative or substantial modification that does not go their way. I am basically asking for input on what to do here and how to unlock this behavioural-based stalemate. Impru20^talk 12:27, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Just adding my opinion; what should have been a simple and short discussion about whether the opinion poll table should be moved to a separate article (as is done for virtually all elections) has turned rather nasty, largely due to the unreasonable attitude of the two editors Impru20 highlights. At the point the discussion reached a reasonably clear consensus (5 in favour, 2 against), Bastun made the claim that proceeding with the change would be WP:TE. I'm not sure if any action is required beyond a reminder about conduct, but it would certainly help to have some more eyes on the article to prevent further reverts. Number 57 12:42, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Bastun has reverted it again and is suggesting the content to be split into a page under a different title than the one already existing (something which could be accomplished through a mere move; they are obviously not moving it because they don't care about the title, all they want is to delay the enforcement of consensus until their preferred date). We can officially add WP:POINT and WP:GAME to the list of ongoing policy breaches. Impru20^talk 14:41, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Apparently, Impru20 thinks I am to be available 24/7 to read and parse huge walls of text and to compy with their wishes about how I follow processes (or not), while they simultaneously admonish me for issuing a 3RR warning to someone who had reverted three times (and made no other contributions to the page).

This is possibly related to Impru's last time spent on the page, some 3 years ago, where they had to be warned to stay off Wikimucker's talk page (and refused to do so) and I was subject to battleground behaviour and walls of text, akin to what is happening now (where they have added some 19k to the talk page in less than 24 hours, but no substantive content in approximately 3 years). The bottom line is the page was split, without preserving or noting the page history, just over 2 weeks out from the election to which the polls refer. The current placement interferes not at all with the page - the section is at the bottom of the article so if someone doesn't want to see the poll information, they can just stop reading. I asked that if the page was going to be split that a proper discussion take place and process be followed. Apparently less than 24 hours discussion and only 7 people participating, with no notice on any related articles or projects, is enough to satisfy Impru's railroading. Frankly, I'm at work, and don't have time to respond to the above wall, so this will have to do. FWIW, I've added the appropriate split template to the article now and will notify involved users and appropriate pages/projects in a few hours. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:50, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Oh dear; all of your behaviour during the last days is based on a personal grudge you have on me! I intervened in the discussion in good faith. I obviously do not have to ask you for any permission to do so, nor does the fact that I haven't become involved in the article within the last three years give you any leverage or superior right over my own opinions. It was you who kept ignoring my arguments, keeping attacking me and mocking me to the point of stress just because you couldn't get consensus your way. You have even accused others of WP:TE just because of their arguing in favour of the enforcement of consensus, and you do not have the "three years ago" excuse there.

Nonetheless, I remind you of WP:UNCIVIL: to repeatedly bring up past incivility after an individual has changed their approach, or to treat constructive criticism as an attack, are in themselves potentially disruptive, and may result in warnings or even blocks if repeated. Even if we were to take your version of facts of three years ago as true (it isn't, but I sincerely don't have the time to re-live what you and Wikimucker did to me nor is it in any way related to this), you have no right to keep repeteadly bringing it up in an entirely unrelated discussion years later just because you can't bother to read others' comments and reply with constructive arguments.

P.S. Just because of being a prolific editor in an article does not make you exempt of 3RR. You chose to warn only the user who disagreed with you, and not the other (and more obvious) violation. Ask yourself why. Impru20^talk 15:10, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Funny that. This complaint starts with a wall of text.

A perusal of the archives around the Admin parts here shows that Impru is a regular user of Administrator appeals.

If I were myself a perennial in this part of the wiki it would be because I was clearly unable to reach a civil accommodation with my fellow editors and to respect their work and our occasional differences, which differences are clear on the self same talk page that is the subject of the complaint(albeit further down). It is incumbent upon us, as editors, to manage these differences without battering each other with a soup of policies and obtuse e walls of text. WP:WeAllHaveBetterThingsToDo comes to mind. I would find that embarrassing to be honest.

But I am not such a perennial, am I??? Craven apologies in advance to any poor Admin who has read this far down. Wikimucker (talk) 17:01, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Firstly: abusing of WP:TL;DR to try to dismiss legitimate evidence and valid rationales is disruptive by itself.

No, it's not true that I am a "regular user of Administrator appeals". The only recent time I have come to ANI has been a couple days ago because I was directly insulted and intimidated at my talk page (it obviously led to a quick block). Within the whole of 2019 I have only come to ANI twice: one in February 2019 and another one in July 2019. Both were obvious and extreme cases of disruption which were summarily blocked. The only other time I got mentioned in ANI throughout 2019 (thus, one of the results you'll get from the archives) was in June, to put me as a positive example: A user who has given a sensible explanation and has acted constructively is Impru20 [80]. They gave an actual rationale instead of going completely defensive which RaviC has done. RaviC should talk a leaf out of Impru20's playbook.

Nonetheless, Wikimucker, it happens that my name shows up at the ANI archives 22 times. Bastun's name, ironically, shows up 69 times ([49]). It would be nice as well to determine how many of these are because of Bastun/myself coming here on our own volition and how many of these are because of us being reported, but it's nonetheless ironic that you dub me a "perennial user" of ANI just because of the sheer historic number of results in the ANI archive, yet you ignore Bastun's own count, which triples mine. Not that I really care, but your own distorted argument would actually damage your cause, not help it. Impru20^talk 18:48, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

You really don't want to make all this any easier for the admins to follow Impru20, do you??? Wikimucker (talk) 19:01, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

I do make it easier by providing evidence. Another one would be this one: Wikimucker removing the 3RR warning on their talk page dubbing it as "Impru20 shite". So, it's cool for Aréat to be warned of 3RR in order for them to be intimidated from conducting any further edit on the article, yet when it is you the violator such a warning becomes "shit"? Interesting. Impru20^talk 19:05, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

You were told 3 years ago to stay off my talk page permanently, that order is a unique one on my talk page and will likely always be. Don't expect any thanks for breaching that order. Wikimucker (talk) 20:06, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

I won't be wasting my time on grudges any of you have because of a discussion that took place three-years-ago; your "wish" for me not to comment in your talk page is not a justification to ignore a WP:3RR warning on a clear breach of such rule and dub it as "shit". You have also removed the ANI notice from your talk when I am required to post it under Wikipedia rules no matter your own preferences, but somehow you think you are above all of it. Nonetheless, and as I told you, I warned you out of pure courtesy despite your straight violation of 3RR. Probably next time you should get a full report at WP:AN3 and get a straight block so that you stop short on your impertinence. Impru20^talk 20:19, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

If it has your name on it you know it you know it will go Impru20. Nothing changed in 3 years. Wikimucker (talk) 21:37, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

The main issue at hand is what you are doing at Talk:2020 Irish general election, not whatever grudge you may have from 3, 5 or 10 years ago. If you are not going to read or address the commented out evidence, I'd politely ask you to stop posting placeholder comments, so as to give admins a breath. Thank you. Impru20^talk 21:44, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Please. That is quite enough Impru20, thank you in advance for stopping now. 21:50, 23 January 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikimucker (talk • contribs)

It wasn't Wikimucker who posted a 3RR warning on Aréat's page, it was me, so WM's opinion of my doing that is irrelevant. You accuse WM of breaching 3RR, but according to the 4 diffs you posted, they haven't. Three is not four, but one of the four diffs you posted was not a revert of the opinion polls. Ironically, WP:SPLITTING has this to say: "A page of about 30 to 50 kilobytes (kB) of readable prose, which roughly corresponds to 6,000 to 10,000 words, takes between 30 and 40 minutes to read at average speed, which is right on the limit of the average concentration span of 40 to 50 minutes." Between this page and Talk:2020 Irish general election, you have added just shy of 40k, within 36 hours, on this one topic. While maintaining that you are not adding walls of text and that others saying you are is a personal attack. I'm done... Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:20, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

JAYSUS Bastun please stop, please. There is quite enough here already with no further input required from you or from Impru20 . Let this be an absolute end to it the pair of you. Wikimucker (talk) 22:48, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Dear Bastun, I concur with Wikimucker here and I won't be taking your bait, as most of what you say has either been already replied or is just a repetition of the same mantra on attempting to minimize myself and my contributions. Everything I had to say has been said. However, a small consideration on this new statement of you: one of the four diffs you posted was not a revert of the opinion polls So, does it look like you are issuing 3RR warnings without even knowing what WP:3RR is?

“ An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. ”

Four edits of any kind that reverts content added by other user or users, whether they are the same or different users, and which involve the same or different content, are a violation of 3RR. They do not even need to be tagged as actual reverts, just being edits that undo any other editors' actions. Now this is enough; thank you for your input, but if you can't provide anything else I'd just call for any uninvolved admin to review this. Impru20^talk 23:04, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Aaaaand Stop There. :( Wikimucker (talk) 23:12, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Leaving aside the tangential issues for now, I support Impru20's observation that we have a sufficient consensus to make the article split, but two editors are blocking that. This is not helpful editing. Bondegezou (talk) 08:06, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

The article has been split. Number 57 did it, asserting that process had been followed (it hadn't, as far as I can see - they removed the split discussion template from the article page and moved the content, which has now lost the history and according to WP:PROSPLIT doesn't meet WP's licensing terms.) That aside, Iveagh Gardens has said they've no problem having the split page deleted and created with the edit summary required by WP's licence. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:35, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

You don't seem to have any clue on how WP:PROSPLIT even works. The page's history is not moved into the new article in the split process, and just because an edit summary is not filled properly does not mean the whole splitting must start anew. Much to the contrary, you can easily solve it by using Template:Copied at both the parent and the child articles as per WP:CORRECTSPLIT, as I just did here and here, to keep attribution on the parent's page history.

You two have been wikilaywering and blocking further action based on random excuses in order to unilaterally delay the split, despite overwhelming consensus for conducting it right away (something that even Iveagh Gardens asks for in the diff you provide!). But worst of it is that, as a way of accomplishing that, both you and WM have launched a full smear campaign on myself personally just because I contested your actions, by casting aspersions on me both at Talk:2020 Irish general election and here at ANI without even caring to provide any evidence while trying to discredit my valid rationale by dismissing it as "text-walls" despite the essay on it expressly stating that doing so is disruptive. The split is now done with, but the intractable behavioural problems still remain. As Number 57 hints, probably some action should be taken against the perpretators of this embarrassing episode to discourage such a drama from being repeated in the future. Impru20^talk 15:48, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Impru20 Please withdraw that gratuitous ad hominen directed at me, I will accept your simply editing it out, less being more here. Wikimucker (talk) 17:11, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Not a "gratuitous ad hominem". We are at ANI; evidence is everything here, unsupported accusations are of little use. Now please, do not talk to me ever again. Cheers. Impru20^talk 17:21, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

God, and that talk section on that page only started off as an attempt to seek a quick consensus, what! Wikimucker (talk) 17:30, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

An "overwhelming" consensus? ;-) Impru has now addressed the licensing issue and hasn't been in any way condescending about it - good lad. As the main issue raised seems to be the size of the table and the first world problem of having to scroll lots to get to the footnotes, I'm amazed nobody just used the table's 'hide' function, but hey, I guess not everyone can know everything about every aspect of Wikipedia, and that's no sin. Every day is a schoolday, as they say. That being the case, the inclusion of just this years's polls won't be an issue, as we're likely to see only one or two more after this weekend, plus RTÉ's exit poll. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:24, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

[...] I'm amazed nobody just used the table's 'hide' function. Just for any passing-by reader to know: Aréat actually attempted to improve on this, twice (diff1 diff2). But they got reverted twice as well (diff1 diff2). If he had been lent some help instead of being reverted and sent a 3RR warning, seeing how the 'hide/collapse' function seems so suddenly useful now, the situation would have maybe became just a little less agonic I guess. Impru20^talk 19:46, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Any passing-by readers may be interested to know that the 'hide' function was present from the time the opinion polls section was first created, but I sincerely doubt it. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 20:07, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

That may be because ANI is about behavioural issues, not content issues. No one here would be interested on the 'hide' function at all, indeed. But they may care that the user attempting to improve on such function got crudely reverted as part of the domination-style behaviour that got us here, then dismissed as "nobody just used the table's 'hide' function". Yes, there were attempts to use it and work on it, but even these were repressed. Impru20^talk 21:15, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

• Having read the above (why did I do that), and the two articles, I am struggling to see the ANI aspect to this. There is normal discussion and various proposals are/have been made on the Talk Page of the 2020 Irish general election article that seem fine? If there are WP:3RR violations, we have a board for that (and justice is swift, imho). If a stable consensus is hard to achieve, we have RfCs (which I don't see being used on the Talk Page). The article is being actively edited by several disparate parties (none of whom have come to this ANI outside of the parties named in this ANI). It is not obvious to me that there is an ANI aspect to be considered here? I would move to close this. Thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 11:12, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Britishfinance; other parties (namely Number 57 and Bondegezou) have actually come up to ANI (diff1 diff2) and have indeed called for some kind of action to be taken (diff3). Plus, considering that the issue is only worsening because of an apparent ongoing attempt to circumvent the reached consensus on the part of one of the same guys who was brought here (diff4 diff5), this does seem like an ANI issue. Cheers. Impru20^talk 11:59, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Impru20, my bad missing that (they were brief cmts in a long ANI post). I see you have started an RfC on the Talk Page (which is good). I also note your comment in the RfC header: I am not particularly opposed to this, as long as consensus favours it and care is taken for information to be added and kept up to date in both pages. This comment underlines the low materiality of this formatting point, (and contrasts with the length of this ANI), and my belief (still) that there is no ANI action here. Britishfinance (talk) 12:32, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

@Britishfinance: This is because this ANI report is not about what you reference. Indeed, the key point of what I said minutes ago and which you reference is as long as consensus favours it. Currently it doesn't, it was pretty clear and still there was a clear attempt to game the outcome of the reached consensus (already acknowledged by others as well), in what is only a continuation of the ongoing behavioural issues at 2020 Irish general election. Content disputes can be dealt with and, as you yourself correctly hint, I personally have no issues in taking either part of the discussion when it comes to content, because I have no wish to oppose something for the sake of opposing. What is not acceptable is for any user to hijack any article and forcefully push with their own preferred version of it even against consensus, as is being the case here and, as a behavioural and not a content issue, constitutes the focus of this report.

