Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

RexxS

I looking for a fellow admin who might say to User talk:RexxS: Look, the guy’s polite, he has a right to talk, certainly on his own talk page.

Most recently, RexxS said “It's time for you to drop the stick and back away.“ After first accusing me of trying to subvert the standards of MEDRS, and after previously threatening to seek sanctions against me if my “disruptive editing” continued. This is at User talk:FriendlyRiverOtter —> MEDRS.

I have followed the rules and have made solid edits on the main Coronavirus pages, and at the same time, I have civilly questioned policy on the talk page. In particular, I’ve pointed out that Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) has a header which states, “It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. . . “

Background includes:

Discretionary sanctions on the use of preprints

Header for WP:MEDRS says “. . best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. . ” (Archive 9)

Any help would be appreciated, and if I’m doing something unacceptable to group norms, please let me know. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 14:04, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't see how any admin intervention is required here. You're having a disagreement with another editor, which can easily be handled by continued discussion either at the article talk page or via your user talk pages. ANI is a board for requesting administrator actions and I can't see any actions that would be appropriate here. Sam Walton (talk) 14:10, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Not just another editor. RexxS is threatening to use admin power to block me as a result of that disagreement. I’m trying to be proactive and get a response before I’m blocked. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 14:31, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

RexxS is threatening to use admin power to block me as a result of that disagreement. Diff of that threat, please? --bonadea contributions talk 14:39, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

From User talk:FriendlyRiverOtter —> MEDRS

• “Consequently, I'm now warning you, in all seriousness, that I will seek sanctions against you for disruptive editing if you persist.” (end of first paragraph) And this for advocacy on talk pages, not for actual live edits on article pages. And,

From Talk:Coronavirus disease 2019/Archive 9 —> Header for WP:MEDRS says “. . best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. . ”

• “As for ‘One study of COVID-19 patients at three hospitals showed ...’, if you finish that sentence with a biomedical claim, I'll block you until you're prepared to abide by our sourcing policies and guidelines. It's as simple as that.“ (RexxS’ first response, May 16) That’s an example of making up policy on the fly. It’s also an example of being both player and referee.

Again, I’m trying to be proactive. And probably should say, that even though I’m a 10+ year Wikipedian, I’m more used to sports sites in which extended debate on something like a talk page is viewed as just fine. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 15:50, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

That's the same thing you said in your initial comment, but it doesn't tally with what you said in a follow up. RexxS said they would seek sanction against you. In other words, let other admins or the community decide if your behaviour warranted action. They never threateened to take admin action against you directly which is what you implied with "RexxS is threatening to use admin power to block me". An editor saying they will ask for you to be sanctioned or blocked if you continue to violate some policy or guideline is perfectly normal, frankly I would expect you to know that with 10+ years of experience. It's not generally worth our time analysing whether your behaviour warrants sanction on ANI unless we're actually considering imposing sanction. So if you feel the threat is without merit, ignore it. If your behaviour is really fine then when they seek sanction they'll just be told to go away, or worse suffer a WP:boomerang, there is no need to be "proactive". Of course if your behaviour is a problem, the fact that you've already been warned means you'll likely get limited sympathy. If you're not sure whether what you're doing is okay, you should continue to engage in discussion with RexxS and others, or seek help elsewhere e.g. WP:Teahouse, not ANI. It's ultimately your responsibility to understand and follow our policies and guidelines. Nil Einne (talk) 15:54, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I mostly wrote the above before you replied based on checking out your talk page, got an EC, skimmed through what you wrote and reworded it slightly. I missed the part in the second example where they did directly threaten a block. I haven't looked at the details and for AC/DS cases it can be complicated whether an admin is acting in a purely administrative capacity. However it is also about 17 days ago and given that in their most recent comment RexxS simply threatened to report you, it may be even RexxS now feels they're WP:involved. Have you at least asked RexxS whether they still feel they can block you directly? Nil Einne (talk) 16:08, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Once again I am seeing someone claim that WP:MEDRS should be diluted on the very page where it currently the most important. The way to counter "bat shit crazy conspiracy theories" is to cite proper science, not preliminary studies. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:42, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I’m all in favor of reliable sources (medicine), including the first header which mentions “common sense” and “occasional exceptions.” And with a new-to-humans disease like Coronavirus, we might well benefit from including the occasional primary source. If so, we (1) have to be really confident we’re summarizing it right and (2) state something like “A study of ___ number of patients showed.” Unless we’re simply going to repeat WHO and CDC, as valuable as these two are, there may not be enough good secondary sources otherwise. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 23:05, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

You seem to be misinterpreting "occasional exceptions" to mean ignoring the policy on the very page where it is most important. For any exception to be occasional it must be stringently justified in the context where it applies, but you seem to be proposing to use this as a get-out clause to avoid confronting "bat shit crazy conspiracy theories" in a proper, scientific way and to promote other unproven theories. You are taking people's time away from providing some of the best, well-sourced, content on the Internet while you continually argue about this point. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:50, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I've been attempting for several weeks now to stem the tide of unreliable sources being used at COVID-19, in an attempt to keep up with news sources that report every novel study regardless of whether they are usable for an encyclopedia. It is very important that WP:RS and WP:MEDRS in particular are observed, as those are the key guidelines that prevent content from being degraded with text sourced from poor quality sources.

The situation was so bad that I even had to impose a specific general sanction to prevent the use of preprints (preliminary studies, not even peer-reviewed) as sources. See sanctions on the use of preprints Discretionary sanctions on the use of preprints. The comments from FriendlyRiverOtter were outright opposition that showed a complete lack of understanding of the reasons for MEDRS: "What we’re up against are bat shit crazy conspiracy theories ... We’re also at risk of irrelevancy due to the 24-hour news cycle and social media. ... And then I’d ask, How often really does a professional journal make substantial changes to a pre-print? I mean, if we’re going to make big sacrifices to piously remain on the sidelines, that’s kind of an important question. Especially when a clear better alternative is to say “According to a preliminary study . . ” or something of this sort, or even add “(pre-print, not yet subject to peer review)” if we feel that’s necessary. Suggesting that we use sources that don't even meet WP:RS by using qualifications like "According to a preliminary study" is thoroughly unhelpful and sets a poor example for other editors at the article. Further comments from FRO in that thread included:

• "If a colleague said “a preprint showed . . ” pertaining to a real live patient under the care of both of you, would you try to pretend you never heard it, or would you cautiously take it into account?" - to an MD who disagreed with them
• "For several weeks from January and February, a preliminary study from China found that approximately 13% of transmission from pre-symptomatic persons." - advocating another preprint
• "To me, the overall issue of whether we remain relevant, or not, is huge. And in that context, a couple of weeks can be a big deal."
• "So, a professional journal is okay with a pre-print, with the qualification of course, but for us, Oh no. We have to outdo them and be more goody two-shoes, more by-the-book, seemingly more everything."
• "I urge you not to decide ahead of time that we’re going to relegate ourselves to the trailing edge."

After receiving support fro other admins, I imposed the general sanction. That provoked a personalisation in FRO's next response:

• "No compelling argument, eh? I’m not sure one should both energetically champion a viewpoint, and neutrally sit as a judge."

My viewpoint was that of upholding MEDRS, not a personal view on the content, but that's lost to FRO, who added:

• "Now, whether we’re really going to go the route of secondary sources only, that’s an entirely separate discussion. I don’t think WP:MEDRS is that hardcore about it. Yes, I have read it before, but it’s been a while."

Then back to challenging MEDRS/RS:

• "On an occasional, sparring basis, with the qualifier “a preliminary study shows . . , ” I don’t think we should immediately dismiss using a pre-print."
• "So, we’re going to have a “higher” standard than JAMA, are we? JAMA makes pre-prints available — with a qualification of course (key point!). And we’re going to do this as if super “high” standards are some kind of unalloyed good thing."

It was at that point on 14 May 2020 that I warned FRO that their continued opposition to our standards for sourcing was becoming disruptive. There the situation remained until 28 May when FRO decided to take up the argument again, this time on their talk page, claiming "All the same, I do not feel I should be penalized for participating on a talk page." Of course, FRO has not been penalised, other than having been prevented from using preprints to support medical content.

For sake of clarity: given the personalisation in their replies to my warnings about their behaviour, I will not take administrative action against FriendlyRiverOtter, but I am now looking for some support to curtail their disruption. The more that our sourcing standards are openly challenged, especially on talk pages, the more difficult it is to maintain quality in the article, which already is recognised as problematic and is under community-imposed general sanctions. --RexxS (talk) 17:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

There’s also the part on May 15 and 16th in which I started the discussion: Header for WP:MEDRS says “. . best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. . ” (Archive 9)

Toward the beginning, I said:

• ”Now, that doesn’t mean run hog wild (and it doesn’t mean consensus first for our Coronavirus article).”

I stand with both of these, because if we go at a snail’s pace that’s not going to help anyone. But the editor should be able to present his or her reasons for an exception. So, I’m all in favor of going medium in a thoughtful way.

• ”you’re one of us. You have jumped in and joined your fellow Wiki citizens, and we’re happy you have you!”

Now this is clumsy. And @RexxS: I wish to apologize to you for this clumsiness. All I meant is that if you’re playing a basketball game, you cannot also referee it.

On my talk page, I responded to your post of May 14 two weeks later on May 28. I often respond to posts at my own leisure. I want to eventually respond because I don’t want people months down the road to think I violated MEDRS, which is certainly not how I look at it.

RexxS, you ended your May 28 post by saying, “It's time for you to drop the stick and back away.” Given our previous disagreement and your role as admin, I viewed that as an order not to talk on my own talk page.

Obviously, I think I have a right to my talk page. And more broadly, I don’t agree that speech = crime. A person can follow a policy and at the same time work to improve that policy. And if other Wikipedians don’t understand that, we can and will bring them up to speed. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 01:12, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

@FriendlyRiverOtter: please take a look at WP:LISTGAP. It's much kinder to those using screen readers if you don't continually leave gaps between your indented posts.

The thing about "occasional exceptions may apply" is that in all the years I've edited medical articles, I've never seen one of those occasional exceptions applied, have you? I'm always happy to discuss reasons for making exceptions, but you haven't brought any, apart from your desire to keep up with breaking news, and you've been told a dozen times now that it's not what Wikipedia is about.

As for your patronising welcome, it wasn't simply clumsy, it was downright rude. This isn't a game (of basketball or otherwise). You need to understand that on wiki, an admin is not disqualified from action merely because of prior admin actions. If an admin warns you about your behaviour, you don't get a free pass from sanctions simply because you argued about the warnings. Fortunately, I don't have to use any admin functions to seek sanctions and this board would be one of the possible venues.

Let me be clear on this point as well: you haven't violated MEDRS that I'm aware of, but you have challenged it, and repeatedly advocated to see it breached. You won't be allowed to continue down that road. It really is time to stop doing that ("drop the stick") and get on with more productive editing ("back away"). Is that clear enough?