I am sorry that this ANI got so unfortunately long, as at some point it turned into me having to defend myself from some unjustified claims. In any case, all evidence on this issue is within the starting post of this report, with diffs and links being provided whenever required, with the original discussion being available at Talk:2020 Irish general election and with the page's history being accessible to everyone. Cheers. Impru20^talk 12:47, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

@Britishfinance: This report is not about the dispute over 2020 Irish general election. It is over possible WP:TE by Bastun and Wikimucker. I've certainly found Bastun's editing here to be unhelpful to the project. Bondegezou (talk) 17:30, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Bondegezou. I wouldn't really call their editing unhelpful to the project? They are the editors who have built the important 2020 Irish general election head article (per [50]), which I am sure will be a great help to Irish (and even other) readers? The polling format dispute that caused this ANI (here), seems like a very moderate item on the materiality scale, and having read through it, is not that unfair/unreasonable a request (and why I !voted to support it at the new RfC). Somewhere along the line, this all went askew, however, I don't think this ANI thread (or extending it further), serves much purpose now, and it is a better use of our time to focus on articles. Britishfinance (talk) 18:01, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

The polling format dispute that caused this ANI seems like a very moderate item on the materiality scale. You can actually see this the other way around: how such a seemingly minor content dispute developed into such an oversized drama because of a persistent refusal to accept consensus from a tag team. Being prolific editors in any given article does not make them exempt from Wikipedia policies on civility and consensus-building (actually, it would seem it could have contributed to them having entrenched themselves in the aforementioned ownership behaviour). Considering that an active attempt to filibuster was averted just earlier today, this seems by no means over, and we could end up seeing further conflict if left unaddressed. Impru20^talk 20:06, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

an active attempt to filibuster was averted just earlier today. LOLS at idea that filibustering started yesterday. In my 15 years+ editing the Wikipedia I have never ever come across serial and deliberate WP:MWOT / WP:TE on the scale it regularly appears in the talk pages in the article that is the subject of the complaint. Some of the choicest examples are now excised from that talk page, dating from 2017. Wikimucker (talk) 09:27, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Filibustering in Wikipedia's terms means repeatedly pushing a viewpoint with which the consensus of the community clearly does not agree, effectively preventing a policy-based resolution. Example: Editors reach a consensus, except one (or a tagteam) insisting that the change sought violates some policy or other principle, in a way they cannot clearly demonstrate. I think it is pretty clear to everyone. Btw, I agree that the filibustering did not start yesterday (nor did I suggest that). It started when a clear consensus had emerged and our favoured tag team of two attempted to prevent its resolution because they did not agree with it. Impru20^talk 10:15, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Pretty accurately describes what we have to put up with on talk pages. Not in 15 years+ have I seen such behaviour. Wikimucker (talk) 10:27, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Fully agree with you. Impru20^talk 10:30, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

@Britishfinance: Impru20 listed at the start of this section evidence of WP:TE. This ANI report is not about polling format: it's about those examples of edit-warring and wiki-lawyering given. I am unclear why you are not engaging with the examples given. Bondegezou (talk) 12:42, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

@Bondegezou:, per my comments on the Talk page RfC, the substance of this format dispute is very (very) minor, and the good faith assurances now given, make the dispute moot. The only "oxygen" prolonging debate (and this huge ANI), is from the "unhappy interactions" that resulted from this format dispute. Perspective is being lost here, and concerns of WP:TE can be directed at many parties (although, again, I can't see an admin bothering with TE on such a moot issue). I advise (again) that this ANI be brought to a close as the most rational outcome. Britishfinance (talk) 12:53, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Concerns on OWN and other behavioural issues at 2020 Irish general election have not been cast off. Rather, you seem to be actually furthening it by somehow suggesting that we have to somehow accept the proposal to have 2020 polls in the main article because these two editors are the "creators" of the content. No, we are not required to agree with it. Both Bondegezou and myself have laid out our reasons for opposing. That's ok and there is no issue with it. And no, neither of these users has any superior right or claim over the article's content just because of them being amongst the most prolific editors of that page.

Content issues aside, these were not just "unhappy interactions"; these were attempts to systematically overturn the reached consensus, filibustering, tag teaming, ownership and battleground-like behaviour and aspersion-calling (the latter of which has continued even on this ANI report, which constitutes an evidence by itself). The issue is not "moot". Impru20^talk 13:18, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Sadly I don't think any administrator has been treated to such an collection of Wiki policies, untrammeled as the collection is by the slightest understanding of the actual value of any of them. Wikimucker (talk) 13:46, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

You think incorrectly, I guess.

P.S. I do not think it is particularly helpful to anyone for you to just keep posting placeholder comments here, without replying to anyone's arguments nor countering any of the provided evidence. Impru20^talk 14:45, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

So, in summary, yes, there may be WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour going on at that article - there's certainly a lot of bludgeoning in evidence, both there and here!

• Bastun: 37 edits, 15.3k, since 16 January.
• Impru20: 67 edits, totalling 43.5k, since 22 January!

I'd repeat that test for this page, but xtools wisely falls over every time I try. Pretty much every single comment by anyone who does not agree with Impru20 will be met by a response by him.

There is currently a weak consensus (4-3 - seven people!) for the compromise proposal of including the polls conducted since 1 January in the main article, until after the election on 8 February. (As opposed to the "overwhelming consensus" of 5-2 - seven people!) for removing all polls. Realistically, nobody in their right mind is going to join that discussion (sorry, Britishfinance, no offence meant!) and really, who could blame them? Can someone hat this discussion, please, and possibly advise if it's worthy of mention elsewhere? Me? I'm off to the pub. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:58, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

No offence taken Bastun, and I do appeal to Impru20 to drop this one; we are far beyond the bounds of marginal benefit from any further discussion on this issue which is now of very (very) low materiality (if not trivial). There really is little benefit to prolonging the RfC, which revolves around maintaining a few lines of text in the Head Article, as well as the sub-article for all polling; and assurances have been given by the two editors who maintain (and wrote) these two articles, that said lines of text will be updated in both articles (the original concern). Any UNINVOLVED editor (of which I no longer one), would really wonder what is the point of further discussion and dispute; the path to getting here may have left "bruises" between you, but that happens in WP, and as long as no harm can come to the project (which I can't see happening in this case), there are an infinite amount of better things to spend time on? Britishfinance (talk) 19:05, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, Bastun, typically I'd need to spent more time and effort in replying because you and Wikimucker are acting as a WP:TAGTEAM, so it's not one-to-one discussion but a two-to-one engagement. Typically, one would reply when the other doesn't and vice versa. Joining Wikimucker's own stats here, this would give 88 edits between the two of you worth 32.6k. Noting that none you tend to use evidence or external links as I do (which obviously make the markup size of my edits to go up; it's a pity that the fact that I try to use evidence is used against me, coming from someone who has only casted aspersions for the whole time of their involvement in this ANI thread and in most of the discussion at the referenced article). As of lately, there is also these engagements where one of these two users would just resort to systematically reply to every comment of mine without providing any meaningful content (despite repeated calls of me for such a behaviour to stop) just seeking to provoke me and make my editing experience in the article uncomfortable (diff1 diff2 diff3 diff4 diff5 diff6).

Further, that you pretend to impersonate this on me is absurd. The latest discussion at Talk:2020 Irish general election#2020 polls in main article is only taking place because I did initiate it in order to redirect a situation where you shamefully attempted to game the outcome of the previous discussion (diff1 diff2). Number 57 and Bondegezou have also showed clear conmendation of your behaviour, both here and in the talk page, and even Iveagh Gardens, despite granting you support on your latest content proposal, has been forced to call for you to please not make any change in the page before a consensus is reached. Stop trying to make this personal on myself as you have been doing since your first reply to me in this whole affair (diff).

If the discussion got large is because of your failure in accepting that a consensus contrary to your own preferences was reached. Had you accepted consensus when it was reached, none of this would have been needed, but it's your ownership behaviour, your constant personal attacks, your accusations of WP:TE to others and other related behaviour what has brought us here.

Sorry Britishfinance, but this should really be addressed. This whole affair is indeed a waste of time considering that initial consensus had been quick and very clear, but we should remind why and how did we get here. The fact that such an enormous conflict was brought by these two users on such a minor issue, as well as the fact that, as they have shown, they will just keep repeating the same behaviour on anyone not agreeing to their terms on "their" Irish election articles, means that this is prone to be repeated in the future. Further, we would have saved us a lot of time already had I not been forced to respond to unfounded personal accusations and a lot of targetting on myself. As said, this is not a content issue but a behavioural problem, and needs resolution.

Can someone hat this discussion, please, and possibly advise if it's worthy of mention elsewhere? Me? I'm off to the pub. This is an unneeded insult, Bastun, which is just reflective of your behaviour during the whole affair. Impru20^talk 19:14, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

(ec) I have gone as far I as can go and will leave it to another UNINVOLVED editor/admin to help, and may God have mercy on their souls. Britishfinance (talk) 19:25, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

@Britishfinance: I am sure you are speaking in good will, but I cannot comprehend why you are sticking to content and seemingly ignore the (still ongoing) disruptive behaviour shown by these users. You were asked by other users to engage with the given evidence, but you stick with the content issue being "very" minor and with "assurances" on such content being given. This is respectable, but this is not the issue at discussion here: had this been a content issue, it would have been brought to WP:DRN or any other such venue. No assurance has been given that the reported behaviour will stop (unsurprisingly, as such behaviour is being mimicked by the reported users in this ANI thread or even at the ongoing discussion at the talk page), and there are concerns that further edit warring in the article has only stopped because of the issue being currently under the ANI's watch. I do not see the usefulness in repeating the same remarks over and over again: all evidence has been already posted and, seemingly, no more will be given, so this is up for any uninvolved admin to come and address. Let us not increase the drama any further. Impru20^talk 20:39, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

@Britishfinance: may God have mercy on their souls. Never, in any discussion initiated by the OP who started this one, was a wiser word spoken by any contributor. Please Lord, save us all from another [WP:MWOT] . Wikimucker (talk) 08:39, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Ok, so after about 80% of the discussion above served no other purpose than to needlessly lengthen this ANI thread beyond reasonable limits, let the POV railroading stop and have someone else get this issue resolved, shall we? Thank you all for your participation. Impru20^talk 11:20, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

PunjabCinema07 and Gurbaksh Chahal

• PunjabCinema07 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Gurbaksh Chahal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The Gurbaksh Chahal article has been the subject of long-term efforts by various meatpuppets to shape the article with a POV favorable to the subject. There have been 5 prior ANI threads related to this disruption, with this one being the most recent. PunjabCinema07 (talk · contribs) is the latest meatpuppet to have a go at the article. So far, their efforts at BLPN have been unsuccessful, but they are a threat to our neutrality and should thus be neutralized. At both BLPN and Talk:Gurbaksh Chahal, they have made false accusations of trolling and vandalism against the editors who have fought hard to keep this page from becoming a PR puff-piece [51], [52], [53], [54]. This is the same kind of rhetoric employed by prior meatpuppets on that page, so it would seem that there is a connection between PunjabCinema07 and prior troublemakers (on this page, hit Ctrl + F and type 'vandalism'). Moreover, PC07 has admonished me that I should always assume good faith, which is quite rich in light of their history of making wild accusations. This individual is both NOTHERE and deeply incompetent. Please deal with them appropriately. Lepricavark (talk) 14:30, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

My suggestions have been in good faith and I have made no changes to Gurbaksh Chahal. I have alerted the BLP Noticeboard of your behavior and the other two editors Chisme (talk · contribs) and Winged Blades of Godric (talk · contribs) that continuously vandalize this page. I would encourage editors and administrators to look at the last few vandalized edits made from November 24, 2019: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gurbaksh_Chahal&oldid=928084378 and compare it to how much it was just vandalized today. It's clear you have personal bias to this page and have some ulterior agenda for it be written in a negative and libelous manner turning this into a WP:Attack_pages. I have reviewed the history and whenever any other editor such as Joydeep ghosh has tried to help write this article to WP:neutral point of view, was attacked with the page locked and further being vandalized. I urge others to look at the edits made by Winged Blades of Godric,Lepricavark, Chisme and hold these three editors responsible for vandalism. PunjabCinema07 (talk) 14:47, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

I rest my case. Lepricavark (talk) 14:49, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

After the sheer amount of vandalism made today on Gurbaksh Chahal. I rest my case. It's abundantly clear you are working in conjunction with Winged Blades of Godric and urge you to disclose if you are getting paid to vandalize this page. PunjabCinema07 (talk) 14:58, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

• The account is near-confirmedly an UPE account, whose sole editorial activity has been limited to Draft:Rubina Bajwa, rumored to be in a relation with G. Chahal. Somebody block this account, please. ∯WBG^converse 15:00, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
• Unsupported allegations of paid editing, vandalism and meatpuppetry, combined with general tendentiousness = WP:NOTHERE. Or almost. Be mindful, I beg you. ——SN54129 15:02, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@PunjabCinema07: This is a content dispute, and you have already reported at WP:BLPN. calling edits with which you disagree vandalism is not something you should be doing.-- Deepfriedokra 15:06, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Deepfriedokra, this is a clear UPE account with the task of main-spacing Rubina Bajwa. Three separate NPP reviewers (me, GSS and Satdeep, who accepted it once on wrong premises) had draftified it, asking for an AFC acceptance but he has reverted all of us. Note this comment by a fourth editor; further, the Joydeep ghosh, PC07 refers to in the BLPN has been since blocked for spamming. ∯WBG^converse 15:10, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

@Winged Blades of Godric: You are not helping yourself.-- Deepfriedokra —Preceding undated comment added 15:07, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra: - What on Earth did I do? I did not entertain him any; there's a reason as to why the page is ECP protected. ∯WBG^converse 15:12, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

@PunjabCinema07: These are long term, established, trusted editors, who have shown they are here for Wikipedia. You might want to reconsider your words.-- Deepfriedokra 15:09, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

I am sorry if I offended here. But, I request you to take a look at the vandalism that is taking place on Gurbaksh Chahal today and try to stop it from further damage. PunjabCinema07 (talk) 15:14, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

• Note I returned this to Draft:Rubina Bajwa and move protected. It should be reviewed via WP:AfC.-- Deepfriedokra 15:20, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
• This is a content dispute. Please discuss competing versions on talk page and seek WP:CONSENSUS. If unable to attain consensus, please seek WP:dispute resolution. For violations of WP:BLP, please discuss at WP:BLPN. Thanks, -- Deepfriedokra 15:22, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

  The content dispute can be discussed elsewhere, but PC07 is a NOTHERE editor and ANI is the appropriate place for discussing behavioral issues. Lepricavark (talk) 15:32, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

• @PunjabCinema07: I have received your email and am not inclined to intervene in this matter. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:30, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Add me to the above. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:53, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

• Ad Orientem, this seem to be some kind of mass-canvassing-attempt given the comments by DBigXray, Anachronist and 331dot over this thread. Given he was already warned by Anachronist to not admin-shop (hours back), can you kindly check whether the email sent to you post-dates the warning? ∯WBG^converse 15:38, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

@Winged Blades of Godric: It predates Anachronist's warning and was probably a mass mailing thing. But it does not violate the warning given the time stamp. Beyond which there are enough cooks in this kitchen. No need for me to join the crowd. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:44, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

• Query has user been template:PAID warned?-- Deepfriedokra 17:19, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

   Done-- Deepfriedokra 17:21, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

  And they deny it. Can't say I believe them, given that 1) they are an SPA on an article with a history of SPAs and 2) they believe everyone who disagrees with them is being paid. I think we're giving this user way too much leeway. After all, they still won't stop with the false accusations of vandalism [55]. They don't get it and they aren't going to get it. Lepricavark (talk) 17:34, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

• I have again suggested PunjabCinema07 stop accusing other editors of vandalism.-- Deepfriedokra 18:04, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

PunjabCinema07 wrote, “I urge others to look at the edits made by Winged Blades of Godric,Lepricavark, Chisme and hold these three editors responsible for vandalism.” An objective look at my contributions to the Gurbaksh Chahal article will show that my contributions are well-sourced and fair-minded. The problem here is that friends and paid friends of the subject want to bury his past as a domestic abuser. Chisme (talk) 20:06, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

• Chisme I suggest you assume good faith on my suggestions and not enter personal attack territory by labeling me as a "paid friend." I've seen from the talk pages how you have bullied other editors on this page and I won't tolerate the same abuse. One objective read on my thread would suggest that I am ONLY helping to neutralize this page to BLP standards. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Gurbaksh_Chahal PunjabCinema07 (talk) 00:18, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  • You accused me of vandalism. You're wrong. I never bullied anybody. I only prevented this page from being white-washed. End of story. Chisme (talk) 03:44, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Chisme, this tells a different story. Mysteries Abound? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gurbaksh_Chahal#Mysteries_Abound:_Dating_in_Encyclopedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PunjabCinema07 (talk • contribs) 06:41, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I reviewed Draft:Rubina Bajwa at AFC in response to a request by User:Deepfriedokra. A previous article on the subject was deleted in 2017 after AFD. This draft does not show any new notability after 2017. If the draft is resubmitted again without new evidence of notability, I am prepared to nominate the draft for deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:56, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

• For the record - this is the first time I have seen this discussion. I was completely unaware of it when I nominated Gurbaksh Chahal for AfD, and did so based strictly on content and the TP discussion. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 02:50, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
• Since this thread is still open, I want to clearly memorialize this disturbing, threatening, intimidating post.-- Deepfriedokra 06:02, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Proposal: Indefinite Block

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

---

PC07 has been give more than enough WP:ROPE. We've seen repeated accusations of vandalism (which required numerous warnings to stop); mass-canvassing of admins via email; pointing to a blocked spammer (joydeep ghosh) as the editor they want to imitate (which should be a NOTHERE version of the duck test); repeated accusations that other editors are paid and/or editing in concert; telling other editors to AGF while blatantly assuming bad faith of those same editors; the list goes on. This behavior is IDHT and NOTHERE, in addition to being reflective of an individual who is entirely out of touch with how Wikipedia works. They've learned some basic Wikiterms, but they can't/won't use those terms correctly. This is exactly the pattern of behavior that I have previously observed from other meatpuppets on the Chahal page, which leads me to strongly believe that this editor has some undisclosed connections to the article subject. Enough is enough and it's time to show them the door. Lepricavark (talk) 01:05, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Lepricavark (talk) 01:05, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support after this post with continued aspersions and personal attacks directed towards WBG. I do admire the courage to remind others to WP:AGF about their edits while they WP:ABF about others. They have no idea on how to handle an editing dispute and aren't interested in learning how - they've had warning after warning JUST TODAY and continue. Enough. Ravensfire (talk) 01:57, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

They've been blocked for 72 hours for their disruptive actions, had ECP removed after gaming the system and been warned by a variety of admins, plus have more watching their talk page. Some WP:ROPE here may be worthwhile to see if any of this is absorbed. They were still tossing around asperions and showing zero faith while demanding it be shown towards them, which is not helpful. Reverting to their preferred version while demanding others use the talk page is also signs of a WP:TENDENTIOUS editor and while they've denied a COI, given the whitewashing on Gurbaksh Chahal and their (re)creation of Draft:Rubina Bajwa who just happens to be dating Chahal, I'll hold my suspicions. Striking support for indef, for now. Ravensfire (talk) 18:09, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Support again after the bombastic rhetoric and threats continue. Ravensfire (talk) 18:42, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

• Support - Obviously, ∯WBG^converse 02:09, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

• Also, he's trying to game ECP. ∯WBG^converse 02:16, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

• Winged Blades of Godric, noticed that too (poor IaBot is getting overworked tonight!), wonder if this is Bothiman's latest sock with Vijay (actor) under ECP. Ravensfire (talk) 02:23, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

• Not the first time, I am seeing gaming via IABot. There needs to be some kind of anti-abuse measures. ∯WBG^converse 03:56, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

• Support very likely an undisclosed paid editor per this comment by Satdeep Gill who was contacted by Gurbaksh Chahal to whitewash his page and to upload images. I guess we need a CU here to check if Gchahal2019 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has any connection with PC07. Gchahal2019 made no edits on en-wiki but uploaded a couple of images to commons-wiki. GSS ^💬 04:31, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support a block for personal attacks. Neutral as to whether it should be for 72 hours or indefinite. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:52, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I am not a paid editor so these personal attacks need to stop. When does personal attack territory apply to all of you? Or is this there when anyone tries to disagree with you, you bully them by trying to ban them? Apparently, assume good faith doesn't apply here, and you can harass new editors like me at anytime? Winged Blades of Godric, Lepricavark, Ravensfire? PunjabCinema07 (talk) 05:01, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Paid or not, you won't be any kind of editor for much longer if you continue down this path. If you wish to continue editing, you would be wise to disclose whatever connections, financial or otherwise, that you have to Gurbaksh Chahal. You are not going to convince anyone that you just randomly happened across Chahal's article. Clearly, you got there from somewhere. Lepricavark (talk) 05:21, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

• Not that we need further evidence to support an indef, but now that PC07 has gamed their way into having ECP, they are causing disruption in mainspace despite the fact that any reasonable person would realize that such edits haven't got a chance of standing. Lepricavark (talk) 05:30, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

  I'm going to bed. PunjabCinema07, enjoy your temporary 'victory', but I'll be astonished if you're still around when I return. Tell Gurbaksh I said 'Hello'. Lepricavark (talk) 06:31, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Lepricavark, when will the personal attack territory stop from you? I believe the editors here have made it very clearly that this behavior needs to stop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PunjabCinema07 (talk • contribs) 06:35, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

• I gave them a 72 hour block for disruption Please feel free to unblock if you disagree. @Bishonen: could you check my work if you are about?-- Deepfriedokra 12:36, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

  I'm not comfortable being the only admin looking at this. Somone else should opine.-- Deepfriedokra 12:44, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

  • I'm not an admin, Deepfriedokra, but I've put a lot of hours in here, and it looks completely fair. I would have closed this, but there it s a question on the table about a NOTHERE indef. (IMO, you'd have been good on that, too). John from Idegon (talk) 12:56, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the details here, but if the disruption was limited to that one article, why not partial block or pull the EC user right? Both would have worked. I see that you've done the latter, but then reversed yourself (?). El_C 13:10, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Cause I'm not comfortable being the only admin looking at this-- I'd I feel I was acting out of emotion. Someone with a fresh look should decide a course of action.-- Deepfriedokra 13:19, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm just wondering if that article is the only source of problems —is that the case?— in which case we have two mechanism of equal usefulness to employ. El_C 13:29, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

The editor was engaging in personal attacks, calling other editors vandals. The personal attacks were both on talk pages and in edit summaries, which are more problematic because they are difficult to redact. A partial block would not have been sufficient. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:38, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Okay, good to know. But their block will expire in three days — what do we do then? And again, is this all about this one article? El_C 15:44, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm an uninvolved admin (other than having been canvassed in email, as noted above). I've been following the developments here, and I agree with the 72 hour block. The user has not attempted any of the WP:DR methods available. I will remove the EC right to encourage PC07 to do that once the block expires. If I see a good-faith effort at dispute resolution and understanding of the policies and guidelines here, I'll restore the EC right. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:49, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Or we could partial block them just from that article (not including the talk page), leaving them with the EC right for other articles. Although the manner in which they gained that user right does seem to be somewhat suspect, so maybe that point is moot. El_C 15:53, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

ECP has been removed from them by Anachronist.Ravensfire (talk) 17:56, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

• Support I know it's too late as PunjabCinema07 has been blocked for 72 hours, but I wanted to add my 2 cents to say he should be permanently blocked. His insults to others, his mysterious background knowledge of this article in spite of being a newcomer, and his bot-gaming of Wikipedia demonstrate rancorous bad faith. A prediction: When his 72-hour sentence expires he'll be back for more. He can't help himself. There will be another round of what to do about PunjabCinema07s on the notice boards, after which he will be blocked permanently. Why not get the job done right and early? Why not block him now? Chisme (talk) 18:40, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
• Sorry, Deep, I was AFK when you asked. I'm actually in favour of an indefinite block of PunjabCinema07 as an obvious undisclosed paid editor, and generally disruptive with it. AGF is not a suicide pact. Bishonen | talk 19:29, 24 January 2020 (UTC).

  @Chisme: FWIW, it's never too late to extend a block. I have not looked at his reply to my block notice, if someone could look at that. I will not be likely to be around till Tuesday. And I think it's important that this be clearly a community decision and not a rogue admin going of the rails.20:15, 24 January 2020 (UTC)-- Deepfriedokra

• Support. This is clearly not a good-faith member of the community. Guy (help!) 11:35, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
• Has anyone started SPI yet? We have a sock or meatpuppet I guess see M.A.K. Writers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). GSS ^💬 12:40, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support and we need an SPI. They are either paid or the person themselves. Happy to send some evidence to whomever. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:47, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

• And now the meatpupupet ring is back to trying to completely remove all references to Chahal being a woman beater [56]. The attempted addition of puffery was bad enough, but the whitewashing is completely intolerable. There's no reason to waste time negotiating with such blatant meatpuppets. Lepricavark (talk) 17:03, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
• Has anyone reported at WP:SPI? I agfsock wared the new one. Going back to bed. -- Deepfriedokra 18:09, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
• I have blocked User:M.A.K. Writers indefinitely fro editing in article space. They may discuss on talk pages. They have disclosed COI and PAID, but the disclosure is only partial and is incomplete.-- Deepfriedokra 07:21, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
• Comment - I agree the whole COI thing is definitely something that deserves a blocking, but I feel that Lepricavark could have handled this better, and is not behaving much better than Punjab is. You also have to take into consideration that Punjab is fairly new here - only been here for 2 months, and may not have a full grasp on how the policies work. If they do get an indefinite block, I definitely think a standard offer should be allowed after six months. Foxnpichu (talk) 08:35, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

  The account is new, but given the abundance of similarities in the rhetoric employed by PC07 and the prior POV-pushers that have attempted to make the article more favorable to the subject, I don't believe the person behind the account is new. Lepricavark (talk) 13:21, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

I just received the following threat from PunjabCinema07 on my Talk page:

How much money are you being paid to write negative content on Gurbaksh Chahal page? And, who in San Francisco hired you? Walls are closing in on your operation.

What am I to make of this Deepfriedokra, Winged Blades of Godric, Lepricavark, Ravensfire, GSS, Bishonen, Doc James, Atsme? What is "walls are closing in" supposed to mean? Chisme (talk) 18:22, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

It means PC07 isn't about to be invited to join Mensa. It's an empty threat. I've been subjected to similar threats from these people in the past. Remember, we know who Chahal is, but he has no idea who we are. Lepricavark (talk) 18:27, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Agree with Lepticavark, it's an attempt to intimidate not based on fact or reality. If you look through some of the old ANI threads Lepticavark link in their original post (this link) it's obvious PC07 is a sock of prior accounts who made the same bombastic threats. Just laugh and move on. It's more likely you'll wake up with blue and orange striped skin! It more than reinforces that this person comes with an agenda and unclean hands. Ravensfire (talk) 18:39, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

'Hey, y'all. the ante has been raised.-- Deepfriedokra 23:28, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, as I wrote earlier, the man can't help himself. He doubled-down and threatened me a second time on my Talk page. Chisme (talk) 23:42, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

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

Proposal for indefinite CBAN for M.A.K. Writers

M.A.K. Writers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

This is a subsequent/subsidiary issue of the Punjabcinema07 WP:AID and WP:COI editing thread. After Punjabcinema07 was blocked, came M.A.K. Writers with this post to Gurbaksh Chahal. As I found the COI/PAID disclosure ambiguous, I partial blocked for articles, while allowing talk page discussion. In response to my notification that I had partial blocked, M.A.K. Writers responded thusly, I will get paid what ever you do because I was just a extra that came due to issues, so I don't care. Thank you for informing, have a good day. Now while I appreciate their honesty, it seems evident they are here to trouble-shoot Gurbaksh Chahal on behalf of outsiders, rather than to help us build the encyclopedia. Their first edit summary on their talk page is Created page with '" I am expected to get paid (but it is not a deal) for this by a friend of Gurbaksh_Chahal.-- Deepfriedokra 09:17, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

• Support clearly NOTHERE. Lepricavark (talk) 02:42, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support. User's reasons for being here appear orthogonal to the project's goals. Guy (help!) 08:53, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support – The user posted a kind of paid disclosure on their user page, but subsequently blanked it – since they have stated ([57] and [58]) that they are hired and will get paid and so on, it looks like they are actually trying to hide their status as a paid editor by removing the disclosure (which they have been told more than once is required). In any case, not here to help the encyclopedia. --bonadea contributions talk 09:18, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support Anyone this person hires should be blocked aswell. One does not get to make legal threats get blocked. And than simple hire someone to continue on from there. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:38, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
• Question - what is M.A.K., and does this username imply shared use? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:58, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
• Reply A fair question, and one that has been much on my mind. Haven't gug into it The on again/off again paid disclosure in the context of coming to edit while Punjabcinema07 was temporarily blocked seemed sufficient for me to partial block. The rest os up to the community.-- Deepfriedokra 16:59, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Tonight's episode of the ongoing battle in gender-related articles, what is this, S04E19 I think

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

---

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

---

(moved from my userpage ([59]), courtesy ping all participants: @Flyer22 Reborn, WanderingWanda, JBW, SMcCandlish, Crossroads, and Newimpartial:) Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:10, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I never did personally thank you for what you stated in that ANI thread against me. So thank you. Looking at my response here shows the type of drama and ridiculousness I have to deal with at articles such as Lesbian erasure. It shows what I was speaking of in that ANI thread and here at El C's talk page when noting issues with one editor in particular to El C, you, Johnuniq, Cullen328, and JBW. And while I appreciate the support of editors such as Betty Logan, Girth Summit, Montanabw, FlightTime Phone, John B123 and others who supported me in that ANI thread (and on Wikipedia at large), editing articles like these really takes a toll. Yes, I could just walk away (just like I did with the Feminist views on transgender topics and TERF articles thus far), but that leaves these articles more prone to POV-pushing. I don't just focus on one side when editing articles like these. I look at all sides (unless it's WP:Fringe material that shouldn't be included) and go about implementing WP:Due weight. When I do that, and yet I still get one or two people implying or outright calling me transphobic, it's a stressful matter. And I'm wondering what else I can do except walk away or endure it. For me, being called or implied to be transphobic is worse than being accused of having some type of POV on a sexual topic when I'm simply following the rules appropriately.