If you feel you want to improve MEDRS, then let us know how you want to improve it, because all I've seen from you so far is how you want to circumvent it.

Finally, on Wikipedia, you have exactly two rights: the right to fork and the right to leave. Everything else is a privilege that is extended to you as long as you respect the established conventions of being here. One of those is MEDRS and if you still don't understand it, you can always have a look at this video from Wikimania 2019: File:MEDRS - bulwark or barrier.webm. It might give you a clue about why I'm so passionate about defending it. --RexxS (talk) 02:35, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

@RexxS: since you ask about exceptions, there are a couple of primary studies which found that an uncovered cough can travel further than the social distance of 6 feet. These are on Talk:Coronavirus disease 2019. And if we look, we might be able to find a few more. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 20:50, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

@FriendlyRiverOtter: Just mark them up with {{medrs |reason=primary source used to support biomedical claim |date=May 2020}} and they will be removed, or just remove them yourself. --RexxS (talk) 21:01, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

@RexxS: no need to remove, they’re not on our article page. But since you ask and all, the two are clean, easy-to-understand studies, and I think they’re good candidates for making exceptions for. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 21:53, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

@FriendlyRiverOtter: They are not. I'm done with humouring you. --RexxS (talk) 22:24, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

If it would make FriendlyRiverOtter happier, I am prepared to block them rather than RexxS if the energetic pushback against general sanctions continues. Talk pages cannot properly function if they are dominated by campaigns to include preprints. Johnuniq (talk) 23:51, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

• Editors are usually allowed a little latitude on their own talk pages, to be fair.—S Marshall T/C 00:11, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• The requirement for RS/MEDRS and prohibition on using preprints has wide community support, but we have a small number of people who seem to be constantly pushing back against that, and FriendlyRiverOtter is at the forefront. I know policy says "occasional exceptions may apply", but we should expect that to be very occasional, not every time a non-RS is published about Covid-19. That's the way we have tradtionally approached exceptions, and the community has very much reinforced that approach for Covid-19 articles. If RexxS has agreed not to sanction FriendlyRiverOtter personally, I have not. And I am very much prepared to sanction those who tendentiously keep on challenging the MEDRS requirement and agitating for its breach. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:20, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

So, it’s the case that speech itself on our talk pages is the “crime,” even if civil? And whereas, if someone makes a response and someone else hammers it with four responses, okay, that’s repetitive. But if you make a response and I make a response in turn, that’s not repetitive, is it? FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 21:39, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

FriendlyRiverOtter, it comes across as "keep badgering until you get the answer you want".

The restriction on preprints is there for an excellent reason. Papers can fail peer review, the preprint version can be significantly modified, and this is an area where there has been noise about early findings that have turned out to be wrong to the point of likely fraud.

Sure, it means we won't necessarily be at the cutting edge of the latest breaking news. This is a feature, not a bug. Guy (help!) 21:59, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Proposal (FriendlyRiverOtter)

I've now reluctantly reached the conclusion that FriendlyRiverOtter has no intention of abiding by our standards for sourcing, as the debate above shows – indeed they seem determined to undermine MEDRS in order to appear "cutting edge" in our coverage. I see no inclination to back down from their position and feel that their continued presence on those articles is detrimental to establishing quality sources.

I therefore propose that they are topic-banned from COVID-19 related pages for a month.

I understand that any uninvolved admin can impose any reasonable general sanction in the area anyway, but hopefully having some degree of consensus here might bring home to FriendlyRiverOtter the need to observe the community's express requirement for maintaining our standards for quality and behaviour on pages under general sanctions. --RexxS (talk) 22:24, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

1. Support as proposer. --RexxS (talk) 22:24, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
2. Support. FRO was heavily involved in pushing the "cough radius" primary study they cited earlier as evidence that "MEDRS primary exceptions exist", and kept agitating for its inclusion even after at least 3 literal MDs explained why it was important that we not use a (heavily underpowered) primary source. Clearly they are still carrying that stick and don't intend to drop it. JoelleJay (talk) 22:53, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

   @JoelleJay: this was in the context of an RfC which I myself started. So, yeah, if someone makes a thoughtful response, I’m going to try to make a thoughtful response in return, time permitting and if I feel I have something worthwhile to say.
   I can see two MDs by user name. If you know who the third is, I’d also be interested in knowing. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 05:28, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

3. Iff they persist in this outside their own talk page after this discussion. It's inappropriate and unwise to demand a mea culpa as a precondition of continued editing privileges, but this discussion needs to lead to them getting the message. Editors are allowed to express unconventional views on their own talk pages and this must not be banned.—S Marshall T/C 10:23, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

   @S Marshall: thank you for your measured response, and I hope you appreciate my measured approach as well. Even though I have pointed out that the MEDRS header states “common sense” and “occasional exceptions,” I also said above “Now, that doesn’t mean run hog wild.” That is, I really have attempted to steer a middle course. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 05:54, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

   Yes, and it's been pointed out to you repeatedly that the "common sense" and "occasional exceptions" clauses in practice mean hardly ever and only for something special. There's no "middle course" to steer here. The required course is "no non-MEDRS sources for medical information in Covid-19 articles", as the community has made very very clear. Seeing you continuing to push back against that even here, in a proposal to have you topic banned, confirms my conviction that this topic ban really is needed. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:38, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

4. Support per my comments above. This is, at the moment, the most important article on which WP:MEDRS should be upheld, and anyone who continually argues against this is taking editors' time away from providing a proper source of information to counter the disinformation that is prevalent on the Internet. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:55, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
5. Support, unfortunately, as FriendlyRiverOtter is still not getting it, or is refusing to get it. I'll add that I was thinking a 3-month topic ban would be appropriate if FriendlyRiverOtter continued, but hopefully a 1-month ban will prevent the need for anything longer. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:25, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

   I’m polite, and for the most part, my responses have been relatively brief.

   Now, besides being a sports site person, I also a nerd. So, if there’s an unstated group norm which I’m not reading, and I get the definite feeling there is, it might be helpful if someone could just matter-of-factly state such. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 06:09, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

   There's nothing unstated here, there's just a very clearly and oft stated "Stop pushing against the sourcing requirements for Covid-19 articles" which have a very clear community consensus, and stop pushing against those who strive to uphold them. Honestly, it's a long time since I've seen anything less unstated than that. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:08, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

   So, if I agree, no tricks, to cool it on Talk:Coronavirus disease 2019 regarding speaking in favor of either preprints or primary sources, other than my own single RfC which is still open? FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 14:13, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

   If you make a commitment to stop promoting the use of primary sources and/or non-MEDRS sources, stop supporting their use, *and* drop your participation in the currently open RfC (in which you persistently show that you still don't understand how not to use primary sources), and if you commit to only using (and discussing) MEDRS compliant sources (without exception) in relation to Covid-19, then I will strike my support for this topic ban proposal. But it will be on the proviso that any breach of these commitments would result in an immediate topic ban under the active community-authorised discretionary sanctions. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:04, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

   Oh, and please note the striking of my support won't stop the proposal - I don't have the power to do that. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:07, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

   And one final comment here, having just had a read through that RFC. Firstly, there's clearly no consensus for the use of your proposed source (and I hope someone will close it soon). Secondly, it's been going on for 15 days and it's 3,500 words long! That's 15 days and 3,500 words of timesink. Time that those repeatedly explaining the flaws in your arguments could have (and I'm sure would have loved to have) spent more productively looking for and using acceptable sources to develop the article to the standard required by WP:MEDRS. And *that* is why you need to be stopped from your attempts to get sub-standard sources used in Covid-19 articles. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:47, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

   I add my support for closure of that RFC, to go along with the topic ban. It has obviously failed, and, as said above, it only serves as a time sink. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:50, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

   I have closed and archived the RfC. I agree to cool it regarding promoting primary sources on COVID talk pages for one month (and probably longer!), as such discussions have not at all been well received.
   And I plan to continue positive edits on the article pages themselves as I’ve done on Coronavirus disease 2019: Revision history since at least early April, and other COVID-19 pages since March. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 21:39, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

   That's not the agreement I wanted in order to strike my support, I need you to back off from promoting primary sources permanently, not just for "one month (and probably longer!)". You just *will not listen*, will you? I reaffirm my support for the topic ban. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:08, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

6. Is this necessary? I think FRO may have got the point now. Guy (help!) 08:24, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

   What, FRO is going to "cool it ... for one month (and probably longer!)"? I really don't see that as getting the point. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:44, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

7. Support: This guy needs to be hit with a baseball bat aka I mean the 1 month topic ban is sufficient. DerianGuy40 (talk) 18:08, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

FloridaArmy and AfC woes

The first thing that should be said here is that there is no doubt that FloridaArmy is an net positive for the wiki. No one is questioning that. However, his drafts in the AfC process (which he was previously sanctioned to run all articles through) has become overwhemingly burdensome. There is consensus from the discussion at the AfC project page that something needs to be done (found here). Kylietastic summed it up best in the OP:

For those unaware the reason FloridaArmy spams AfC is due to this ANI issue — offloading the strain on AfD and other areas onto AfC. However their ongoing behaviour does not seem fair to the other submitters or on the reviewers. According to Template:AFC statistics/pending they currently have 68 open submissions (4.6% of all submission), also they just resubmit with little or no changes causing much more load. I just noticed they recently submitted multiple articles with only 1 source such as Draft:James Martin (South Carolina), Draft:Solomon Dill, Draft:Joseph Crews and Draft:Lucius Wimbush which they clearly know is not good enough. Yesterday I rejected Draft:Koninklijke Militaire School with no independent sources, just the single schools own link. In the past they have added non references such just a film name as a ref for the same film and other such things that they clearly know are not valid. They clearly do understand how things work and the guidelines, but persist of submitting the junk with the good and have a more combative than collaborative attitude to editing. They appear to be getting worse (from what I've seen), maybe due to virus lockdown.... is it not time to take some action? They continue to expect others to do work for them, never submitting properly (just with {{submit}} so AFCH does not work until fixed up), rarely formatting references, first submits that have no chance of acceptance without others improving first etc. Their behaviour was not considered good enough for AfD, why should it be OK to continue in AfC? Should this go back to ANI? Should they be restricted to the number of current open submissions, and not allowed to just resubmit? I'm sure if they focused on fewer articles at once, and worked more collaboratively they would be an big positive to the project, but they way they choose to work is not fair on others (submitters and/or reviewers).

TL:DR version, the editor is submitting a myriad of problematic drafts and is not responding or adapting to the countless attempts by reviewers to get them to improve. They expect other's to do their work, which is an unfair burden to put on reviewers, especially if they editor knows how to do it themselves. WP:BUILDER.

The rough consensus seems to be to limit FlordiaArmy's total pending AfC submissions at one time or to limit the rate at which they can submit them. The AfC community desperately needs relief from this situation. I am pinging the AfC reviewers who in the above mentioned discussion showed concern about FlordiaArmy's drafts, most of whom have also said some sort of action needs to be taken. KylieTastic, Chris troutman, Robert McClenon, Nosebagbear, CaptainEek and myself. RoySmith and Scope creep also expressed concern, but did not explicitly state yet whether they believe action should be taken. Sulfurboy (talk) 04:52, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• At AfC I suggested a limit to individual submissions to prevent WP:GAMING. I proposed a three strikes system, where each draft of Florida's gets two declines, and is automatically rejected the third time. Drafts which are not improved between submissions should also be auto-rejected. Florida has been at this for years and should know better. Though let me say, I very much want Florida to stick around, they are a valuable contributor, and in no way do I think we should block them. Just...provide some sanctions that will guide them. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 05:07, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I will clarify what I said, and I think this is consistent with what User:CaptainEek has said. I do not think that the community needs to take any further action beyond the action already taken of sending their submissions through AFC. I think that the reviewers, as a subcommunity, can enforce some common-sense rules such as are being mentioned. If the purpose of this thread has been to solicit community discussion of those rules, we welcome that input. (If the purpose is to impose any further community restrictions, I do not think that is necessary.) Robert McClenon (talk) 05:56, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• I don't mind extending someone 50 strikes as long as they put in good faith efforts on each submission. This is why I think a limit on the amount of pending submissions might be better as it would actively encourage the editor to spend the time to improve each submission. And yes, I echo the sentiment, that bringing this to ANI should in no way be interpreted as an effort to get the user banned in anyway.

  Instead, I think some sort of formal regulation is needed. I don't share in the optimism of Robert that we (as reviewers) can enforce common-sense rules without the support of ANI, because we've tried that and so far it hasn't worked. Sulfurboy (talk) 06:15, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I have accepted and rejected several of FloridaArmy's drafts at AfC. Some were decent articles and were acceptable immediately, some were marginally notable but got over the line after I found a couple other sources (some of which weren't easily accessible) and I don't remember any being "not notable," but I do remember a few not being ready for draft space. AfC is perfect for this type of thing. Our goal is to improve the encyclopaedia, and the articles FloridaArmy creates are generally notable. I do echo the concern, but I don't see any need to take action - if anything, a restriction that requires an AfC to be submitted with at least two sources would be the most beneficial to the encyclopaedia. I also think the three-strike rule could be problematic if the topic is indeed notable. SportingFlyer T·C 06:18, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• Question Just to play devil's advocate for a moment, can I respectfully explore what the actual problem is here? AfC reviewing is voluntary, and you can choose which drafts from the queue to review, and which to pass over. If a reviewer doesn't like reviewing FloridaArmy's drafts because they require so much work, they're free to pass over them on move onto a submission from someone else. Is there a major problem in having a large, but not ridiculous, number of old drafts from a single editor hanging around for long periods of time in the AfC system - does that break anything? Perhaps the long wait times might encourage FA to put a bit more work into their drafts, in the hopes of getting them reviewed quicker? I'll add that I agree with SportingFlyer that the three-strike-reject option doesn't seem ideal - perhaps a better approach would be to limit the number of AfC submissions that FA could make - either time-dependent (e.g. no more than one submission per week) or backlog-dependent (e.g. can submit no new drafts if they have >10 in the current queue). GirthSummit _(blether) 07:56, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

  The problem isn't so much that there's a large number of drafts. The problem is the continual re-submission with little to no improvements. Sources are regularly improperly formatted. Constant use of unreliable sources. Constant spelling/grammar mistakes. Constant addition of irrelevant statements. I generally don't have a problem with this if the user is inexperienced/new and I in fact love helping to fix up an article by a new user. However this editor isn't new. They know better. They've been asked a countless amount of times by reviewers to do just a basic bit of cleanup. They've also been asked to properly source articles. They are completely non-response to this, and it seems to be just getting worse.

  Yes AfC is voluntary, so is all of Wikipedia. AfD is voluntary and FA's burden on that was dealt with, not sure why the same can't be done here. Eventually someone has to review these drafts. I don't like filtering what I review, I just go down the list. Asking reviewers to cherry pick what they review to skirt the problem instead of just addressing it seems inefficient. Sulfurboy (talk) 14:19, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• Pace the obviously triggering effect of backlogs anywhere for us obsessives, I think that creating a couple of badly undersourced drafts every day and having most of them languish indefinitely while a few are fixed up and promoted, is probably a better outcome than creating badly undersourced articles and then bludgeoning AfD, which was what happened previously. This seems to me to be pretty much what Draft space is for. Fromt he popint of view of the admin cabal, the problem at AfD was hectoring. That is a problem wherever it happens - the AfC discussion implies this but is there evidence? Also the number of G13'd drafts that are then REFUNDed and resubmitted with insufficient improvement is a bit of an issue, e.g. Draft:Mbanga soup (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Guy (help!) 12:13, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• (Coming from ping due to WTAFC involvement) - I do not believe in this three strikes bit. It risks various issues, and also goes against the basis on which "rejection" was bought in as an option. I would, however, suggest a rate limit. I don't mind too much if it's per week (1 or 2) or in total (5-10), but something needs to be done. @Girth Summit:, I can't be 100% sure on other reviewers position, but my reasoning on why it impacts us and the queue (rather than just being ignored), is that we can't just ignore tough calls. Unless it's mention in article comments or declines, an FA non-clear draft looks the same as any other editor's, so I can't just ignore his. We can't just ignore non-clear drafts in general that we'd rather not do because that places more and more work on the few willing to tackle them, risking driving them off. FA's large spike clutters up more than is reasonable, whereas a few would be okay. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:35, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

  Nosebagbear, hi - can I just ask you to unpack that a bit for me - I don't quite understand what you mean by 'non-clear drafts', or why it's not possible to selectively ignore them. (I'm not sure how other people approach the AfC queue, maybe that makes a difference - I use the New Pages Feed, which present you with the person who created the draft beneath the title.) GirthSummit _(blether) 12:53, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

  @Girth Summit:, a "non-clear" draft is my phrasing for a draft where it's not clear whether an "accept" or a "decline/reject" would be suitable, necessitating more and deeper consideration. I find the NPF a little jittery for me (I think it doesn't play well with some of my scripts), but you're right, that would allow avoiding a specific submitter's drafts - I've usually used this list (with its various filters) Nosebagbear (talk) 13:01, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

  Nosebagbear, I suggest simply declining as having insufficient sources to establish notability. Most of them are directory entries, after all. Guy (help!) 14:22, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• Commenting only: this may be connected to this thread (permalink) on Jimbo's page, raised in questioning racism in AFC process in the wake of the death of George Floyd. --Masem (t) 12:47, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure what's being implied here. AfCs concerns with FA extend back well before this thread. Also, I along with many other reviewers (I think) agree that coverage is lacking on African Americans and are sympathetic to that problem. There is not as much a problem with the subjects as there is the incredibly poor quality of the articles and the habitual re-submission without improvement. The race card is regularly pulled instead of doing just basic cleanup. Accusations of prejudice from page creators in AfC happens a lot. I've personally been accused of being prejudiced towards basically everything (including but not limited to black people, white people, asians, men, women, bagpipe bands and just recently New Zealand). However, this almost exclusively comes from new users that want to cry foul instead of doing even minimal fixes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sulfurboy (talk • contribs)

I only brought up that convo as the timing of that discussion with this ANI may suggest a possible issue related to POINT, but I don't have enough insight on past behavior with that editor to know. Was just bringing it up with in case it was relevant. --Masem (t) 15:31, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

So you don't have insight on past behavior, yet you felt the need to imply reviewers are bringing this up as a point of retribution? No matter how implicit the implication, this could broadly be construed as a personal attack. AfC reviewers deal with enough abuse from UPEs, SPAs and other angsty new editors. They don't need to also be leveled without merit by experienced editors. Sulfurboy (talk) 17:04, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• I'll summarize what I already wrote at WT:AFC: FloridaArmy creates a high volume of low quality drafts about interesting and encyclopedic subjects, and stubbornly resists all efforts to help him improve. That's unfortunate, but it's better than most of the crap we see on AfC, which is unabashed spam: people promoting their own (or their paid clients') companies, bands, projects, or selves. That's where we need to be tightening up the rules, Not bashing editors who are clearly and unequivocally WP:HERE, even if they are borderline WP:CIR cases. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RoySmith (talk • contribs) 09:44, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) GirthSummit makes a valid point about the volunteer nature of AfC but those same volunteers are just working a backlog without filtering FloridaArmy's entries from view. I agree with CaptainEek's suggestion about three strikes but I believe AfC can impose that without needing wider community consensus. I commented on an earlier thread that this issue needs to come to ANI because FloridaArmy's skirting notability to turn out two-sentence drafts violates WP:GAME, in my opinion. I suggest that FloridaArmy needs to be disallowed from creating new drafts, entirely. We have good editors that could build meaningful articles but FloridaArmy undercuts the incentives by robbing our other editors of four awards by persisting in this way. Chris Troutman (talk) 13:49, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

  Chris troutman, We're WP:HERE to write articles, not collect awards. To use my previous example from WT:AFC, Wikipedia existed for 17 years before FloridaArmy started Oberlin Academy. The idea that they somehow robbed somebody of an award by getting there first is hogwash. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:18, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I certainly agree that to argue that any negative effects FA is having are due to robbing editors of specific awards, or even of being able to be the first to write on their article, is without merit. I also firmly disagree with FA (a GF actor) from being completely blocked from drafts, especially as it's indicated in the messages here and on the AFC talk page that there are drafts that have gone through AfC without issue. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:27, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• I see FA as a net positive for the project. Many of the articles they create may be marginal in notability but the overall effect is definitely one of a more complete encyclopedia. On the other hand, the process they use does have its drawbacks. Creating a draft that contains one line and one source transfers the onus of figuring out notability on the AfC reviewer, which does make life harder for them. Perhaps something like banning FA from resubmitting rejected articles may work? If FA believes that the article is notable enough, they would need to involve someone else in the process who can work on and then resubmit it. --regentspark (comment) 15:09, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

  RegentsPark, how about a restriction based on the criteria necessary to reach DYK? 1,500 characters is scarcely War And Peace, I think. Guy (help!) 15:29, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

  My only concern is that that would stop FA from contributing entirely. I don't see them as writing anything more than a few lines in an article. But, AfC is designed for evaluating reasonably coherent articles and not for one or two liners so I'm willing to support if it comes to that. --regentspark (comment) 16:36, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• Thank you for bringing this topic up Sulfurboy. This is a frustration that I have felt throughout the time I have been volunteering at AfC. Since Wikipedia is not WP:SRSBSNS, I have tried to address my own frustrations by avoiding FA's low-effort drafts, as Chris troutman has mentioned. Unfortunately, this only continues the backlog of articles at AfC. I think that RoySmith makes an important point. Despite my fustrations, FA is adding entries about notable topics (especially around state-level politicians), but two sentences does not an article make, and the sourcing can be very lacking (that is not solely a FA issue). Additionally, as RoySmith mentioned, after these proto-stubs make it to mainspace, they languish there with no additional work or changes. Should the onus be on AfC to keep these drafts in "development hell" until they are ready for mainspace, on AfD to be more particular about these articles passing the muster, or the original editor to further develop the articles that have already been accepted? Bkissin (talk) 15:26, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• Lobbing (baseless) charges of racism is a personal attack on many of our hard working editors but FA's inability or unwillingness to understand sourcing requirements and doubling down on such personal attacks makes me question their competence here. There's an argument to be made that certain subjects, especially about people of color lack the coverage we require but that is not the responsibility of reviewers to fix. Praxidicae (talk) 16:45, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• I think we need to have a broader discussion about FA's problematic and incendiary behavior. Comments like this, YOU ARE RACISTS., are absolutely uncalled for and a blatant personal attack. Perhaps focusing only on his AFC editing isn't the solution here...a clear restriction on commenting on other editors would go far since it seems to be FA's default when things don't go their way. Praxidicae (talk) 17:18, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

  Agreed. That type of behavior is not acceptable on a collaborative project. Blanket aspersion casting of that nature should be met with a block. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 18:52, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

  Praxidicae, A lot of this is getting lost in what's turned into a wall of chaos. It might need a separate header or separate ANI all together. Sulfurboy (talk) 07:13, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

  There's two distinct issues here, although it may be difficult to completely disentangle them. One is the quality of FloridaArmy's drafts. I include in this disruptive behavior such as tendentious resubmissions, and their unwillingness to accept any constructive feedback. I've already covered my stance on that adequately.