Anyway, El C is helpful, but an article like the Lesbian erasure article could probably also do with your moderator skills. If you'd rather not keep an eye on it, I obviously understand. If you'd rather ignore this post, I also understand. I am venting, even though I'm also seeking thoughts about how to continue editing in these areas. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:10, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

If you're going to talk about me I'd appreciate a ping, thanks (talk page watcher). WanderingWanda (talk) 03:54, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Um, no! I deal with your nonsense enough! If I had directly named you and wanted another discussion like the one I had on El C's talk page, that would be different. I clearly framed this section as one where I am venting and "seeking thoughts about how to continue editing in these areas." And you can't even let me vent in peace or seek advice in peace. Your claim that you are one of Ivanvector's talk page watchers to escape me referring to WP:HOUND is dubious when your comment above is your first comment on this talk page. I could have emailed Ivanvector about this, but I chose to comment on Ivanvector's talk page and ping others to discuss with. Nothing good happens when the two of us interact with each other. You are on a course for ANI. And if you think nothing will happen, you should think again. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:07, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

In my experience, people who often accuse others of dishonesty are often projecting. I have always been scrupulously honest on Wikipedia. WanderingWanda (talk) 05:59, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

In my experience (on and off Wikipedia), those who go on about their supposed scrupulous honesty are not scrupulously honest. In my experience (on and off Wikipedia), those who continue to try and interact with people who have been clear that they don't want to interact with them (unless necessary) for valid reasons and who continue to try to get a rise out of the people who do not want to interact with them shouldn't be editing Wikipedia. In my experience, those who are only on Wikipedia to push activism shouldn't be editing Wikipedia. Yes, Wikipedia is supposed to be a collaborative environment, but it doesn't tolerate editors forcing themselves, or trying to force themselves, on others. It knows that not all editors are going to get along, which is why WP:IBAN exists. It doesn't tolerate the repeated sly or direct aspersions you cast my way. But keep testing the waters. You'll learn. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:13, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

You've cast far more WP:ASPERSIONS my way than the reverse. WanderingWanda (talk) 06:24, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I refer people to the aforementioned discussion on El C's talk page. Regardless of whatever supposed aspersions I've cast your way, you keep going and going after me while I keep trying and trying to avoid you. I never go out of my way to respond to you, and certainly not to make a jab at you. That is why Crossroads recently stated, "WanderingWanda, enough with the snipes at Flyer. There appears to be some special grudge there, but I'm feeling left out." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:31, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Crossroads' joke about "feeling left out" is actually pretty telling about our relationship. :) Crossroads and you are bosom buddies, I have never seen the two of you disagree, about anything, ever, Crossroads backs you up completely whenever you attack me unfairly or accuse me of "activism", you two are always at the same pages together, at the same time, you two openly email back and forth about contentious articles, you two have all the same interests, etc. In fact, for a while I thought he might be another one of those pesky brother accounts (Crossroads even used to have a 1 in his name, just like user:Halo Jerk1.) Ultimately, tho, I lean against that: Crossroads has a pretty different writing style from that most bizarre of brother-sister duos.

Anyway, in spite of the fact that you and Crossroads are basically twins, he doesn't perceive much in the way of animosity between us, and he is correct, I don't really care about Crossroads. It takes a lot for someone to get under my skin, but you have pushed and pushed and pushed and pushed and yeah, you got under my skin. Which is probably what you wanted to do. Congratulations, I guess.

In any case, it is not my intent to "hound" you. I'll call you out if you're up to shit on an article I follow, sure, or are pinging a bunch of people to gang up on me behind my back. And sometimes I'm more snarky than I probably should be. I'll try to dial it back and play nicer. Fine. But I haven't, don't, and won't follow you around. I've never once edited an article or a talk page because I saw it on your contributions list. Not a single goddamn time, in spite of your repeated accusations of hounding, which, to me, seem like attempts to claim WP:OWNership over articles.

Anyway, hope you're doing well. I don't mean that sarcastically. Sincerely. Take care. I don't want to keep this back and forth up so this will probably be my last reply unless you really goad me.

(I guess I should ping user:Crossroads since I mentioned him, though pinging him to a discussion that Flyer is involved in is rather redundant.) WanderingWanda (talk) 07:01, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

More of the same nonsense from you, I see. Once again, you have confronted me to air your imaginary grievances and to make false claims...such as never seeing Crossroads and I "disagree, about anything, ever." Yeah, with the way you watch these articles like a hawk, I'm sure you missed me disagreeing with Crossroads on this matter. And you surely missed this discussion showing Crossroads disagreeing with the inclusion of material I added. Crossroads and I agree most of the time, but we have also disagreed several times. He can point to more examples, because I'm not going to. He is also interested in topics I'm not interested in. I'm usually in agreement with Doc James as well, but I don't see anyone stating that Doc and I are socks or are "basically twins." Sure, Doc and I don't share as many article interests, but still. You have no proof that Crossroads and I "openly email back and forth about contentious articles." And I'm not going to respond to that assertion further since I'm not on trial, even though you keep trying to put me on trial, despite the way the aforementioned ANI thread against me went. A number of people have accused you of activism, and that includes Johnuniq. And not unfairly either. I have "pushed and pushed and pushed" you, you say? Yes, I am aware that I have repeatedly pushed you by adhering to this site's rules and rejecting your activism, and that you consider this ownership on my part.

You stated, "In any case, it is not [your] intent to 'hound' [me]. [You'll] call [me] out if [I'm] up to shit on an article [you] follow, sure, or are pinging a bunch of people to gang up on [you] behind [your] back." Yes, you hound without knowing you are hounding; no one buys that. Yes, I'm "up to shit" on the articles you watch. Appropriate shit, as made clear by several editors in the aforementioned ANI thread. And as for "pinging a bunch of people to gang up on [you] behind [your] back"? To repeat: "I clearly framed this section as one where I am venting and 'seeking thoughts about how to continue editing in these areas.' And you can't even let me vent in peace or seek advice in peace." You unnecessarily showed up here to cause drama, expecting me and others to believe that you just so happened to be watching Ivanvector's talk page. You once again have unnecessarily pinged my brother, as to try to cause more drama. You don't care one bit about "different writing style[s]." If you did, you would accept the fact that, despite my brother having copied my writing style in the past (as he's copied others, as also noted on his user page), several admins and CUs have noticed that my brother writes differently than I do in a number of ways instead of continuing to state or imply that he's my sock. That you keep bringing up my brother to try and sling mud my way and as though it helps your argument or as though you are conducting a WP:SPI is just one aspect of your problematic behavior. That is you trying to get under my skin. And then you act surprised when I type up an "essay" about your problematic behavior.

If you are hoping for a two-way interaction ban between us, I think it is likelier that you get a one-way interaction ban...and in your direction.

You stated that you "never once edited an article or a talk page because [you] saw it on [my] contributions list." I don't believe you. And I never will.

As for hoping I'm doing well and me goading you? More nonsense. And do you expect me to just let your accusations go unchallenged? If you truly did not want "this back and forth," you would not have engaged in your usual antics in this section. And that includes your "anyone with a heart" comment. It boggles my mind that you keep trying to play the victim when you keep going after me the way that you do. Boggles the mind. And whether or not I talk with Ivanvector about this here out in the open or via email, the way I've talked to other admins about your problematic editing and behavior via email, your baiting will be stopped. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:04, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

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

Conduct issues

@WanderingWanda: Your persistent pestering of Flyer22 Reborn has to stop. You have contributed nothing to this talk page section other than expressing your dislike and distrust of Flyer22 Reborn. Your involvemant here was totally unnecessary; nothing would have been lost had you ignored it and got on with some useful editing instead. However, what turns this from just a few critical comments that weren't really necessary into harassment was your totally gratuitously bringing in your perpetual innuendo about Flyer22 Reborn's brother and Crossroads. Flyer22 Reborn knows all about your thoughts in that area, and your repeatedly bringing it up, even when it is irrelevant to what is being discussed, is a deliberate policy of harassment. Flyer22 Reborn is not always diplomatic, and unfortunately at times she hands you enough ammunition to prevent the problems between the two of you being entirely one-sided, but as time goes on it becomes more and more clear that while her behaviour is not always perfect, she never does anything resembling your gratuitously jumping in and attacking her every time you can see an opportunity for doing so. I wonder how many times you have said things similar to "I don't want to keep this back and forth up so this will probably be my last reply unless you really goad me", as you did above. On this occasion she did not "goad" you: you jumped in when you didn't need to. Having done so you brought up your usual stuff about "those pesky brother accounts" and "that most bizarre of brother-sister duos", despite the fact that they had no relevance at all to anything that had been said. Calling her and her brother "most bizarre" serves no useful or constructive purpose whatever, and amounts to a personal attack. In my opinion both of you would have been better advised in this discussion to just drop the matter and ignore one another, but that does not mean that the situation is totally symmetrical; Flyer should have refused to take your bait, but she would have had no need to do so unless you had baited her. I do not follow either your or Flyer's editing, so the occasions when I do see what is going on between you are fairly infrequent, but even so I have seen enough, and if I see you harassing or baiting her again I am likely to block you from editing. JBW (talk) 14:03, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Less fortunately (for myself and the community) I have been loosely following this personality conflict for some time, and Flyer is indeed correct above when she says "nothing good happens when the two of us [meaning WanderingWanda] interact with each other". I am more inclined to serve you both a no-fault interaction ban under WP:ARBGG in the interest of allowing other interested editors to edit these topics free of your conflict, one which would permit you to edit the same pages as long as you strictly do not interact with each other, but I tend to dislike broad-topic interaction bans and JBW has given me more to think about. I'm also very busy today, so WanderingWanda, this is your opportunity to disengage. I would anticipate it being very unlikely you will get another. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:32, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I feel myself periodically drawn into these things, by what I watchlist and whose disputes/dramas I run across and what examining them further leads to. I neither disagree all the time with WanderingWanda (even WW says so! [60]) nor agree all the time with Flyer22_Reborn. I've had lengthy discussions with both in e-mail. I don't feel I need to take back what I said in detail in Nov. 2019 about this conflict. I do have to add, though, that a few editors' frequent accusations of "transphobi[a|c]" simply because someone doesn't agree with some particular highly activistic socio-political positions being advocated on Wikipedia (but are instead seeking neutrality in our coverage and our WP:P&G material regardless how they personally feel about such matters in their off-site lives) is continuing to be problematic. In a sense, it's become more problematic because we know this isn't the first time it's been pointed out that it needs to stop. I don't think this is a WanderingWanda and Flyer22_Reborn matter in particular. Rather, there's a "gender-issues and language-reform warrior" camp active on the site, and it's sometimes difficult for people who agree with some or all of its message to avoid getting drawn also into its verbally abusive and character-assassinating tactics. The larger behavior set needs scrutiny.

This subject area is under WP:AC/DS for a reason, and those discretionary sanctions need to be applied judiciously but reasonably until the topic area becomes tolerable again for everyday editors who are here to write balanced coverage of subjects (from the broad topics down to specific bios like Genesis P-Orridge, etc.). I've long opposed the use of indefs and lengthy topic-bans when it comes to such unhelpful behavior in contentious topics, when short-term T-bans (e.g. a month, then escalating to 3 months, then a 6 or a year if really necessary) tend to be effective without costing the project all of an editor's more constructive participation. And that goes for both sides; if one were to, say, cast aspersions about someone's motives because they have a transgender family member, that would be actionable no less than calling someone transphobic because their view of neutral interpretation of the sources differs from one's own.

I'm not going to get into a pile of diffy specifics right now. That's what AE and ANI and RFARB and ARCA are for, and I don't feel that someone in particular needs to be banned/blocked at this point (well, not among this pair). Frankly, there are two flat-out drama mongers who need noticeboard examination more urgently, for entirely unrelated reasons (one is a "style warrior" pushing an obsessive pro-government/bureaucratese PoV, and another is engaging in extreme nationalism, IDHT, and OR about animal breeds, both of them being attacky about it all the time). I'm just making the general point, since a bunch of admins have been pinged to this thread.