  The accusations of racism is another thing entirely. It's fine to make statements such as, discriminating against African American subjects and history is wrong (from Jimbo's talk page). I don't think anybody would argue with that. Digging a little deeper, there's an implication that wikipedia does indeed practice such discrimination. I don't have any issue with that either. I'm not sure it's true, but I certainly have no problem with the accusation as a general statement of project-wide bias.

  Statements such as,"YOU ARE RACISTS" cross the line into inappropriate. That's especially true if it's being used as a excuse for why so many of their drafts get declined. Certainly by the time you get to calling specific people liars and/or racists, you're well into WP:NPA territory. If ANI were to censure FloridaArmy in some way for those personal attacks, I'd have no problem with that. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:28, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

• As the OP who kicked this off at AfC I wish I had done more due-diligence prior. Yesterday I worked on a FA submission William Beverly Nash to acceptance and FloridaArmy's reply this was friendly, appreciative and encouraging, a side I had previously not noticed and had been overshadowed by the submissions that have generated the friction. Today I did a qualitative check (not 100% accurate as not all reviewers post the notices, or use AFCH) but this shows why from AfC point of view we all know FA... They have had more reviews than most by a factor or two, but still with a positive acceptance rate. So clearly as I think has universally been expressed FloridaArmy is a definite net positive to the project. From looking at everything said I get the feeling the problem is caused by different POVs. FloridaArmy appears to aim to create notable stubs, in the cases causing issues pushing the line of notability, which I guess is the same behaviour that caused the original issues at AfD. From the AfC side we struggle with the daily influx and the backlog that IMHO is still way too long and a disincentive to new editors. From this you can see over the same month we had 166 reviewers to the 6,313 reviews but heavily weighted to a subset of reviewers. Saying that I do still think having 68 open submissions (currently 54) and resubmission with little change or discussion because they disagree is problematic and is not good for either FloridaArmy or reviewers. I actually believe that the issues need to be addressed globally not just against FA. I don't think having so many open submissions is acceptable with the current number of active AfC reviewers; I don't think re-submitting with little change or discussion is acceptable, and certainly not when more than one reviewer has declined; I personally don't think that a single source is ever enough. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 18:53, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• I think we're here because regular AfC reviewers have a very different conception of what they should be doing than what the community has asked them to do. I don't blame AfC reviewers (exactly) for this. But I think these differing conceptions, especially with the reason FA was restricted to AfC, are where the problems creep in. The community has asked AfC to screen for articles that are, more likely than not, able to survive AfD and to screen against UPE and other forms of COI editing. AfC see itself as screening for articles that meet a certain basic quality standard and against UPE and other forms of COI editing (COI/UPE is clearly not the case with FA so I will be ignoring that for the remainder of my comments). But AfD participants, on the whole, don't care about malformed citations, bad categories, one sentence stubs and the like that bother some AfC reviewers. And it is clear that like AfD participants, FA doesn't care about those things either.
  In my experience, FA does, on the whole, create encyclopedic value. Let me repeat that in another way because I think it's an important point: English Wikipedia is made better by FA's attempts to cover topics that not been previously written about and which are, in quite a few cases, examples of systemic underrepresentation. I would love if FA were to take more care in their references. And their categories. And the other things that they do which (fairly) aggravate many gnomes and reviewers. I would have hoped after the restriction being in place this long we'd in a place where FA could have shown competency in a way that would be letting us remove or ease it rather than add to it or discuss even more drastic sanctions. But one way for FA to cause less trouble at AfC is for AfC reviewers to not expand the scope of what they screen for and instead to do what the community has asked judge whether an article more likely than not able to survive AfD. If the answer is yes approve the article. If the answer is no reject it. If the answer is yes accept it. I will probably be supporting Guy's proposal below because FA does need to step up their game, but I also felt the need, like Roy, to speak in FA's defense. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:08, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Barkeep49, if you are suggesting that AfC reviewers act as a rubber-stamp for drafts that aren't blatant COI/UPE and let AfD and Mainspace deal with the rest, then I will gladly be WP:BOLD and take that on to reduce the ongoing backlog. Just don't template me when issues arise. Bkissin (talk) 12:34, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Bkissin, no I am suggesting if it is likely to survive AfD it be accepted. I intentionally used that phrase because that's what WP:AFCPURPOSE says. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:25, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

• Just curious...why can't we just create a program for AfC that automatically rejects submissions that are less than (pick a number) in prose size and/or have no citations? That would send the work back to the article creator where it belongs and eliminate quite a bit of the backlog. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 21:56, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

  Atsme, feel free to propose this. I think the issue will be lack of consensus on the size. Regardless, FA's drafts do have citations. Just not generally good enough ones. Guy (help!) 23:34, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

  Thx, Guy - I'll start a discussion at NPP and see what happens. In the past, we've managed to get WMF to accommodate some of our needs but not without a good dose of persistence (which is right up my alley 😊). ^Atsme _Talk 📧 00:02, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

  Atsme, Ping me if you want help with any of this. I'd likely be on board and help collaborate with any applicable write-ups. Sulfurboy (talk) 07:10, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

  Atsme, I've seen (and accepted) plenty of legitimately short and unreferenced drafts. Users create WP:DAB pages as drafts. I recently accepted 1710 in India, which, as a navigation tool, would have been just fine without any references at all. I've even see redirects created as drafts (current example: Draft:Monosuit, which I would have just WP:IAR accepted instead of bothering to kick it back with a template). -- RoySmith (talk) 15:18, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

  RoySmith keep up the good work! What I'm proposing would not have any effect on non-article pages, such as dabs, lists, categories, templates, TP, redirects, etc. - only articles such as Ōizumi Observatory which was created in 2005, and never expanded beyond 69 words. See what I proposed at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers#Potential proposal for AfC which involves a bit of coding that tells the editor at the point of submission (save) what more is needed before it can be saved. Of course, that is what we're working on now, and how best to approach it but the goal is to design instructional coding that will inspire the stubee creator to actually submit a better stub. We don't need thousands of ideas coming at us in the form of 50 word unsourced stubs when we've got huge backlogs in AfC and NPP. The submission modification can be something as simple as an error message like you get when filling out a form and you forget to include your address or phone number, or you entered an invalid email address, etc. I'm simplifying here but it's along those lines - maybe a JS or Lua script can handle it. I'm not a programmer, but I have summoned a few to review my proposal. We did manage to get curation tools from WMF, so hopefully, we can inspire them to work with us again to help reduce our backlogs so we can actually focus on expanding and improving the thousands of articles that are calling to us for CE and updates. Happy editing! ^Atsme _Talk 📧 19:16, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

• Forgive me if I don't reply to every proposal below, because there is far too much in this thread to know the best place for this comment. It boils down to AfC reviewers exceeding their authority and declining articles that would almost certainly be kept at AfD. This is all part of a larger problem where people who spend all their time marking other people's work rather than doing any themselves seem to be listened to more on our drama pages than the people who actually create the content that is the lifeblood of Wikipedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:23, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Phil Bridger if you believe this is because "AfC reviewers exceeding their authority" you are in a position to solve this whole issue and make everyone happy! Just sign up at WT:AFCP and then go to Template:AFC statistics/pending order by User and accept all of FAs articles, as apparently not doing so is "exceeding their authority". You will make FA very happy, and the AFC reviewers very happy. And BTW we don't "spend all their time marking other people's work" most of us spend a lot of time researching and improving drafts so we can accept them, and also work outside AfC. Many of us have spent many hours improving FAs articles before accepting them. New users are forced to use AfC so we need reviewers to accept these articles that "actually create the content that is the lifeblood". Although I would disagree that just creating new content is "the lifeblood of Wikipedia", now we have 6+Million articles, stopping spam, promotion, dross, unsourced content, vandalism is as equally important as new content. But in all seriousness to you and any other of similar minded editor please please join AfC and accept as much as you can. We desperately need as many good editors as possible to accept as much as possible, and the less the backlog gets the more time we all get to work on submissions. KylieTastic (talk) 21:56, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Proposal

FloridaArmy is advised that new articles submitted via AfC should aim to meet the minimum length criteria at WP:DYK, i.e. 1,500 characters of prose (ignoring infoboxes, categories, references, lists, and tables etc.), and should contain sufficient reliable independent sources to establish notability per the general notability guideline. FloridaArmy is encouraged to work on drafts in his sandbox until they are ready for submission.