While a two-way I-ban of WanderingWanda and Flyer22_Reborn might "conveniently" and situationally reduce a small amount of sporadic drama, it will not address the underlying problem, that this is a highly contentious area with a near poisonous level of strife, and much of that is outright programmatic (from one particular side of it). A two-editor I-ban would verge on scapegoating, and at most would be putting a Band-Aid on a sucking chest wound. So would leaping on one editor or the other for a comment if it's not part of continuing pattern of verbal abuse. At worst, it might actually encourage WP:GAMING by others (less WP:HERE that WW) in that socio-political viewpoint space: entrap opponents in circular, overly-personalized debates until I-banned (but with low risk of oneself being sanctioned beyond that, out of admin fear of being called foo-phobic for going any further); then go right back to working with the rest of one's WP:FACTION to PoV-skew all our topics on lefty subjects with near-impunity, having locked out most criticism). I've been saying for years now that the real threat to WP in the long term isn't vandals, it's "slow-editwar" and "civil PoV-pushing" tactics by email-coordinated camps who are here to enforce an external viewpoint in our content. Much of it even means well. While we may have in front of us two editors in a superficially silly personality conflict, it's rooted in something more serious and it's not about personality but about WP:ENC. I'm well aware that various editors claim there's some kind of far-right putsch to malign the transgendered, to undermine coverage of GLBT+ topics and feminism, and otherwise push right-wing extremism. But there's no evidence this is actually true, and when random Trumperinos pop in and push such agendas they're shut down fast. We do, however, clearly have ongoing mass-scale activism from the far-left, which is mostly unchecked except by neutral/centrist editors with thick skins, and even they get hounded away pretty quickly by censorious "progressive" and "liberal" indoctrinators who aren't really either of those adjectives. The ability of that camp to inspire otherwise awesome editors to slip across some important lines for politicized reasons sometimes is, well, kind of disconcerting. PS: I say all this as a classic-liberal, anti-fascist, sexual-egalitarian, LGBT-positive, sex-positive, center-left, agnostic anti-authoritarian (and former professional civil-liberties activist), who takes few solidly right-wing views on anything but gun control (I grew up mostly in the US Southwest, where shooting ranges and hunting are something you do even as a kid). I'm the furthest thing from a transphobe or a right-wingnut. If even I'm seriously concerned about what the far left are getting away with on WP these days, then we do have a genuine problem.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:11, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Just for posterity: in spite of the opinion SMcCandlish expressed above, there is in fact a good deal of evidence that "gender critical" individuals gathered in Reddit (r/gendercritical) and on Twitter have worked in coordination to align trans-related articles to their "external viewpoint", a kind of brigading that progressive/mainstream editors on LGBTQ topics have not engaged in, to my knowledge. I also think it relevant to note that SMcCandlish's views on "gender issues and language reform" have been found, through site-wide discussion on WP, not to reflect site-wide policy-based consensus here. While I respect ideosynctatic individuality as much as anyone, I do find it important to remember who is speaking at all times. Newimpartial (talk) 19:02, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Since Newimpartial has showed up here, I would like to point out to the admins by far the most disturbing comment from that talk page, which was made by Newimpartial: I will be happy when the last self-avowed "homosexual" is dead and buried and only we queers, fags, dykes and non-binary people remain. -Crossroads- (talk) 19:42, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't intend to engage in further discussion about myself or Flyer, but I will comment on this. Newimpartial's remark was intemperate, but it's worth putting in context why the word "homosexual" can provoke strong feelings. GLAAD says: Because of the clinical history of the word "homosexual," it is aggressively used by anti-gay extremists to suggest that gay people are somehow diseased or psychologically/emotionally disordered. The term has also been co-opted by some hardliner anti-trans activists. Out.com says: By 2018, the TERF Movement had reached its tipping point. In July, a group of lesbians charged the front of the London Pride march with banners reading "Lesbian Erasure" and "Lesbian [equals] Female Homosexual."...In a video posted by a group called "Get The L Out," one woman said, "A man who says he’s a lesbian is a rapist. Transgenderism is destroying lesbians' bodies." WanderingWanda (talk) 20:09, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) One clan of trolls trying to affect our content and failing badly at it because we shut that shit down fast is nothing like an ongoing and tacitly accepted overwhelming dominance of Wikipedia coverage on certain topics by a particular circumscribed set of viewpoints, due to WP's strongly left-leaning demographic agreeing with the content of "the message". (Cf. what I said below in response to Crossroads.) It has to do with actual effects. No one has ever suggested there are no transphobes nor that they never try to PoV-push here. We just don't let them do it. So why do we let the TG/NB and general LGBT crowd do it? Continue to take that route is going to bite our ass right off.

As for that last bit, Newimpartial is blatantly fabricating. What really happened is that a humor essay I wrote primarily about self-aggrandizing, religious, and commercial language manipulation was misinterpreted as "transphobic" by some editors who assume that anything at all ever critical of non-encyclopedic writing that involves pronouns must necessarily be an attack on TG people, which is of course nonsense. At MfD, there was a consensus to keep my userspace essay, but to blank the version that ran in The Signpost since in that house-organ context it was controversial and likely to offend, not because of the intent of it but because it was poorly written enough that the intent wasn't clear. Most importantly, the "leader of the charge" (Fæ) against me and that crappy joke page escaped sanction for false "transphobic" accusations and canvassing of them and against the essay (across multiple WMF sites) only by retracting the accusations with an apology[61], and was nevertheless topic-banned shortly thereafter for more of such aspersion-casting against other editors in the same topic area. If there's any "writing on the wall" to be read from that old episode, I think we know exactly what it is. After the actual (not your imaginary} MfD results and the actions to ban Fæ, and after I've many times made it abundantly clear where I am on TG/NB matters and LBGT+ ones (being under the B in that myself), I have to say it's extremely ill-considered of you to continue implying transphobia on my part, or anyone else's, in a thread leaning strongly toward "final warning" for someone else doing the same thing. When it comes to the actual specifics of my views on TG-related language usage in Wikipedia content (including pronouns), the "site-wide discussion on WP" resulting in "policy-based consensus" reflect exactly the same position as mine, specifically what we've codified at MOS:GENDERID, which I helped write. So thanks for your input, but maybe you need some coffee to wake up before you comment here again. LOL.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:46, 24 January 2020 (UTC); rev'd. 20:43, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't believe that any unbiased reader of the discussion about your essay and related conduct would regard my conclusion that SMcCandlish's views on "gender issues and language reform" have been found, through site-wide discussion on WP, not to reflect site-wide policy-based consensus to be fabrication, blatant or otherwise. I would prefer that we all refrain from personal attacks here, especially now that the discussion is at ANI. Also, I hope you don't have a professional interest in producing minutes or summaries, because the account you gave above is a pretty poor summary of the discussion as it actually unfolded, since it basically just restates your position as expressed within the discussion without a modicum of critical reflection or listening. Newimpartial (talk) 20:22, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

That's just more creative revisionism. There was no "related conduct" of mine under discussion; you're just making stuff up now. There were two MfDs against two copies of the same essay, one kept in userspace, the other blanked but not deleted because The Signpost was an inappropriate venue for something controversial. Just go read the MfD's, FFS: "There are boundaries of acceptability and user space content that crosses them can be deleted, but the consensus of the discussion is that SMcCandlish hasn't crossed them in this case." And: "... [K]eep the page blanked as it is now. ... [T]he humor page  ... offended many editors. This was not an appropriate page for the Signpost, because the page generated bad will between editors." (plus some additional observation that serious discussion of the underlying subject was needed rather than humor pieces not appropriate for professional-level discourse). It was certainly a mistake to allow Signpost to use that piece, and possibly a mistake to write it, at least without more context (a point CurlyTurkey made in the userspace MfD). That doesn't make me transphobic nor does it mean there is a consensus on WP against my views. The exact opposite is the truth, since my views are MOS:GENDERID and MOS:DOCTCAPS and MOS:TM. The essay did not express my views on GENDERID matters, it made fun of individual and idiosyncratic ["ideosynctatic" isn't a word, BTW] language usages by our subjects being misinterpreted by editors as a requirement that Wikipedia use them in its own voice. To date, not doing so remains the overwhelming consensus on Wikipedia and is unlikely to ever change, whether the topic in question is a person, a religion, or a commercial enterprise.

But this ANI isn't about me, it's about two editors engaged in a dispute that has underlying broader implications. And you're implicating yourself more and more as you continue in battlegrounding manner to try to paint me as your "enemy" (or as TG people's or as Wikipedia's), not only without evidence but simply fudging the real evidence, which is easy enough for me to just diff to dispel your strange finger-pointing. Please see the first law of holes, which would suggest you stop now.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:34, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

After defending Newimpartial I'd also like to defend SMc. I agree he's not transphobic or some kind of enemy of trans people (not that Newimpartial said he was). I also, incidentally, don't think there's anything to be gained by talking about the Signpost essay, which has already been discussed, well, quite a bit. WanderingWanda (talk) 22:43, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Newimpartial, pro tip: don't pick fights with nice people who have orders of magnitude more experience and goodwill here than you do. See also: WP:AGF Guy (help!) 00:20, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

The reason I brought up the Signpost fiasco (before the discussion was moved to ANI was that SMcCandlish had offered his overall opinion on the state of "external" interference in LGBTQ article POV (without offering evidence, mind you, just his opinion) and I wanted to point out that his understanding of the state of "public opinion" on this topic has been questionable in the past and remains questionable. The misrepresentations he has made of my posts since the move to ANI, as well as his questionable characterizations of those previous interactions, have only underlined the point I was making initially. Of course I would not accuse him of any kind of "*phobia", but his judgement of these issues has been (and continues to be) dubious despite his best intentions. Newimpartial (talk) 22:54, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

But you clearly have no understanding of my understanding of anything. And a user-talk thread isn't an evidentiary venue. If you want evidence of the kind of PoV pushing that's been going on for years, start with this near-endless firehose of ranting, then this other textwall in case you're a glutton for punishment. And there's just so much more, and even more, and that's before getting out of WP-wide forums and into places like knock-down-drag-out battlegrounds at article talk pages, and various wikiproject talk pages, plus numerous ANI and AE and RFARB and ARCA threads. There's a frequent pattern in them of editors suggesting a reasonable and respectful but still encyclopedic and mainstream-English approach (especially with any eye to not confusing readers or rewriting history, and also noting that not all TG/NB people have exactly the same views on these matters), being met with insinuations and outright accusations of transphobia, and a whole pile of doctrinaire venting (mostly from cisgender "allies", not actually TG or NB people). It's mostly in loco parentis noise from various TG-issues and language-reform activists, consisting of lots of strident advocacy of more extreme positions (including from obvious meatpuppets in some of the larger threads), but producing a community response that was very (too) tolerant of it all no matter how far afield it gots in NOTFORUM, NOTSOAPBOX and NOTBATTLEGROUND terms. By contrast, there's nearly zero far-right input in any of these threads (despite alarmist beliefs that there just must be, somewhere, because some twits on SlashDot or 4Chan were up to something at some point). When something even faintly right-leaning rarely pops up, it is shouted down, often in very hostile terms but with no repercussions for the incivility. This is not new. It's been this way for years, and at enough length that even wordy editors like me are exhausted by it. The problem isn't the message being advocated, it's that WP is being used as an advocacy venue.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:47, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

SMcCandlish, am I incorrect in my understanding that you believe trans*-related articles are subject to POV-pushing from self-described "liberal" or "progressive" editors, and that WP doesn't notice or respond to this form of POV because too many editors agree? Because that's what I understood you to he saying, and I think you are empirically just wrong about that.

I am well aware of the MOS:IDENTITY disputes, have cited their resolution often and respect your work in trying to bring them to consensus. My concern is with your tone deafness about interacting with other editors on these issues (amply illustrated on the Signpost fiasco) and your claimed asymmetry between what you are calling left- and right-wing editing bias.

The asymmetry that concerns me is almost exactly the opposite of what you perceive. What I have seen on LGBT2Q topics is (1) avowed CANVASSing planned on Reddit and Twitter, intended to move WP articles towards less inclusionary language and (2) frequent attempts on a number of articles to promote FRINGE "gender critical" positions. These positions deny trans existence, reframe gender identity as a ploy or a disorder, construe trans people as a violent, threatening other or - most often - promote FALSEBALANCE between well-informed current understandings of trans* issues and prejudices, old or new.

The "mainstream" is not neutral between these positions. The medical, scientific and linguistic "mainstream" recognizes that trans people exist, that their rights need to he protected, and that their preferences should be protected in everyday language use. There is opposition to each of these, but it represents a social minority - whatever may be the case with other issues, on these topics the WP community reflects social attitudes and does not notably distort them, but organized minorities that disagree with the majoritarian view do repeatedly try to push POV on trans* articles. This tends to rile up those who are most personally invested in these articles, with downstream effects we see here. Newimpartial (talk) 13:13, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

And Crossroads has inserted my diff quite out of context, it followed this and was responded to in turn by this, both of which comments (by Pyxis Solitary represented rather more "activist" forms of queer erasure than any reasonable interpretation of my intervening comment. Newimpartial (talk) 20:31, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Then you should be extra-sensitive to what it feels like to have something you've written be implied to mean something it clearly does not, yet you are doing precisely the opposite. I find this intensely ironic, given that your only input at both MfDs was off-topic rambling about me being too poor an ironist for your tastes, in a pretentious and condescending mini-lecture on dialectics [62]. The MfD input combined with your behavior in this thread strongly suggests a goal of "sport debate" to make a WP:POINT, to WP:WIN. With that in mind, I refer you to WP:NOT#FORUM and WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND, and this classic xkcd cartoon: [63].  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:34, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

WanderingWanda, you clearly have not looked hard enough to find where I have disagreed with Flyer. Standing out in my mind was one lengthy discussion (lengthy because the issue was complex and there were other participants, not because of Flyer's comments) about comparing animal and human sexual behavior, and an IP and two accounts that added likely-COI content about it. [64] I've had disgruntled people follow me on that matter before, so none of that. I can think of others which I am not listing. As far as being at the same pages, yes, we have overlapping interests, so what? Editing at the same time - not that much. The "openly" thing is unsupported nonsense, and I have edited several topic areas that Flyer has not, and vice versa. The old "1" in my name was because "Crossroads" was not available when I got an account - I usurped it later. And I never interacted with nor ever heard of Flyer until a year after I got the account. As for often agreeing, well, you'll find that, for example, editors who focus on fringe theories agree on a lot too. In all these cases, it is about representing the relevant scientific consensus and not putting undue weight on personally liked theories. And yes, WanderingWanda does have an activist mentality, as seen most obviously at this discussion, but here's another for good measure.

I hope that any admins participating will look at the discussion at El C's talk page.

WanderingWanda, you also stated above to Flyer, "I'll call you out if you're up to shit on an article I follow..." What "shit" has Flyer been up to? What does this mean?

When I stated I was "feeling left out", I was only half-joking. WanderingWanda does seem to have a special animosity towards Flyer, which is puzzling to me, since many others (like myself) have also opposed the very same proposals. But this stuff at the Lesbian erasure talk page is just unacceptable. The comment "Flyer, who likes to go on wearying five-hundred-billion-word-long off-topic rants" added nothing to the discussion and is a blatant personal attack. And the sermonizing about "What extremist anti-trans groups have to say about trans women is offensive to anyone with a heart." was in response to Flyer's "I toned down the language others would find offensive", obviously trying to imply Flyer 'lacked a heart' for not saying it directly was offensive (but as was noted, we're not supposed to edit on the basis of personal feelings, so why should she say it that way?). And WanderingWanda showing up here was an obvious WP:HOUNDing. As another example of their weird focus on Flyer, here in the 23:29, 7 November 2019 (UTC) comment, you can see that WanderingWanda was cutting out parts of Flyer's comments, for which they were admonished by an ArbCom clerk.

I very much agree with JBW's comment, especially the apt description of "gratuitously jumping in and attacking her every time you can see an opportunity for doing so". I don't think a mutual I-ban would be good, because there is not a symmetry here. I've observed that Flyer has a long history here with a reputation of neutrally representing relevant POVs in the article content, which crucially includes actually writing content. WanderingWanda seems to have too much focus on changing terminology and images so as to right great wrongs.