• Support as proposer. In short, they should establish the answer to the simple question: why should we care? Guy (help!) 15:39, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support great idea. I'm all for inclusion but I'm an immediatist, first. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:20, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose all sanctions at this juncture, as there is clearly more to this than meets the eye: FloridaArmy's claim that Draft:Lee Myxter was erroneously rejected caught my eye, and, indeed, it was wholly inappropriate for User:Ahecht to decline the submission as not meeting WP:NPOL (Draft:Lee Myxter), when that guideline explicitly states that politicians...who have held...state/province–wide office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels are deemed notable. Now, AfC reviewing is a hard, and probably occasionally thankless task, but it literally is not helping itself by refusing notable topics: not only does it foment bad feeling, but it adds to the work of the next reviewer. In short, although clearly FA's articles aren't always 100% up to scratch—whose are at the beginning?—they are not, I suspect, all as poor as it is being suggested. And until we see some pretty black and white data, I feel sanctions would be inappropriate. ——Serial ^# 16:30, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
  In fact, in the spirit of data mining, the history of FA's talk page is revealing: since 10 February this year (the last 1000 edits to the page), they have had 223 articles accepted through AfC and 231 declined. ——Serial ^# 16:48, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

  With respect @Serial Number 54129: you looked at the details, however the top of WP:NPOL clearly indicates A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. something which this stub did not meet when you Promoted it to mainspace. I question your judgement with respect to this draft and suggest that you return it back to Draft space for additional work. Hasteur (talk) 17:10, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

  The article clearly meets NPOL. And, Serial is autopatrolled, anyone who disagrees should try AFD, instead of asking for redraftification. Usedtobecool ☎️ 17:26, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

  So in a completely non-POINTy way, the article is now up for deletion :D ——Serial ^# 17:44, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

  Maybe I should've have cited WP:NPOL, but a quick search for significant non-routine coverage showed that this person completely failed to meet WP:BASIC, and per the top of the section that includes NPOL: meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included. --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 17:56, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. If we want a general sitewide restriction on articles not meeting these parameters, let's have one, but we should not require one editor to provide more than is required of others for a draft to be moved to mainspace. BD2412 T 17:05, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support Completely reasonable asks that hits all the marks of concern. Neutral, see second proposal. Sulfurboy (talk) 17:07, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• Neutral As written this is a higher bar than we set for other AFC submissions. The ruberic has always been (at least as far as I know) "Excluding policy reasons why, a draft must have at least a 50% chance of surviving a AFD discussion". Hold FA to that standard. in WP:AFC we have an informal practice of "If the same draft is submitted 3 times without correcting the defects, it may be taken to MFD for failure to support the purpose of Draft Space/AFC while pointing out contributing reasons for why this page wouldn't survive if it were in mainspace". Our standards and practices work, we just have to enforce them. Hasteur (talk) 17:15, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose The only purpose given to AFC is to make sure the article demonstrates why it is notable and deserves to be on mainspace before it gets to be included. This is helpful for inexperienced users who might be writing about a notable topic but fail to explicitly establish exactly why the topic is Wikipedia notable such as is convention here. For editors familiar with SNGs and AFDs, the AFC minimum should be no more than one sentence stub establishinng which SNG is met, and one source verifying the claim. Draftspace articles aren't automatically submitted by virtue of residing in that namespace, so the point about the sandbox makes no sense. Usedtobecool ☎️ 17:42, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per my comments above. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:53, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose There are no minimum length criteria requirements for any editor to create any content, so imposing an arbitrary length for one editor is overkill. There are plenty of worse articles being saved into the main article space every single hour. Examples include this and this. The latter being created by an editor who has been here for 15 years! Topic ban from AfC might be an option, but a better one would be for someone to mentor FA. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:58, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• Neutral as I think such a requirement is really only fair if applied to all, and clearly many articles are created in main-space that do not meet this reasonable condition. Make this a requirement for all and I 100% support KylieTastic (talk) 19:01, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - this would be significantly more onerous than required. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:45, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - Any reviewer who doesn't want to deal with these sub-stubs can decline them or ignore them. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:34, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - someone starting articles is a good thing, perhaps we should suggest that they request articles? I'm sure WiR would welcome any list of suggested articles of women. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 07:41, 4 June 2020 (UTC).
  

Resolution

Here's a small sampling of articles created by User:Lugnuts today.

• Werner von Foerster
• Horacio Monti
• Lars Lundström
• François Chapot
• Martin Sharp (sailor)
• Frank Murdoch
• Franklin Woodroffe

Contrast these with the articles I'm having rejected:

• Draft:Frank Opperman (actor)
• Draft:Fred Hornby
• Draft:Jana Lund
• Draft:Lee Myxter, erroneously rejected today for not meeting Politician inclusion criteria.

There is a problem. Notable artice subjects I start are being blocked by editors not respecting our inclusion criteria in an improper amd abusive fashion.

All of these would survive as Snow Keeps at AfD. The solution is to remove the requirement I use AfC and to restore my ability to participate at AfD. The entries I create are better sourced and more notable than the vast majority of what's being added to Wikipedia. I comply with all of our editing rules. And the abusive obstruction, harassment, and interference with my good editing work needs to stop.

Every single entry discussed in this convo is notable and belongs in mainspace. It's a travesty that several editors want to obstuct the inclusion of additions on underrepresented subjects such as a traditional dish of Cameroonian cuisine or the military school that the long serving president of Suriname went to in the Netherlands, but improperly and unevenly applied rules should no longer be used to create problems for me or the AfC reviewers who should be able to return their focus to the spam and advertising that proliferate in their area of wikispace. FloridaArmy (talk) 16:05, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

FloridaArmy, Some people seem to think that Wikipedia is a directory of Olympians and that competing in the Olympics confers automatic notability. They have chosen not to change WP:NOT to support this but that's what they think. Guy (help!) 16:08, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

"but that's what they think" - Sounds very much like a threat/personal attack. Maybe you'd care to elaborate? Please be WP:CIVIL. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:16, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

How does that sound like a threat? A mild personal attack maybe, but there's no threat there at all. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 18:47, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• I'd like to reiterate my comment on the AFC page applauding FloridaArmy's good work on pages on our long list of drafts for missing state supreme court justices. Cheers! BD2412 T 16:21, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• @FloridaArmy: Please refer to "What about...." and WP:NOTTHEM. Your actions and behavior are at discussion here. Hasteur (talk) 17:04, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Although, of course, pointing out inconsistency of application is perfectly accepatble. ——Serial ^# 17:18, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Purely as an example, I can't see much wrong with the decision to turn down the draft at Frank Opperman (actor). This was a straightforward WP:GNG issue as articles have to be properly sourced.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:07, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

As is noted right at the top of that entry he clearly meets criteria 1 and 3 of WP:NACTOR. FloridaArmy (talk) 18:27, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

If I looked just at the article, how would I know that? NACTOR #1 - significant roles in multiple notable films. The second part, that's covered but the second part? It's not. If he was a co-star on any of those film, adding a text blurb would EASILY have helped demonstrate that. A list of films and roles doesn't help with that first part, a blurb that mentions those significant roles would make that check easy. NACTOR #3 is unique, prolific or innovative contributions - I'm guessing you're saying the length of his career covers prolific. Probably, but without any context on the roles they played, if they had lots of bit parts / background roles, I'd really question if that meets #3. Ravensfire (talk) 18:34, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

You would know because the article states per Motography that he "had a 29 year career on stage and a 7 year film career" as of 1916, lists 54 films he was in including his credited roles in most of them, and links to the existing Wikipedia articles for the vast majority of the films. FloridaArmy (talk)`

You do realize uncredited roles don't count toward notability, right? As an example, more than half of the films you claim make him notable are uncredited. The Unchanging Sea uncredited, The Hero of Little Italy uncredited, Fatty's New Role uncredited, The House of Darknessuncredited and the list goes on. Unless there is some special N criteria for actors pre-1950, I fail to see how this fulfills at least "significant roles" Praxidicae (talk) 18:56, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I said "including his credited roles". So yes, I understand that credited roles matter. Of coutse we don't yet have article for most early silent films, so having credited roles in at least a couple dozen and uncredited roles in dozens more stil qualifies per our notability guidelines. The article would be a slam dunk keep at AFD. If you disagree try taking it there and prove me wrong. Good luck. You'll need it. FloridaArmy (talk) 19:16, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Good luck. You'll need it. incendiary comments like this are unnecessary. Might I suggest you start actually reflecting on criticism instead of just being combative? Praxidicae (talk) 19:19, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Frank Opperman looks like he would be suitable for an IMDb entry or similar, but the bar is set higher for biographies on Wikipedia. We don't get to know much about him beyond listing the films that he appeared in.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:31, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

If anyone wanted a preview of the hostility that AfC reviewers are regularly met with by FlordiaArmy here you go. This is actually pretty tame compared to some instances. Sulfurboy (talk) 19:34, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

"incendiary", "combative", "hostility"? Sorry, I'm not seeing it in the words that are there on the screen. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 12:47, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Andreas Philopater, according to FloridaArmy, those who do not accept his drafts are "bigots" and those who describe them as less than blindingly obviously notable are "liars". Guy (help!) 14:37, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Proposal #2

Limit the number of pending drafts by FA in AfC to 20.

Looks like there's some kickback from the suggestion of length requirements which I will be switching my vote to neutral to in light of this alternate proposal I'm going to suggest. To me, the simplest solution is to limit the amount of pending drafts FA can have in the AfC process. Pending defined as actively waiting for review, this would not include declined drafts that haven't been resubmitted.

The purpose is two fold: 1) To help lessen the strain on AfC reviewers. 2) To encourage FA to put additional work into the currently pending drafts. As a note, while the backlog says 5+ weeks, the vast majority of articles are reviewed in a matter of days, so it's not as if those 20 would languish for weeks. The ones that make it to the back are typically ones that would require insight from an SME or native language speaker, neither of which would apply to any FA articles that I've seen.

1. Support As proposer. Sulfurboy (talk) 19:59, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

   While this might help them from overwhelming the queue it won't solve any underlying issues with FA's articles that causes them to get declined in the first place. I am sympathetic to the idea of not overwhelming AfC but I would much rather try to nudge FA towards having a higher success rater than just limiting them. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:32, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

   I would absolutely endorse that approach. I would hope that persuading FlordiaArmy to move in the direction of writing longer, more detailed articles with more comprehensive sourcing would genuinely be positive for them and for us all. FloridaArmy would certainly see their article rejection rate decline dramatically and I would suspect they would also find their articles would be reviewed more quickly and with more enthusiasm by the AFC volunteers. We need to look after not only our content creators like FloridaArmy, but equally, we need to look after our AFC reviewers and frequent AfC users like FloridaArmy have an important role to play in that. Nick (talk) 21:05, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

   Thanks Nick for saying we need to look after our AFC reviewers and frequent AfC users like FloridaArmy have an important role to play in that. That is absolutely true and not a sentiment I adequately have expressed in this thread yet. Best, Barkeep49 (talk)

2. Weak Oppose - The reviewers can deal with a backlog by ignoring it. Too many drafts do not do any harm if ignored. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:37, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

   Sorry Robert McClenon I think there is harm - letting the backlog grow and ignoring issues means new editors can have acceptable articles not get reviewed till they hit the end of the queue in weeks or months. Yes we catch most in the first couple of days, but if missed you wait and it's a huge discouragement too those editors. KylieTastic (talk) 08:47, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

3. I think this just moves the queue. Each time a draft is rejected or accepted, FA will simply move the next in. Now there's 20 articles in AFC and another 40 or 50 or whatever waiting to be in AFC. It also seems like it would be difficult to track, so you would need to get buyin from FA. --Izno (talk) 19:33, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

   That's the point Izno is every time a slot gets freed up and they have 40 waiting a submitter will pick the most likely to be accepted, not just resubmit one that's been declined with not much change. KylieTastic (talk) 08:47, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

   That doesn't follow. I expect the user won't care. If he does, it will simply end up the case that he cycles through his whole queue on his side until all he's got in the AFC queue are the "bad" ones. Then AFC still has 20 "bad" articles to deal with. It you want to make this rule and have it be effective, you limit him to one draft in AFC at any time. I'm still skeptical as to the utility. --Izno (talk) 13:11, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

4. Support but only if it applies to all submitters. It stops overwhelming AfC; It encourages submitters to put their best article through first; It encourages submitters to try to improve (better sources; clearer indication of the content that supports notability) before resubmitting a declined article. KylieTastic (talk) 21:04, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
5. Support as general restriction only. Everything more is just disruptive spam.Lurking shadow (talk) 13:33, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
6. Support Clearly, FloridaArmy can write decent articles; let him decide to focus his efforts on the twenty that might get accepted. There's no reason AfC's queue should be burdened. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:09, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Proposal #3

Accept that FloridaArmy is what he is and move on.

1. Support as proposer. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:13, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
2. oppose ,m because it's pissing people off. Wikipedia is not therapy, and obsessives doing the right thing in the wrong way cause drama. Guy (help!) 23:30, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
3. Oppose because blanket accusations of racism are not okay. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 03:04, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
4. Oppose FloridaArmy needs to accept two things here. Firstly, some of the articles for creation were turned down because of good faith WP:GNG decisions. They just weren't sourced properly and did not establish the subject's notability, which is a key requirement of GNG. Secondly, repeated accusations of racism amount to a failure to assume good faith. The users doing the articles for creation reviews are trying their best, and should not be accused of acting in bad faith without very clear evidence.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 04:48, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
5. Support I would rather have FloridaArmy contributing stubs than not contributing stubs. They are a net positive even if annoying. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:32, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
6. Support They did have a draft incorrectly declined immediately before this occurred, so I'm willing to WP:AGF. SportingFlyer T·C 07:42, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
7. Oppose because the current way of running is clearly causing FA as much stress/negativity as it is to the AfC reviewers. KylieTastic (talk) 08:52, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
8. Support as he is a net positive, but needs to avoid casting aspersions, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:17, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
9. Support Agree he is a net positive. I would also remove his AFC restriction because the problems with his articles aren't usually ones that AFC is well suited to deal with. (Bad formatting etc. should not be an AFC concern, and nuanced notability issues are better suited for AFD rather than a single AFC reviewer.) Calliopejen1 (talk) 04:35, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
10. Oppose per KylieTastic. I don't think AfC volunteers have to let FloridaArmy be a pain in the ass. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:11, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Proposal #4

Recognize that User:FloridaArmy presents two overlapping issues that should be dealt with separately. The first is the submission of low-quality stubs, a content issue. The second is civility violations and failures to assume good faith by reviewers, a conduct issue. Accept that sanctions will not deal with the content issue and move on. Issue a formal warning that conduct will require escalating blocks, 1 day, 2 days, 4 days, 1 week.

1. Support as proposer. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:32, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

• Request Please provide examples of these supposed low quality stubs. FloridaArmy (talk) 16:37, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose This proposal is flawed. Guy has repeatedly lied about my conduct and comments, and I see he recently did so again. I do not create single sentence stubs and I absolutely continue improving LOTS of articles that are in mainspace, mine and others. Lying about my work is a civility violation and he's done so repeatedly. [User:JzG]]'s conduct should result in his being blocked.
• That there is bigotry on Wikipedia is obvious from the resistance to including subjects on African Americans, the African diaspora, and African American history. These are the EXACT article subjects identified as problematic. user:sulfurboy hates these subjects so much is so opposed to including these subjects he dragged one of them to AfD after another editor approved it. Oberlin Seminary was also high drama. What do all these subjects have in common? They involve African Americans. I know it's upsetting to have Wikipedia's bigotry and editor bias pointed out, but we must do better. Sanctioning those trying to address the situation is a step in the wrong direction and only proves to illustrate Wikipedia's hateful intolerance that excludes these subjects. FloridaArmy (talk) 16:44, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

  @FloridaArmy: This would be a shame, but I'm going to short circuit this discussion by blocking you indefinitely if you say something along the lines of "user:sulfurboy hates these subjects so much he dragged one of them to AfD after another editor approved it. Oberlin Seminary was also high drama. What do all these subjects have in common? They involve Africam Americans" again. If you're making general comments that Wikipedia has a bigotry and institutional racism problem, I'd probably use different words, but would generally agree. If you're repeatedly singling out specific editors as racists with insufficient evidence (hint: no one is agreeing with you that they are racists) then you're going to be removed from the site. That would be a crazy result, but it's in your hands not mine. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:57, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

You're absolutely right User:Floquenbeam, no one acknowledges racism. They just can't stand including subjects related to African Americans, the African American disapora, and Africa. I am clearly at fault for daring to create articles on these notable subjects and then objecting when they are excluded. I should just go along with excluding anything to do with Black people. My life would be so much easier on Wikipedia. FloridaArmy (talk) 17:08, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

You're putting words in my mouth, and this kind of passive aggressive statement is not going to be helpful. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:18, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

• Floquenbeam, Again? How many times do we have to be openly accused of racism and bigotry without a single shred of evidence? Everyone seems to be so hesitant about doing something that would discourage FA from editing further that direct personal attacks in an ANI are just getting a stern warning?

  If this was a new user they would have been immediately banned and this comment would have been removed. I shouldn't have my reputation dragged through the mud for zero reason.

  I challenge any person to show any instance that I've ever, in 60k some odd edits, ever, EVER showed even an inkling of prejudice or racism.

  I challenge you to find another editor that even remotely feels this way about me. I completely and 100% open myself up to WP:BOOMERANG, because I'm 100% positive you won't find anyone that agrees with Florida army that I'm a bigot or racist.

  Why does no one seem to be worried about the chilling effect this will have on the AfC process and how much it might turn off people from wanting to participate in it? I shouldn't have to worry about wanton personal attacks at every turn. Sulfurboy (talk) 17:12, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

  While you may think that a final warning is too lenient, I don't understand why you think a final warning shows I'm not worried about this. If they've been given a final warning previously, talk to the admin who gave it and ask them to act. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:18, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

  Floquenbeam, You're right, and I apologize for letting my frustration get the best of me. My intent wasn't to attack your decision process. Just understand that it's incredibly frustrating to have my reputation sullied without merit. I think I'm just going to take a backseat to this whole thing since it's got me pretty clearly riled up. Cheers Sulfurboy (talk) 18:24, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

  and you are 2% short of 60K edits. Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 13:47, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• Suggestion - I suggest that an uninvolved administrator give User:FloridaArmy a one-week block so that other editors can address serious content and conduct issues without being distracted. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:26, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I would oppose such a block. It would play into the narrative of persecution, and I think we can get where we need to go without it. BD2412 T 19:33, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I would also oppose such a block, along with this proposal. SportingFlyer T·C 07:43, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

A Policy Issue

There is a policy issue that needs to be discussed, possibly at the Village Pump, having to do with people who pass a test for ipso facto notability, but about whom there is not enough information for a good stub. Most of the special notability guidelines for people are weasel-worded to say that people meeting the test are presumed notable. Both the political notability guidelines and the lengthy sports notability guidelines are worded in such a fashion. This ambiguity is sometimes hashed out twice for association football players, once at AFD and then again at Deletion Review. The stubs submitted by User:FloridaArmy are about people who are presumed notable. Some editors, including myself, prefer almost always to have the clarity of saying that a person who passes the threshold is notable. Other editors say that the presumption of notability only means that one should try to find the sources.

So there definitely is a policy reason for declining the stubs in question, some of which are corner cases. The fact that there is a policy issue is yet another reason why it is irresponsible to cast aspersions about racism.

Perhaps there should be a discussion at VPP. That would certainly be more useful than just yelling racism. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:59, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, There's another issue. For somebody alive today, especially somebody with a paid PR agent, there's going to be tons of information available about them. Most of it will be crap, but there will usually be enough to get you past some silly SNG. Somebody who was, say, a struggling two-bit silent actor getting uncredited movie roles, isn't going to have the same collection of blog posts, on-line movie reviews, web sites, and all the other gigbytes of google-indexed ephemera they would have today. So, holding the two of them to the same standard is just absurd. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:31, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, User:RoySmith. I have more thoughts on the policy issue, but this is a conduct forum. (Meaning we can discuss at VPP or a WT page.) Robert McClenon (talk) 01:21, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

There need to be fresh guidelines in this area, although the existing ones are already clear. The guidelines should make clear that sometimes African Americans or important academics may not have enough sourcing to meet WP:GNG, but that does not means that they are non-notable or that Wikipedia does not care about them. The mainstream media has also repeated this myth. Also, anyone who takes part in the AfC process should be told that if a request is turned down, WP:ASPERSIONS are unacceptable.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:31, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

@Ianmacm, RoySmith, and Robert McClenon: I have started a discussion at VPP related to the comments in this section. Mysterious Whisper (talk) 23:14, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

There's no admin issue here

Nobody is asking for a block. This is about how the AfC community wants to deal with a burdensome but valued editor. Why is it not being discussed there instead of at AN/I? Dicklyon (talk) 04:52, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

If there is an admin issue, it's a million characters ↑ thataway. I've lost track but it's more about stubs/article creation. I opened a discussion suggesting a potential workaround at Wikipedia_talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers#Potential proposal for AfC if anyone is interested. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 16:55, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

‎Pyxis Solitary's reverts and attacks

This report concerns the editor ‎Pyxis Solitary (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and the article The Haunting of Hill House (TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). I split the article to make the distinct separation between the first and second seasons. As the articles stood, there was only an article for the parent series and the second season, as, yes, Bly Manor is a second season and not a sequel series, as determined by reliable sources and past discussions. The split therefore separated these seasons and made content clearer. The article was split with the correct attribution and thus was acceptable and allowable per Wikipedia policy, and not every split requires a discussion to go ahead.

This split was reverted[1] without reason, prompting me to start a discussion at the article's talk page, after which I was egregiously attacked and sworn at twice [2][3], where they then directly edited my user page[4]. Previous behaviour of this example can be see at Talk:The Haunting of Hill House (TV series). How am I to discuss the content at hand, when the reverting editor will not discuss in a civil manner at all and is fixated on being as egregiously insulting as possible? -- /Alex/₂₁ 05:31, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• This split was reverted without reason. Really? The summary states: "Where in the Talk page is there a discussion to make this change? The display of WP:OWNership entitlement towards this article is appalling."
• User:Alex 21 made a major change to this article in February 2019 when he moved it, which afterwards resulted in the move being reverted after objections to the move.
• He took it upon himself, twice, to appropriate my latest talk page comment by merging it into his topic: 1., 2.. So, yes, "Who the fuck do you think you are to appropriate my comment?" was a gut-reaction to what I consider a violation of my right to decide what I write, when I write it, and where I write it. And the second time I undid his unauthorized grab I wrote: "I did not and do not give you permission to merge my comment. I specifically posted it as a separate comment."
• Btw, this is the comment I posted @ 05:30, 2 June 2020 in his User page by error, warning him about ANI if he appropriated any comment by me again. He then ran here one minute later to create this complaint. I re-posted my ANI warning in his talk page, and he deleted it. I've dealt with 'cheers' editors before. Their affections of politeness contradict their contempt for the contributions of other editors to this project. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 06:35, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

  That is not a reason for the revert. You have not given a guideline or policy reason for your revert. In fact, WP:OWNBEHAVIOR actually states An editor reverts a good-faith change without providing an edit summary that refers to relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines, previous reviews and discussions, reliable sources, or specific grammar or prose problems introduced by the edit. Furthermore, it even states An editor reverts a change simply because the editor finds it "unnecessary" without claiming that the change is detrimental. This has the effect of assigning priority, between two equivalent versions, to an owner's version. I see this in your revert of my edits, which now even has editorial support.