I humbly suggest the following. I think Flyer should be advised not to take the bait when feeling provoked; I myself advise that if nothing else. I think WanderingWanda should be warned about personal attacks and harassment. As far as a one-way I-ban or a short term block, maybe; that's up to the admins and their experience in these sorts of things. -Crossroads- (talk) 17:39, 24 January 2020 (UTC) updated -Crossroads- (talk) 19:42, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Another striking difference to me is that (so far as I've observed) Flyer22_Reborn, like me, takes issues with viewpoints being pushed not on the basis of what the views are, but simply because they are viewpoints being pushed, while the TG/NB (and LGBT+ and leftism more broadly) activism cluster are very much taking an issue with the content of the viewpoints they disagree with while doing nothing about, or even directly advocating, views they agree with coming to dominate the content (as well as the WP:P&G material that pertains to the topic). So, this is another thing that's not parallel, though I don't think it's WW in particular, but rather a large and nebulous segment of editors, many of them fairly recent, who manage to peer-pressure editors who really know better to partake in it. I don't mean this to sound like some kind of conspiracy theory; it's just typical human politics and group dynamics at work. We have policies in place to restrain that, but they don't work if admins don't apply them. We really have to take an anthropological, culturally relative view about such matters. The difference between objecting to PoV because of its PoV versus because is is PoV is central to this entire topical range of dispute on Wikipedia. Until that is wrestled with, interpersonal conflicts like this will continue to arise.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:46, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

SMcCandlish, I don't think I can agree with this, though much of what you said above is wise and good. Or rather, carving out leftist editors for this is wrong. The facts do indeed have a well-known liberal bias. Culture wars fights are about entrenched privilege kicking back about what was tactily tolerated, becoming a right. Maybe I am misreading you. Guy (help!) 00:55, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, there's a lot in here already. See my "I say all this as a"... bit above: It's not that I'm against the left side of the matter, is that WP isn't a platform for advancing that or any other agenda, yet the community is being excessively tolerant of left-wing agenda pushing, specifically because such a majority of our editors are firmly on the left. The far-right PoV pushing ranters are already dealt with swiftly. The culture war needs to happen out there, while we bite our tongues (and maybe our nails) and neutrally report on the results of those external societal conflicts. That's going to be a slow-moving target (but definitely a moving one), which will never at any moment satisfy everyone at once, even to the point that some of them will be outraged, on all sides, no matter what. Given this reality-of-the-matter condition, it's upon us to try to restrain the excesses of bringing the culture war to WP content and talk pages and policy venues, and push the war back outside when the guns are blazing in WP itself. We need to not be falsely accused of X-phobia every time we object to PoV-pushing from certain quarters on certain topics. Fortunately, I think this is remediable in most cases (because our editors are largely intelligent and capable of separating emotion from facts, distinguishing taking positions from coverage of positions. The one case I thought someone badly needed to be indefinitely topic banned, that's already happened (and even then it was reinstatement of an old T-ban from years ago).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:07, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Just as an aside, the only editors I've seen who feel that "the majority of our editors are firmly on the left" seem to be U.S.-ian, with the random Australian. And just as clearly, none of the editors I've read on the topic who are on the actual left (U.S.-based or otherwise) see any "leftist" majority here. Newimpartial (talk) 14:48, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

SMcCandlish, I agree with this, and it's one reason why I push to remove unreliable left wing sources like Occupy, Alternet and the Daily Kos - and even more mainstream leftist sources like Daily Beast. One problem of course is that left/right position is subject to the Overton window. The "radical far-left Democrat" policies are largely indistinguishable from Reagan-era Republicanism, whereas "conservative" policies are way to the right of what was considered far too radical when proposed by Pat Buchanan. Guy (help!) 10:27, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

ANI opened

• This all belongs at ANI and now it is. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:10, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) My inclination here is to topic ban everyone under WP:ARBGG for repeatedly and gratuitiously disrupting this topic with their POV wars: whether you're editing in good faith or not, your behaviour (all of you) is disruptive to other editors who just want to edit and not participate in your character assassination war. But I've also been pinged and got an email notification 38 times about this (one ping and one email for each edit on my talk page about it), all since 1am my time and many of them coming while I was sitting in a fairly important business meeting (my own fault I suppose for not setting my phone on silent), all of those ignoring my page notice and talk page edit notice saying basically "I'm not here, don't come to me with urgent problems". So perhaps I'm not in the best frame of mind to be moderating things today. So y'all can deal with this, and I'm going home to where the beer is. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:24, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Sorry you got caught in the crossfire like that. All I ask is that outside participants review each person's behavior as individuals, as justice requires, rather than the whole crowd getting condemned. -Crossroads- (talk) 20:46, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm exhausted and am off to bed with little time tomorrow, although I'll take another look in the morning. But I definitely think it would be a bad idea to treat them all the same. Doug Weller talk 21:44, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

• Comment. Somewhere along the line I was pinged to this debate and am rather late to the party. My take is that there needs to be an admonition that hounding and making personalized remarks is not the way to manage a dispute over article content. IMHO, i-bans and t-bans are pretty useless. Doing the “both of you are equally at fault” is a bit lazy, and punishes both the perpetrator and the victim, where the 25% contribution of the victim is considered equal to the 75% contribution of the perpetrator. Here, Flyer was seeking some third party input, was followed to that page by WW, who made a personalized attack, and then we are off to the races. As the tl;dr above indicates, there are many highly contentious topics on WP, and none of them are improved by a toxic editing environment that starts going after individual editors. I suggest WW be admonished to stop hounding, stop baiting, and stop casting aspersions. Flyer needs to be reminded that they are a highly experienced editor who knows better than to rise to the bait. Everyone else needs to work on making articles as NPOV as possible, and where NPOV is difficult, then to accurately and fairly present each of the major positions or factions, with extensive sourcing, and to factor in due and undue weight based on objective, third party criteria (professional polls can be useful, where they exist). Focus on content, not agendas. Montanabw^(talk) 21:52, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

The trouble with "WW be admonished" is simply that if that were going to work it would have worked long ago. JBW (talk) 22:06, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

• Everyone else needs to work on making articles as NPOV as possible, and where NPOV is difficult, then to accurately and fairly present each of the major positions or factions, with extensive sourcing, and to factor in due and undue weight based on objective, third party criteria (professional polls can be useful, where they exist). Focus on content, not agendas.

I strongly agree with all of this, and it's what I try to do (and if I ever don't succeed, and I'm sure that I don't always, I ask folks to remember that even if I try and act like a seasoned old-timer, I'm not: I've only been active here about a year, and just have a few thousand edits. In addition, the areas I've been working in are sensitive ones where tempers often run high. I ask for help and patience, things I try to give to others when I can).

I do take slight issue with this statement: Flyer was seeking some third party input, was followed to that page by WW. Perhaps it's an academic point, and perhaps (probably) I shouldn't have commented, but I do want to reiterate that I was there because Ivanvector's page happens to be on my watchlist. I don't recall why it is, but I follow a lot of people for quasi-random reasons (which of course is a bit silly, it just means my wachlist gets spammed with newsletter announcements and stuff). I might've followed him because he weighed in on the last ANI I was involved with. WanderingWanda (talk) 00:22, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

• My proposal:

1. All parties take a deep breath. Maybe it's not personal?
2. WanderingWanda and Flyer22 Reborn warned that the first to fire in any subsequent exchange of shots will be blocked.
3. WanderingWanda and Flyer22 Reborn warned that continued personalisation of disputes will lead to one-way or two-way IBANs depending on how obviously each can demonstrate that they are not the problem.

WP:AGF is a thing. Operate on the assumption that if $EDITOR looks like an angry idiot, it's because you haven't understood what they are trying to say and why. A polite exploration of differences fixes many issues, an exchange that is polite on one side and not the other makes it easy for us to identify the source of the problem. Guy (help!) 00:07, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Well, I laughed at your statement about us knocking six bells out of each other. For my part, I can't promise to forgive her for some of the things she's said to me, but I can promise to not personalize things between us on any article talk page again. I'll stick to the content, and I'll be a hardliner about that. If I have a problem, I'll take it to ANI, or another appropriate venue. I hope Flyer will do the same in the future. I also think, incidentally, it would be helpful if she gave me permission to post on her talk page again, as I think it makes it harder to cooperate without communication. But that's up to her. WanderingWanda (talk) 00:47, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

WanderingWanda, that's the way. Assume good faith and chill. Guy (help!) 00:51, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Conditional support I think Guy (JzG) is on the right track here, but if Montanabw's 25/75% distinction is correct, then that should somehow be taken into account. Paul August ☎ 16:56, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

I disagree with that breakdown, at least if you look at our interactions overall. Ever since this thread was moved to ANI, I've tried to help de-escalate this situation by focusing on self-criticism and what I plan to do going forward, but I could go into detail about our history together if it would be helpful. WanderingWanda (talk) 18:17, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

WanderingWanda, the law of holes applies here. Guy (help!) 23:26, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

• Support warning WanderingWanda per Guy's proposal, but not convinced that a warning is necessary for Flyer. I was pinged way back in this thread (before it moved to ANI), and have taken some time to read through several old (and lengthy) conversations. From what I've seen, the worst Flyer has done is accuse WW of POV pushing a POV in articles, and maybe lost her rag a bit when she's been baited. That's not ideal, but contrasted with accusations of being anti-trans, aspersions and generally weird comments about her brother, and editing practices that could easily give someone the impression of being hounding, I think it's WW who needs to be warned to back off. If WW stops poking Flyer with pointed sticks, I'm confident that there will be no more drama. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:07, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support warning WanderingWanda per Guy's proposal and User:Girth Summit. I've been trying to get onto Wikipedia for a while (and I know I'm not the only one) - if I'd been able to access it before Girth I would have made the same points. ¬¬¬¬ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 18:42, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

• Comment I am involved so I guess what I say here should be taken with a grain of salt. I have Lesbian erasure on my watchlist, but it has become too much of a wall of text for me to follow or muster up the energy to engage with. I also have Flyers talk page on my watchlist and her [latest edit worried me and eventually led me here. What we have is an experienced editor that has proven herself competent at editing some very difficult topics; topics that attract a lot of single purpose accounts looking to push a point of view in many different directions. I am actually impressed that she manages to keep as calm as she does and was genuinely happy when I saw her at this topic area. Since then she has been driven away from two of the most controversial articles in this area [65][66]. Now it looks like the same is happening at the Lesbian Erasure article, where Flyer was present first and had contributed alot to the article. I know we like to keep things even with warnings and it is easy to just tar everyone, but I tend to agree this is not a case of both editors being equally guilty. AIRcorn (talk) 23:35, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support warning Wanda. I haven't followed what has happened, and there's no easy way at this stage to disentangle it. All I can say is that, whenever I've noticed Wanda interact with Flyer, it has seemed to me that Wanda has followed her somewhere. Flyer does good work on Wikipedia keeping activist issues at arm's length in sexuality articles. These are articles that a lot of editors don't want to edit, so Flyer is worth her weight in gold because she's willing to read about the issues and apply the policies. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:06, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support warning WanderingWanda Activists use Wikipedia all the time to promote their world outlook and that applies double in the areas monitored by Flyer who should be thanked for her work. Johnuniq (talk) 02:32, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

• Support warning WanderingWanda: I said it before and I'll say it again: "the editor that goaded and shit-stirred is the editor that should take a break from gender-related articles". Since we're not at the edge of an T-ban, the appropriate action in this matter is to issue a warning to WanderingWanda. There is absolutely no excuse for the insults and constant baiting. And I don't believe the "I've tried to help de-escalate this situation by focusing on self-criticism". There have been many incidents and none of them have resulted in self-criticism because this behavior keeps repeating itself. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 05:50, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

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

Piu Eatwell

Sort of a long story here. Apparently, Piu Eatwell (an author) paid for Wikiprofessionals Inc to make this page for them. The page creator (User:Lee-aam) did not disclose this, and has since been blocked. Then an IP prodded the article, which I contested since I believed it met WP:AUTHOR (this was when I first got involved with this article). At that point, User:Corretions removed the UPE tag and stated on my talk page that they are in fact Piu Eatwell. There is now a declaration on the article's talk page that a paid editor made the page. User:Corretions objected to the UPE tag, so I placed a COI tag on the article. In my mind, the COI tag should stay on until someone takes a good look at the article and references (I even offered to do this - when I get the time), but User:Corretions keeps removing the COI tag. In their latest removal, User:Corretions stated their next step is to contact their lawyers. Help would be appreciated. Thanks, P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 04:11, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Pdcook, I've given them a warning about the "no legal threats" policy, and will talk to them about the COI rules. Friendly reminder - you need to notify them about this discussion. My preliminary WP:DOLT read here is that this is not an okay time to be making legal threats, since the dispute is over the application of the UPE/COI tag, not about actual article content. creffett (talk) 04:19, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder - I got side-tracked. I added a notice to their talk page. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 04:25, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

WHEN YOU POSTTO AN/IDON'T FORGETTO NOTIFYBurma-shave — Preceding unsigned comment added by EEng (talk • contribs) 08:09, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) For ease of reference, the user referred to seems to be Corretions (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) ("corrections" without the second "c"). Aoi (青い) (talk) 04:22, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing! I changed it above. Must be time for bed... P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 04:25, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

I have blocked this editor for their baseless legal threats. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:35, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone, for your assistance. I'll work on the article in a day or so. Regards, P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 13:49, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and moved the article to draft due to all the concerns. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:15, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

FYI - popping in to say that I've mentioned the article over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red, here, in case anyone feels like taking a look at the article and reworking it. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 22:57, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

It has been taken

Well in hand,

Reworked, and offered

For remand.