  Have I since proposed to continue the discussion of the article move from over a year ago? No. That's a dead topic, please find material relevant to this discussion. It'd be great if you could supply a reason.

  The two talk page sections concern the same topic, and I believe the only reason you have created your own topic instead of replying to me is 1) out of spite, and 2) so that you do not have to directly reply to me, which, again, you have not yet done. It is clear that the editor has no intention to reply, only to edit-war and revert, and to not be civil in the faintest. They have admitted that they were deliberately incivil, a clear violation of the WP:PA policy. Unacceptable.

  I was already in the middle of creation this report when you edited my user page without permission. Do you really think I wrote all of this in a single minute? No. Now, either reply to the discussion at hand, or admit that you have no intention to do so and recind your personal attacks and apologize for them. Refusing to do so will be your admittance that you have no intention to edit collaboratively. -- /Alex/₂₁ 06:41, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

  Note that the reported editor did respond on the talk page[5], but only to discuss conduct instead of content. This furthers the stance that they have no intention to discuss the article's content, only to revert it, further supporting the creation of this report. -- /Alex/₂₁ 06:50, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• WP:BOLD should not be used as a weapon: 06:55, 2 June 2020.
  The consequence from the previous lack of WP:CONS should have been the clue for what path to follow: 07:03, 2 June 2020. 'nuff said. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 07:27, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

  None of this excuses your behaviour. You had zero reason to be so hostile in the face of a bold edit. Revert civilly, discuss civilly, come to a consensus. That is the behaviour of a collaborative editor. The previous discussions discussed the title of the article, not the season articles; they are irrelevant. And this[6]? Further proof that they are only here for a battleground behaviour. How am I meant to gain a consensus and seek discussion, if they refuse to discuss? Administration action is clearly required here. -- /Alex/₂₁ 08:13, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• Pyxis' revert of a major BOLD edit and insistence on consensus seems entirely justified. What slight incivility there is has gotten nowhere close to sanctionable from either party, and you have successfully avoided any edit warring, so - keep it to the talk page, ask for a third opinion if you two get stuck, notify related Wikiprojects, open an RfC... any of that before kicking up a storm here over what seems like a reasonable if hotly worded content dispute. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:27, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

  I agree that their revert was justified, hence why I have not reverted. What I completely disagree on is the "slight incivility". Let's take a look at the actions from the reported editor that have unfolded:

  • [7]: an unbased OWN accusation.
  • [8]: another unbased OWN accusation, and an accusation of a "one-finger salute", no attempt at assuming good faith.
  • [9]: sworn at.
  • [10]: editing my personal user page without reason.
  • [11]: threatening to take me to ANI over the addition of an indent to a talk page comment.
  • [12]: accusation of "running here" and told that I have nothing but contempt for editors; again, failure to AGF.
  • [13]: my edits are "snake oil"?
  • [14]: Quote - "you're here for a one-track-mind self gratification, not collaboration". Even less AGF.
  • [15]: Repeating herself as if talking to a child. I especially like this last one - they repeated "seek consensus" while doing everything she should to not participate in the consensus-gaining procedure.

  Do you also see what all of these diffs do not include? Any sort of attempt to actually discuss the content. All of these edits, and not a single response that actually concerns the content. How am I meant to gain a consensus and seek discussion, if they refuse to discuss? keep it to the talk page, ask for a third opinion if you two get stuck? I've kept it to the talk page, and how we can we stuck if she refuses to respond? In anyone's next reply, can you please answer that? These three diffs [16][17][18] is what it looks like to actually discuss the content. -- /Alex/₂₁ 23:17, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• Wow. What a meltdown. Is there anything I posted that I, myself, have not already linked in my comments here? Do you assume that an editor who's read a comment has not also checked the diffs and linked quotes included in it? And, good lord, you've also diff-linked what has been posted here. By the way, I did not write that your "edits are 'snake oil'." When you indulge in parsing iotas you need to refrain from putting a spin to what was written, because what I wrote is →: "There is nothing 'civil' about appropriating another editor's comment: 1x, 2x. You do not have the right to decide what an editor writes, where, and why. Suffice it to say: I'm not buying your snake oil." I'll translate it for you: after your repeated appropriation of my comment I don't believe anything you have to say about civility. And this latest tinkering with the talk page comments is absurd. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 01:31, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

  The entire point of a report at ANI is to provide diffs. We should not be taking other editor's actions here for granted; if diffs are needed, they then are provided. Is there a reason as to why you don't think I should be providing these diffs from you?

  Your actual quote at this edit[19] was Suffice it to say: I'm not buying your snake oil. Pray tell, if you weren't talking about my edits, what were you talking about? My contributions? My discussions? If it was something about me, my point remains.

  All of this, and you still won't actually discuss the topic at hand. Even when a consensus is starting to become clearer with other editors, you point[20] to an outdated RM (which did not have the consensus you thought), as if consensus's cannot be updated. -- /Alex/₂₁ 08:15, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

• "Your actual quote at this edit...." Okay. This is all becoming very odd and should concern others who read your comment. I linked and quoted what I said in full, and your response is to re-quote part of it and link the same diff, as if what I quoted and linked was not exactly the same. Bizarre behavior is a red flag for me ... and I'm outta here. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 11:27, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

  Okay, and? Explain the meaning behind it. Explain the meaning behind all of the diffs linked above. Or discuss the actual content. If you're "outta here", is that saying that you have no intention of contributing towards the current discussion(s) and forming consensus? Did you ever? -- /Alex/₂₁ 11:53, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

  I agree with Elmidae that whatever mistakes were made, there doesn't seem to be anything warranting attention at ANI. Two things that really struck out from the summary were.

  1) the modifying my user page one. But when I check the diff I find it's clearly just a mistaken post to the user page instead of the talk page. It happens people visit a user page and forget or get confused and probably especially when people don't use the new section option to made new threads they post in the wrong place, if you're lazy or whatever, just revert and move on. Or better, revert with a note you're moving it to your talk page and do so and reply as needed. I mean even if it didn't occur to you that's what happened, Pyxis Solitary already noted that's what happened then in their edit summary when they re-posted on your talk page [21] which you should have noticed when reverting them [22] all of which happened before your follow up here [23]. So I'm not sure why on you would choose to continue to highlight an obvious mistaken post to the user page instead of your talk page as "editing my personal user page without reason".

  2) the swearing at you bit. Looking into it, it seems to me that Pyxis Solitary overreacted but it was a bit of a mess. Merging related threads is a well accepted practice. And AFAICT, the only modification of their comments was changing the indentation and remove the heading. [24] Per WP:SECTIONHEADINGOWN section headings don't really belong to anyone so it's generally acceptable to modify them although caution is urged when it's likely to be controversial. But modifying indentation is more problematic. While fixing indentation levels is allowed, the problem is you need to make sure you're actually fixing not modifying. If someone is at 2 levels and there are no other replies and someone else replies at 4 levels, that's likely to be a fair fix. If someone is at 2 levels and someone else replies at 2 levels below them, fixing that is risky since it may be the 2 levels is intentional as they are mostly replying to level 1. In this case, it seems that Pyxis Solitary chose to ignore your existing comment so weren't replying to it, so I can understand some frustration with the way you modified their comment so it appeared to be a reply to your comment. Probably the best solution in this case was instead of a pure merge, you could have kept the separate section heading but made it a subthread i.e. a 3rd level heading which is often the better solution and what our guideline suggests anyway.

  In any case, since Pyxis Solitary is clearly unhappy over it, it's best to just let it stand. I suggest you both keep discussing under one of the sections headings, and use WP:Dispute resolution as necessary. And try to keep the personal stuff over who did what wrong on the article talk page down to a minimum.

  Nil Einne (talk) 13:06, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

  Pyxis just seems to have an issue with any sort of modification, even when I merged the sections, didn't touch her reply or her header at all, but kept her reply as a level 1 reply[25], calling it "absurd"[26]. There's no sense to the madness, unfortunately.

  So, cutting a long story short, the demand to gain a consensus and then the refusal to discuss the content is acceptable? I'm still waiting for someone to tell me how to discuss content with an editor who refuses to discuss said content. -- /Alex/₂₁ 13:08, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

  And now they have made another comment[27] that an unrelated editor deemed to be racist[28], and I completely agree with them. How long can this behaviour continue? -- /Alex/₂₁ 23:17, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oh. So I'm racist now? Your grasping at straws for anything that can stick is getting old. But ... maybe an admin with time on his/her hands might glance at the 2019 discussions, look into the IP addresses, and see where the crumbs lead. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 08:11, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

  I didn't call you racist initially. That was an unrelated editor. Best to be careful of that boomerang. I thought you were done? Or "outta here"? -- /Alex/₂₁ 09:46, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• @Elmidae:, @Nil Einne: I'm pinging you because you've responded to this ANI.  Alex 21 is now making accusations of canvassing. My responses: 07:28, 21:04  He has also deleted my replies to being accused of "racism" (one was to another editor's "Now is hardly the best time to start being racist.", the other was to his "Please try to keep your internalized racism to yourself..."). My stance may be cocky, but the wordage I used in the second is Aussie slang and not "abusive, defamatory, or derogatory". "No wuckas" is slang for "no worries" and "Bruce" is slang for "man".
  This behavior by Alex 21 is becoming harassment. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 22:15, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

  DIscuss the actual content. It's really not that hard. Or did you never have any intention to discuss the content after you reverted my edits? Funny how you refuse to answer this and keep deflecting.