_{Not bad for off-the-cuff at 12:30 in the morning, if I do say so myself.}--Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 05:27, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks to those who worked on the article - my COI concerns are now put to rest. Regards, P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 20:02, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Nbro refusing to seek or abide by consensus

This user is changing reviews on various hip hop albums, removing ones that he thinks are "retarded" and being explicit that he will not post to talk or take into account WP:BRD. I was encouraged by TheAmazingPeanuts to post here and hoped I wouldn't have to but that last edit summary seems pretty explicit. @EdJohnston: as an admin who has blocked this user before for disruption. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 13:34, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Okay, well that escalated. I recommend an indefinite block. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 13:44, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

This editor has also violate the three-revert rule by keep reverting content in the article Kamikaze [67], [68], [69], [70], [71], [72]. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 13:48, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Not to mention threatening to sock in the future if they don't get their way. Robvanvee 13:53, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

• Protected the page for now, from a quick look atleast two editors violated 3RR, @Koavf and Nbro:. I am leaving any blocking to more experienced administrators, as and when that happens, please also remove the protection. --qedk (t 桜 c) 14:49, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

• I have closed the AN3 report with a 2-week block to Nbro (sitewide), but not to Koavf — due to the egregious nature of the violation by the former, especially, seeing that it had occurred mere days after an earlier AN3 block (applied by EdJohnston). But Koavf, you should not have edit warred, either. That was also the wrong call. El_C 15:10, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

  El C, Thanks. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:11, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

You're welcome. Since Nbro threatened to use multiple accounts to evade their block, access to editing their own talk page was also revoked for the duration of the block. El_C 15:16, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

@Koavf: @El C: Since the editor has threatened to use multiple accounts, I believe they is gonna evade their block sooner or later. Better to keep an eye on similar edits in the future, especially in Eminem-related articles. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 00:29, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

TheAmazingPeanuts, I have a calendar reminder set up to check on him but agreed: that's not perfect. His editing pattern is very odd and I would suggest that it's used by multiple persons as well. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:41, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Koavf, if their problematic editing resurfaces again, in any way whatsoever, please let me know. El_C 02:43, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

El C, Duly noted and thanks again. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:30, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

@Koavf: @El C: Nbro is back using a new account [73], [74]. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 01:30, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

TheAmazingPeanuts, Already posted to User talk:El C and WP:AIV. I also made Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Nbro. Thanks. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:33, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Latest sock blocked. But more importantly, the various related articles have been all sprotected for 3 months. That should, hopefully, be the end of that. El_C 02:39, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

User:NormanGear

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

---

• NormanGear (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ANI1: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1026#Edits by Spanish user sockpuppet ‘NormanGear’
• ANI2: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1028#Harassment/Personal attacks belligerent and disruptive continued conduct by user:NormanGear
• ANI3: NormanGear continues reverting Portuguese_people and Spaniards and causing vandalism on Portuguese people page. Also violating 3RR rules. Tried Talk, no improvement. As per previous notices, third party neutral input desirable.

Melroross (talk) 21:16, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

I refer to previous incidents of edit wars and harassment namely on Spaniards and again on Portuguese people reported here. User continues to systematically revert my edits invoking “repetition” on Lead which is untrue. Despite efforts to TALK, the user keeps engaging on Edit Wars: WP:ANI#User:NormanGear = Continues to delete my entries and denotes partiality and personal opinion contrary to wikipedia:Five_pillars, namely WP:5P2, WP:5P4 which I feel has escalated to personal harassment by this User:NormanGear. Also the WP:LEAD 3 reversals per day, may have been violated by the user who has for the past 2 months ignored Talkpage efforts to reach reasonable consensus. Thank you for your neutral and fair intervention. User has been notified of incident report Melroross (talk) 17:05, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

• Please use dispute resolution to resolve content disputes. If someone is edit warring, you need to post evidence in the form of diffs at WP:ANEW. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:12, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
• Haven't you two been told several times before to stop starting discussions at WP:ANI to resolve content disputes? Just use the link provided by NinjaRobotPirate, which itself links to other possible procedures that do not involve administrators. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:49, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
• Phil Bridger, have tried to reach a compromise. Unfortunately the user appears not to understand the WP:5P despite numerous attempts to Talk and resolve in a collaborative way. Also violating 3RR rule. Third party neutral intervention desired. Thanks, Melroross (talk) 21:23, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

• You have been told several times that the way to ask for third-party neutral intervention about a content issue is not to come here, but to follow the link provided by NinjaRobotPirate above. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:28, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

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

Flags on 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak‎

• 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Can some folks people take a look at this page and the current debate/disagreement about the use of flags in an table? I'm WP:INVOLVED so I'm asking for other opinions. See Talk:2019–20_Wuhan_coronavirus_outbreak#Flags_in_the_table EvergreenFir (talk) 21:38, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

• I have removed the flags from infobox as per my understanding of WP:INFOBOXFLAG. I have also written on User:ApocalypticNut 's talk page with the hope that he will follow the same rules regarding this matter. As wise old Wikipedians have said in the past, if you care too much about the colour of the gate than the location of the fire escape, you've got the wrong priorities! doktorb _words^deeds 21:48, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
  • @Doktorbuk: I appreciate the message, thanks! I am more than willing to defer to the judgement of more experienced Wikipedians. However, I do still believe that this is a page that would benefit from the addition of flags, as explained on the nCoV talk page. All the best! ApocalypticNut (talk) 21:52, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
    • @ApocalypticNut: Then why have you WP:Reverted my edit? You know that no flags is the MOS rule but have chosen to revert the edit which adheres to that rule. As you probably know, for you come across as an experienced editor, both of us are close to WP:3RR, and that doesn't help anyone get to a resolution. As I say, the article should be focused on the facts, not the addition and removal of flags. Your revert is wrong, and I hope you can consider reversing your decision to do so. doktorb _words^deeds 21:56, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
      • @Doktorbuk: I did revert your edit as it was unclear at that point whether you had acknowledged my arguments on the Talk page; I am aware of your stance now. Note that my edit was in turn reverted by User:EvergreenFir; given that they are an administrator I believed that I should defer to their judgement, and will be making no further edits to the infobox. This does not change my opinion on the topic based on my own interpretation of WP:INFOBOXFLAG, and I therefore appreciate EvergreenFir's decision to seek further opinions. ApocalypticNut (talk) 22:04, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
        • @ApocalypticNut: if you want to want to be a successful editor, you need to stop edit warring so easily and instead engage in discussion and listen to what experienced editors are telling you, regardless of whether they are admins. Admins have very limited special authority, it's mostly just a set of tools, so if you're waiting for admins to tell you to cut it out, you're not likely to do very well here. Nil Einne (talk) 11:44, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
• The flags are distracting and serve no real value. Remove them.--Jorm (talk) 22:31, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

This page is likely going to need semi protection to stop the ongoing edit warring. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:37, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Or a partial block on that page for ApocalypticNut might do the trick just as well. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 00:22, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm too involved/close to speak on less-than-unambiguous blocks. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:31, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

@CaptainEek: I'm not really sure why you're personally targeting me now. I've stated my opinion, acknowledged that others disagree with me, and deferred to the judgement of more experience editors. Since my edit was reversed by User:EvergreenFir I haven't edited the page; I agree that if consensus is that the flags should not be added, then I will adhere to that ruling. I think it is more beneficial to discuss this topic in a calm and mutually beneficial manner, rather than making snide comments. ApocalypticNut (talk) 15:32, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

ApocalypticNut, Sorry, I didn't mean to call you out, rather to suggest a possible alternative course of action. You seemed to be edit warring, and thus I suggested use of a partial block, a tool we have just enabled and many folks don't yet know of. However, you thankfully stopped edit warring, and thus there was no need. I had no intention of singling you out, I was not involved in the issue and am merely a regular on the board that was trying to solve things. Thanks for speaking up, and thanks for being a Wikipedian! CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 15:54, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

@CaptainEek: I appreciate the message, and I understand where you were coming from! Glad to be a part of the community (albeit new to this); I'm learning a lot. ApocalypticNut (talk) 16:05, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Chess Thank you for the RfC on the talk page. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:33, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Persistent addition of promotional content - Globe Elections UN

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

IP user 211.221.114.249 has been adding user-generated content into 2020 Emilia-Romagna regional election (diff1 diff2), in what seems an attempt to use the article as a vehicle to promote self-made content. This is just the last in a string of similar cases of different IP accounts attempting to add this "Globe Elections UN" blogspot as a source into a large number of election articles: for a more complete account on these cases, check Talk:2019_United_Kingdom_general_election/Archive_5#GEUN_Spam, and it seems just the same person operating various different accounts (worth nothing is that all of them are geo-located in South Korea). The number of affected IP accounts could be even larger though, but they are relatively stable as in several cases they have been used in more than once case with a time difference of several weeks. They would also frequently revert the attempted removals of this content, thus engaging in problematic edit warring. Impru20^talk 21:58, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

@Impru20:  Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. Note - I'll leave handling the IP range and/or the involved minor YouTube channel (see diff 1) to other admins if further measures are deemed necessary. @Impru20, just a quick tip: if you want to report primarily spam-related issues, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam and MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist would usually be better venues. --GermanJoe (talk) 23:24, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you sir! Will keep in mind your advice if I come across this again in the future. ;) Cheers. Impru20^talk 23:51, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Blocked for 31 hours. --qedk (t 桜 c) 13:32, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Again

• 218.155.136.167 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 210.90.248.9 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

They have done it again under these IP accounts, which should be blocked as well (diff1 diff2 diff3 diff4 diff5). Note that they are now adding their website as referenced plain text as a result of the site having been blacklisted. Note that this IP address was the same used to spam other pages in the past. Impru20^talk 14:19, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Note that this specific IP already received a 31 hour-block in December because of this disruptive behaviour. Considering that the previous IP within this report has already gotten such a 31 hour-block and that these IP accounts do seem static (their contributions' history show that they are used for no other purpose than this), maybe longer blocks would be due to all of them. Pointing other such IP accounts used for this spamming purpose below:

• 121.157.29.42 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 119.194.250.121 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 121.133.198.125 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 121.133.188.72 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 211.248.151.71 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 221.150.208.93 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 211.226.115.72 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 121.157.179.66 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 59.13.200.203 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 210.96.117.17 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

Impru20^talk 15:00, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Michael Wheeler (athlete)

I made an adjustment to this page regarding the death of Michael Wheeler on 5 January 2020, as reported in the Bournemouth Echo, but within a few minutes my alteration seems to have been automatically retracted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.252.203.18 (talk) 18:21, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

No, there is no edit at or around that date in the edit history of Michael Wheeler (athlete). Sandstein 22:00, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Djtmac558 reported by JlACEer

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

---

Moved from WP:AIV

 – ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:43, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Djtmac558 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Multiple unsourced edits to various Disney-related pages. Too many for me to try to undo. User has a long history of unsourced edits and warnings (see talk page).—JlACEer (talk) 17:49, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Notes:

• Djtmac558 has never edited a talk nor user talk page to discuss with other users.
• Djtmac558 has been blocked twice in the past (48 hours; 1 week).

Courtesy ping: NJA has described similar behavior in the block log; this might be a persistent issue.

~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:55, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

User(s) blocked. I’ve blocked the user as WP:NOTHERE, N.J.A. | talk 02:41, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

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

IP making same edit at least 10 times to Talk:Jerusalem

We have an IP making the same edit 10 times to Talk:Jerusalem, each time from a different IP-address: [75][76][77][78][79][80][81][82][83][84]. What would be the best course of action? Could somebody here implement it, please? :) Debresser (talk)

• Debresser, let's see if a little rangeblock offers some relief. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 03:28, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. The Jerusalem page itself is extended confirmed protected. I am not a big adherent of it, especially on talkpages, but maybe that is also an option, should the rangeblock prove ineffective. Debresser (talk) 13:17, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Drmies Is the rangeblock still in effect? Because today another IP repeated the edit. Debresser (talk) 20:12, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Let's try something different. The user is now blocked from editing Talk:Jerusalem for three months; revert and report any block evasion to WP:AIV with a link to Special:Contributions/37.124.201.54 for reference. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:36, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks. Debresser (talk) 00:55, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Well, that didn't do much.[85][86][87] Somebody is skipping IPs to add these pictures. Probably time for the extended confirmed protection. Debresser (talk) 17:02, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

The Banner and his fallacious edits

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

---

The Banner has repeatedly made bad faith edits on the WW1 casualties article. As a note, we have discussed issues like the 1917 dutch riots, and have reached compromises on that, so it is possible he can be constructive. But he has repeatedly been adding Balkan War losses to the WW1 page, even though the Balkan Wars were before WW1. I have tried to tell him that on his talk page, but he has so far been dogged in his pursuit of vandalizing the page, perhaps because we had a lengthy spat on the Easter Rising talk page, in which his side of the argument won out and I resigned. When I tried to explain to him that I had been trying to keep an IP from vandalizing the page by adding Balkan War losses, he acted as if I was the one who was vandalizing. In addition, I suspect bad faith because his edits were not thorough. For example, he erroneously altered Serbian losses numbers to include the Balkan Wars, but he did not bother to change the numbers for the Total Allied section or Total Losses section. It seems to me he is stalking this page due to some animus towards me. And in addition, he falsely stated that I asserted that Liberia was neutral during WW1, even though I was the one that added Liberia to the WW1 casualties page because I knew it had entered the war at a later date. The Banner also attempted to vandalize the Central Asian revolt of 1916 page much earlier by asserting falsely that it wasn't part of WW1. 98.221.136.220 (talk) 00:41, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

A few quick points... First, cite diffs when commenting on specific edits. In this case you did not include a single link, leaving everybody to have to dig around on their own. Secondly, take a very deep breath before accusing someone of bad faith editing, especially well established editors. Usually it is not the case. Third, this looks like a content dispute. Your comments in the talk page discussion do not lend themselves well to your cause. And I am being polite there. I suggest reading my thoughts on ANI. You may then wish to step back from this before it starts attracting a lot of attention. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:56, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

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

User:SashiRolls's behavior at Media coverage of Bernie Sanders

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

---

SashiRolls (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Media coverage of Bernie Sanders (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
The talk page and edit history for this article really speak for themselves. SashiRolls has, for months, been tendentiously editing the article, edit warring, making personal attacks, and generally being uncivil, rude, and casting aspersions at me and other editors who do not share their views about the subject of the article (not to mention this odd debate. As a result of several editors becoming, frankly, tired of working with Sashi, the article is not in great shape now; I nominated it for deletion earlier today, and then this is what put me over the edge to drag the situation here. Despite repeated warnings on their talk page (from which I am now banned) and on the article talk page, Sashi continues making personal attacks. All of this said, I'm sure there are ways I could have addressed the situation better, and I am open to constructive criticism, but I really do feel like I'm in the right here. Thanks for your help. --WMSR (talk) 04:29, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Pinging Snooganssnoogans, who has also been on the receiving end of Sashi's attacks. --WMSR (talk) 04:32, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

• I have posted a note on the AfD to try and help keep the discussion focused and maybe prevent things from going too far off track. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:42, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

• It does not seem to be working. --WMSR (talk) 21:28, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

• I think some of Sashirolls comments are problematic since they stray from FOC to focusing on the motivations of other editors. In my view it's fair to say, as an example, the edits of others "make the article look like it's pushing a POV". That is an assessment of how one might interpret the article. We should not say "you/them/some editors are pushing a POV" since that is now assuming a motivation of the editors themselves. That said, Snooganssoogans is not an easy editor to work with and I believe they have a history of pushing a POV rather than creating neutral articles. They were recently the subject of an ANI that resulted in a 1RR restriction. I noted Gandydancer's comment about working with Snooganssoogans after SS complained about SR [[88]]. This was one of the links from the original complaint. I have no feel for the "truth" related to the Bernie article in question but it seems like we have 2-3 like mined editors and one who disagrees. It's easy to see how that can turn ugly and how the like minded editors may be ignoring valid concerns because, well they automatically have a 3:1 consensus. Sashirolls would be well advised to clearly state they understand the concept of FOC and not commenting on editors on the talk page. Perhaps a warning that editors must strictly follow CIVIL and FOC on the talk page is needed here with the understanding failure to do so will result in an article specific tban would fix the issue? Springee (talk) 05:18, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

I didn't want to see Sashirolls' name when I glanced at ANI today, but this is kind of déjà vu. They were topic/interaction-banned for this kind of stuff in GMO topics[89] along with other issues outside that topic area in their block log that I don't know as much about except that there's history. I'm not going to dive into this one any further except to say it's doubtful a warning would have any effect given more serious sanctions haven't stopped the behavior from just jumping to other topics when they get topic-banned. Considering that, it's likely better for an uninvolved admin to handle this through the politics DS. Awilley, it looks like you've been trying to mediate some of the behavior issues on this. Do you have any thoughts on DS enforcement or other insights here? Kingofaces43 (talk) 07:19, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

This is what makes coming to ANI frustrating. Editors unrelated to the current dispute and maybe still nursing an old grudge bring up old and irrelevant things that they admit they don't know much about. The bigger issue is that editors at the Media Coverage of Bernie Sanders page disagree that such a page and material should exist. It should be settled through consensus at the AFD, and editors ought to accept that consensus and move on. Mr Ernie (talk) 12:23, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Kingofaces43, I didn't want to see Sashirolls' name when I glanced at ANI today ... I'm not going to dive into this one any further except to remind everyone Sashi was tbanned from GMO (even though GMOs have nothing to do with this dispute), once again call for sanctions, and ping the admin who had previously sanctioned Sashi to ask for thoughts and insights. You realize you're fooling no one with the feigned reluctance, right? Everyone remembers you're the editor who has filed multiple AEs against Sashi and who was falsely claiming that Sashi was tbanned from GMOs since before Sashi was tbanned from GMOs. Why not just be honest and say, "I have long believed Sashi should be indef'd and this episode is another example of the reason why." You do yourself a disservice by pretending otherwise. Levivich 20:37, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Here are some diffs of the policy violations on the page: #1 violates WP:LINKLOVE & WP:OUTING, #2 violates WP:FOC,#3 violates WP:FOC and WP:EW, #4 violates WP:FOC and WP:EW. I don't have time to defend myself here at the moment, but I will note that the original author of the page WMSR doesn't like was apparently driven off with harassment, and obviously that is what is happening here too. I won't speculate as to why this page was generating so much bad blood well before I came in and began repairing the damage after MrX & Snoog deleted the vast majority of the content they didn't like from the article on 23-24 December. As always, it's easy to make accusations. As it was said in the AFD, the AFD was a petty move made a few hours before the "offending" diff that "pushed" WMSR "over the edge" / made WMSR think it would be fun to not only delete the page but drive off its principal author. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 11:17, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

You're citing one diff that nobody can access since it has been oversighted (if you were outed or attacked in that post, I am truly sorry), one in which an editor raises legitimate complaints about how your conduct has made it impossible to "focus on the content" of the article, and two that show you edit warring on that editor's talk page post. This is not a matter of me "not liking" a page. MrX and Snoogans rightfully removed content that did not belong in the article. You have since edit-warred that content back in, added significant WP:SYNTH, violated copyright law, and harassed editors you disagree with. I did not play any role in "driving off" the original author of the page, nor I am not trying to drive you off; I have not made any personal attacks against you, and by accusing me of doing so without providing any evidence, you are continuing to cast aspersions at me. I take no pleasure in being here and do not consider it "fun". I would much rather be editing an article constructively with you. --WMSR (talk) 20:21, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

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

Sorry to post on a closed thread, but the aspersions have not stopped. I understand that the AfD is contentious, but that is not an excuse for incivility. I'm really getting sick of having my motives constantly questioned and having accusations flung at me, and I honestly don't understand how these actions are not sanctionable; WP:IUC is pretty clear on the matter. --WMSR (talk) 17:40, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Here is another from today. How many different editors need to be subjected to Sashi's attacks before it becomes a sanctionable issue? --WMSR (talk) 00:48, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Fake news at AfD?

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kalvithanthai Haji. S.M.S. Shaik Jalaludeen is a hard to read AfD with some new editors arguing to keep the article. Now, another new editor, User:Riyasafrim, argued to keep the article based on a new article in The Hindu, which they added to the article[90]. However, they added a Google docs image of a collage of the header of the Hindu, and a page from... well, somewhere[91]. I can't find this article on the website of the Hindu, and can find pretty little information about this person in general[92]. Despite today being his 100th birthday, there are no news reports at all in Google News[93] (which of course isn't the be all and end all, but e.g. the Hindu is normally fully covered by it).

Can some of you please judge whether the new source is indeed fake news or not, and act accordingly? Fram (talk) 09:28, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

As I said in the deletion discussion, it's fortuitous that the Hindu has written about him today. Should make getting hold of a copy of The Hindu really easy. I suggest Wikiproject India should be first port of call. - X201 (talk) 09:58, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

@Fram:I cant scan whole newspaper in scanner for that i just cropped them and attached in my google drive if you want it i will send you full paper by a photo. @Fram:Here it is [94] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Riyasafrim (talk • contribs) 10:18, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I can't find it on the official website though, so I wonder: is this some local version of the Hindu, or is this an advert instead of an article? Considering that the "article" uses a different font, different layout, and has no by-line (and is rather jarring contentwise compared to the other articles), I have trouble accepting this as a genuine article. But I may just be too sceptical. Fram (talk) 10:41, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

IMO, it's either an advert or it's photoshopped. Different font, no byline, starts with multi-line capital letter, etc. Black Kite (talk) 11:14, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

And a boarder, looks like an advert to me, paid for content.Slatersteven (talk) 11:38, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

It is a paid advertisement. Winged Blades of Godric can confirm as well. --qedk (t 桜 c) 14:09, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Yep. ∯WBG^converse 14:19, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

This needs some warnings issued, and maybe an SPI.Slatersteven (talk) 14:10, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Isn't The Hindu normally considered a reliable source? Should mention be made at RS/P that it (surprisingly) allows placement of an apparently not-well-marked giant paid ad on its front page? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 19:03, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Comment As I understand it, WP:RSP is not an exhaustive list of reliable sources. We have to apply good common sense in terms of what is a reliable source, particularly in less developed countries. What is the source's editorial control, how biased is it, and what is the depth of the source(s) provided? To meet WP:GNG, which is arguably our most important content guideline, the sources not have to be independent of the subject, but the coverage has to be "significant." What does that mean? For corporations, it's easier to determine as we have the WP:CORPDEPTH supplementary guideline. For individuals, it has to be an in-depth and wide-ranging about the article's subject. Does that help? Doug Mehus T·C 01:20, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Lot of reliable sources have a lot of ads (even in print). Doesn't make them unreliable. A lot of newspapers now offer full front-page ads (a faux front page, to say) if you pay up enough due to the dwindling circulation of print newspapers. --qedk (t 桜 c) 17:51, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Second time this month reporting disruptive account from the Department of Defense

• 155.19.91.37 (talk · contribs)

And I'm not wasting my time leaving a message at their talk page. There's no interest in engaging here, merely in trolling and edit warring. Oshwah, I think you took part in the previous discussion. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:34, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

The user's last edit was 2-3 days ago. I looked into the last few edits, and the only thing I can see in the past week or more is a slow-moving edit war at Jonathan Turley, which I have added protection to stop. Can you indicate what new edits since the last discussion indicate additional problems? --Jayron32 12:49, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Nothing more than that, Jayron32. I elaborated on the edit history and trolling in the previous report. Done riding herd on them. 2601:188:180:B8E0:2045:1108:DBE4:2135 (talk) 13:35, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Disruptive edits by IPs 64.60.211.2 and 2600:1700:D2A1:570:0:0:0:3B

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

---

64.60.211.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 2600:1700:D2A1:570:0:0:0:3B (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) These two IPs are making identical edits and I assume are the same person. They are attempting to add text to various articles such as Solo performance, Waiting for Godot, Lincoln Heights Jail, etc., which all relate to performances by one Darryl Maximilian Robinson. The problem is not so much the edits to text - though are they are presumably promotional and trivial - but to the editor's refusal to pay any regard to the notices on their user pages relating to proper citation procedures. They are edit-warring to maintain incorrectly formatted citations. Repeated warnings from several editors have had zero effect. Not vandalism per se, but requires some action to be taken. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:13, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Both blocked. The former for a year as it has a long history of disruptive editing and previous blocks. The latter x 2 weeks. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:20, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

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

Unwanted tracking of edits

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

---

UltraSGuy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This user has been trying to track my edits over the past year for purported mistakes. He said that he was behind various IP addresses to edit. In fact, I try to make my edits accurate, but the user is not satisfied. Besides, the user claims to know me when I don't even know the user in real life. Please handle this. Thanks. TheGreatSG'rean (talk) 17:23, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

TheGreatSG'rean, FYI, its better to use the standard ANI Notice template without modifying it other then the thread name, and to put it in its own section. I did that for you, just letting you know for the future. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 19:38, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

• Indeff pronto Based on [95] this thread, and edits like [96], I think UltraSSGuy needs a prompt indeff for WP:HARASSMENT. The GreatSG'rean clearly wants Ultra to stop, and Ultra was oblivious, and creepy. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:27, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

  CaptainEek, holy shit, that makes me feel a bit sick reading. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 21:01, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

• Indef block for the extremely creepy harassment CaptainEek linked above. Nobody should have to put up with that. - DoubleCross (talk) 20:42, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
• Indef for this creepy AF exchange, Seems this editor needs a restraining order nevermind blocking!. –Davey2010^Talk 20:52, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
• Indef Per CaptainEek. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 21:02, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

• Indef- Even reading that makes me feel like I need to take a shower and watch kitten videos on youtube to get rid of the creepy feeling. Reyk _YO! 21:12, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

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

Undiscussed bulk move of decade pages

BHB95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

BHB95 is moving pages such as 10s to new titles which have not been discussed. These articles form part of a complex web of carefully named articles. I have attempted to start discussion at User talk and a relevant project. Please can an admin consider intervening? Certes (talk) 17:23, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Please remember to notify all involved parties on their talk pages of ANI discussions. I have made the required notification for BHB95. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:31, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Certes did, just not using the standard notification or in its own section.[97] DMacks (talk) 17:35, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. I missed that. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:47, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

I gave a short block. Don't have any more time right now to unwind it. DMacks (talk) 17:33, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks DMacks. I think we can sort out reversion without further help. Certes (talk) 17:38, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Block, please

[98], please block that IP pdq. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:26, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't see this message. It took me a little time to find the words. I don't think I did.  Done -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:35, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Legal threat against me

Hi,

I undid Cyrusep's edits on the 2020 Democratic Party presidential debates article two different times. The first time was here: [99] and the second time was here: [100]. I received this email from them not long after my second edit.

(Redacted)

I posted about this on the Help desk here: [101] and was advised to post here by Arch dude. Thank you. David O. Johnson (talk) 04:49, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Did the other user really post a link to ransomware in the page history or did he just make that up? If he really posted ransomware or malware links in article space then we may need a revision deletion. Michepman (talk) 05:08, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

The link appears in other articles and looks to be a CopyVio of whosaidso.org [[102]]Slywriter (talk) 05:11, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

---

I've indeffed the user as a promotion / advertising-only account, since that's all they appear to have been doing on Wikipedia. Can't do anything about the legal threat since that was done offwiki and cannot be verified, though, personally, I believe David O. Johnson. The matter is moot, anyway. As for there being ransomware, I think there's been some confusion between the edit summary that stated it was removing a random link and the word ransom, maybe...? Otherwise, I don't see where David O. Johnson made that claim. El_C 05:16, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of JzG / Guy for Admin vacation or similar

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

---

Please consider whether JzG should take an Admin vacation, or some other remedy. I've tried to ignore a number of, let's call it, "difficult" interactions, but speedy deletion of an article I worked on for a few hours,[103] and subsequent lack of discussion[104] are last straws for me. So, I'm listing several things that caught my attention, when trying to understand what's happened over about the last 2 weeks since I dared involve myself in some "climate change" associated articles. I will note I've also experienced some "difficult" interactions with a few other editors and admins, but this admin stands out from the pack, and has, in my opinion, now abused their power.

I'm still unsure exactly what is appropriate for User pages, but to me this (TL;DR in detail) and associated editing seems to indicate far too much concern and time spent on writing a treatise on politics on Wikipedia.[105]

This is to point out another very detailed discussion of concern over sourcing at Wikipedia.[106]. I don't say anything is particularly wrong with having concerns or expressing them, but it seems to be connected with problematic (IMO) edits and now admin action.

Is Wikipedia a bulletin board or forum? [107]

Are broad general comments like "well, he's kind of right, in that the more you look into it the more you realise that the entire climate change denial machine is fraudulent." considered appropriate? [108]

Is this a helpful comment? "I note that there are quite a few instances of "$DENIER wrote $DENIALISTCLAPTRAP for the Global Warming Policy Forum(source: link to $DENIALISTCLASPTRAP at thegwpf.org)". That's probably not a good idea."[109] As I said there, I feel "Writing about people as though they can be lumped into a disrespected category and treated like a variable looks like Dehumanization, a battlefield tactic, and seems improper at Wikipedia."[110]

Is this an appropriate edit summary, to remove a PDF link for a report no one disputes the BLP Article subject wrote; a report which is mentioned by title in the article text? "absolutely inappropriate external link to climate change denialism propaganda" [111]

The following histories suggest to me JzG is following me around Wikipedia and implementing scorched earth policy for anything they personally disagree with (not just my edits), regardless of sourcing, and using misleading edit summaries. [112][113]. Particular edits:(A) "pruning unsourced / self-sourced" [114] (Note deleted source from thegwpf.org is neither un- nor self-sourced for the article). (B) "primary and unreliable (WSJ not reliable for editorials ion climate change, per WP:RSN"[115] Note: I've seen the same WSJ letter (IIRC) mentioned on other articles on people who signed it. AFAIK primary sources may be used in BLP articles to some extent.

Thanks in advance for considering my concerns. -- Yae4 (talk) 05:23, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

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