  By the way, you forgot to actually link the diff to your racist comment[29]. -- /Alex/₂₁ 23:29, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

  You don't seem to understand what racism means. Stop calling it racist. "Racist" actually means something important, and using it as a gimmick is deeply uncool. My gut tells me we'd be better off if you were both blocked as being more interested in feuding than collaboratively editing, but my gut is sometimes wrong, and I don't have the stomach to see who "started it", and whether someone is behaving incrementally worse. But after just a cursory 60 second review, I'd be willing to wager that the admin who does eventually wade into this finds that you're both at fault. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:47, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

  I've asked the reported editor to discuss the content multiple times, because I'm interested in collaboratively editing after they reverted my major edit and told me to discuss it, but I've yet to see an actual reply by them on the topic at hand. That makes me think that they didn't intend to in the first place. So, as I think I've said for (at least) the third time during this discussion: I'm still waiting for someone to tell me how to discuss content with an editor who refuses to discuss said content? How am I meant to gain a consensus and seek discussion, if they refuse to discuss? -- /Alex/₂₁ 23:56, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Alex 21 deleted my comments again after I restored them: 23:23, 4 June 2020. This is both WP:BATTLEGROUND and vandalism. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 03:02, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

• FYI: Article talk page discussion, as of 23:28, 4 June 2020. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 03:02, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

  Do you, or do you not, have any intention of actually discussing the content at hand? Or, at the very least, ceasing the PA's, of which I am one or two editors in concern? -- /Alex/₂₁ 09:58, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

• I think this and this are Pyxis Solitary losing her temper. She was provoked, but she reacted more strongly than she should have done. Apart from this instance, I haven't yet identified anything that I would personally see as overly uncivil. I think Alex21 strongly dislikes being reverted and sees it as a highly confrontational thing to do. Recommendation: (1) Apply the waggy finger and frowny face of mild administorial disapproval to Pyxis Solitary for going a bit over the line on one occasion; and (2) Offer support and direction to Alex21 on how not to overreact to being reverted.—S Marshall T/C 15:53, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Possible IP range block needed

Posting here since the disruption documented below only trickles in a small amount each time. The following IPv6 addresses are listed in descending order beginning with the most recent.

• 2605:A601:ADCB:F300:71A7:C1B3:6354:5DF7 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2605:A601:ADCB:F300:85E8:778D:3F32:6B00 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2605:A601:ADCB:F300:EDFD:DC37:4E71:3A95 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2605:A601:ADCB:F300:8D4A:C03E:FFB4:107D (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2605:A601:ADCB:F300:54B2:BB90:4871:6FC4 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2605:A601:ADCB:F300:8D3F:6F4C:8D34:9FA9 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Warnings here:

• User talk:2605:A601:ADCB:F300:8D4A:C03E:FFB4:107D (Level 1)
• User talk:2605:A601:ADCB:F300:85E8:778D:3F32:6B00 (Levels 1-3)
• User talk:2605:A601:ADCB:F300:71A7:C1B3:6354:5DF7 (Level 4)

Violation after last warning:

• diff1

In some cases, it may appear to be a content dispute, but this editor has a repeatedly inserted incorrect information or messed with wikilinks in ways that usually result in breaking them. Here are some examples of each:

• Incorrect info: diff2
• Broken wikilink: diff3
• Both types of disruption: diff4 (Kingda Ka is the world's tallest)
• Sea of Blue: diff5

I've been patient and waited a while to see if this editor would get the hint, attempt to discuss, or at least respond on their talk page. Unfortunately, none of that has happened. I know JlACEer has been dealing with this a lot as well. Overall, it's not a great amount of disruption, but it's becoming frequent enough to become a disturbance. Might be time to send a stronger message, thanks. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:42, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Note: IPv6 /64 ranges are generally the same user, and they generally have no control over which one they use. Thus, 2605:A601:ADCB:F300::/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) is the correct range for any blocks. --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 20:57, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

These may seem minor but they are persistent and annoying. This person is clearly not here to improve Wikipedia.—JlACEer (talk) 15:22, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 month Anon-blocked. --qedk (t 愛 c) 13:54, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Possible chronic and intractable behavioral problem

• KhanQadriRazvi (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

KhanQadriRazvi is seemingly attempting to impose their point of view on Wikipedia without success. Their behaviour is now resulting in continuous disruptive activity (whether deliberate or through frustration or through a lack of competency I cannot be sure). Their talk page show an almost daily set of problems at present. The disruption to Talk:Grand Mufti of India [30] in a poorly formed edit request disrupting main space. The sheer quality of a newly created article this morning also is very inconsistent with linguistic use on e.g. Old revision of File talk:AkhtarRazaKhan(Image).jpg is also a concern. Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:41, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

@KhanQadriRazvi: Please explain about why the article you created today seemingly met WP:CSD for a copyright violation? This seems yet more disruption and I am minded you are not here to contribute to the encyclopedia. Do you have any response or explanation? Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 16:52, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Respond or Explanation

I,have said repeatedly that the tone of my article may not be neutral. If copyright matter, I will look into it, and I, will try to write in my words, So that Wikipedia does not have any copyright problem. It's your misunderstanding that I'm imposing my point of view on Wikipedia, and came here with different purpose. Whoever comes here, they come here to contribute to the encyclopaedia, I, also came here with the same thought that whatever I, know or read it somewhere, I, will share those things with everyone.Thanks KhanQadriRazvi (talk) 06:23, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• Previous ANI thread about ongoing problems at Grand Mufti of India is here. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 18:32, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I, just don't get it this thing, when newspapers has written about both person, then how can you choose the one person, so I, have suggested of this article, in which both are treated equally.

"Chop off the Snake’s Head" Delete the page, It may be best solution for this problem. Thanks KhanQadriRazvi (talk) 06:23, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

@KhanQadriRazvi If by "Chop off the Snake’s Head" you mean censor and delete the article Grand Mufti of India because it claims Sheikh Abubakr Ahmad is the current incumbent then I am very concerned, and could might even taken you intended to slur Sheikh Abubakr Ahmad, though I WP:AGP that was not your intent. Your edit suggestion at [31] "This is 'Y'" has have appeared to remove sources supporting the claim of Grand Mufti as Sheikh Abubakr Ahmad with promotion of a claim for Asjad Raza Khan as Grand Mufti. My reading of the key sources for Asjad Raza Khan are [32] (Sri Lanka newspaper report with unattributed reporter and arguably vaguewave newsflash) and [33] (fails to mention "Grand Mufti" and also indicates "decision" made at the Annual Fiqhi Seminar, not by electoral college as claimed in the table, according to Salman Hasan Khan, vice-president, Jamat Raza-e-Mustafa and only applying to Sunni Barelvi clerics). I may expand this on the article talk page if I have the energy, but given this weakness I am currently opined equal weight of Sheikh Abubakr Ahmad and Asjad Raza Khan in the article gives WP:UNDUE to the latter. I remain possibly open to small section detailing Asjad Raza Khan's claim may however by appropriate, however even that may be WP:UNDUE.Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:06, 4 June 2020 (UTC) I am however re-looking at Grand Mufti of India and talk to see some useful comments having been somewhat distracted by your intervention. Every source and its use needs to be considered on merits .... and these sources are very difficult to use. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:52, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Response or Explain

@Djm-leighpark You can delete my account instead of ban. It does not matter to me, If I, talk about my point of view then it will not be right, because there are many things that you will not be able to understand, when you not understand, then it will not be beneficial to speak because you do not belong to this field. According to me that if you do not know about the field /subject then it is good not to say anything on this,

Now let's talk "Grand Mufti" ie "Qadi al-Qudat" (Chief Justice), Qadi al-Qudat would have been the one who would be above all as I have said, That Hanafi cannot follow other Imam jurisprudence, however, other Imams may follow Hanafi Jurisprudence, as Imam E Azam is the greatest Imam among all the four Imams. I am not saying this, but it is Islamic Shariah.

Now let's talk "Electoral College" India is a secular country, so where did "Electoral College" come from? Where is the Electoral College office, it conducts elections under the supervision "Election Commission of India", to explain a little more about "Electoral College".

Now let's talk on the list of Grand Mufti.

1) Abdul Qadir Badayuni, appointed by Akbar, was not an "electoral college" at that time.

2, 3 and 4, do not know any information about it.

5) Shah Fazle Rasul Badayuni appointed by the Mughal Emperor, Bahadur Shah Zafar, even at that time there was no "Electoral College".

6) Who appointed Kiphayatullah Dehalvi does not know yes but "Electoral College" did not appointed him.

7) Mufti Muhammad Amjad Ali Azmi (Alhe Rahma) was appointed by Ala Hazrat, not by "Electoral College".

8) Mustafa Raza Khan Qadri Noori (Alhe Rahma) was appointed by Ulama E Ahle Sunnah and Jamat Raza -E- Mustafa (Note: The name of Jamat Raza -E- Mustafa was never written for some reason) not by any "Electoral College".

9) Taj Sharia Akhtar Raza Khan (Alhe Rahma) was appointed by Ulama E Ahle Sunnah from the stage of Urs E Razvi and Jamat Raza -E- Mustafa (Note: The name of Jamat Raza -E- Mustafa was not written this time also for some reason) He was not appointed by any "Electoral College".

10) Abu Bakr, Talking about Abu Bakr, who has appointed him (let's see elected and appointed by All India Tanzeem Ulama e Islam and All India Sunni Jamiyathul Ulama{mentioned in article}) this is what “Electoral College”? Are you talking about? According to you ‘’All India Tanzeem Ulama e Islam and All India Sunni Jamiyyathul Ulama’’ is “Electoral College"? Which appoints Grand Mufti of India in India?

Is Wikipedia (Grand Mufti of India’s Article) propagating false information to the people?

Same process was adopted for Mufti Asjad Raza Khan also which was adopted earlier for adopting Grand Mufti of India.

Mufti Asjad Raza Khan was appointed by 67 Scholars and Jurists at the 16th Annual Fiqhi Seminar (Note: Even this time also the name of Jamat Raza -E- Mustafa was not mentioned for some reasons).

When, I saw the table of Grand Mufti of India. I, found many mistake, but you guys are masters in this field (done PhD in Grand Mufti of India), so, how can all of you agree with me?

I, don't know when “National Assembly of Islamic Community of India"(mentioned in article) founded? And when started Nominating Mufti for the Post of Grand Mufti of India. Which Electoral College (mentioned in article) is appointing Grand Mufti of India. When was the last date of nomination? Where is advertisement for nomination? Where was voting details? Where is official website? List of nominated Candidate? Where is result?

I, asked this questions on the basis of Article of Grand Mufti of India and replies. If you want I can ask more questions on Grand Mufti of India’s Article.

Now you (@Djm-leighpark) tell me when you (@Djm-leighpark) are answering me. And one thing, don't blame me without proof. I have no problem with Abu Bakr.

Thanks KhanQadriRazvi (talk) 14:02, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

@KhanQadriRazvi: I am answering you now with at the timestamp of this post. The primary thing is I am pleased to hear you have no issue with Abu Bakr, as your phrasing above was in my view unfortunate and possibly could be misinterpreted. And to be clear it is not within my power to block you let alone delete you account, I am not an admin. It is my concern your actions have hindered rather than assisted any ability to deal with in my view possible WP:BIAS in the Grand Mufti of India article by distracting from valid points previously made at the article talk. You raise many points at me, and I am but simples, and unfortunately we seem not to have a published independent PhD thesis to work from. Per your last refused edit request changes are best done in smaller, clearer pieces. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:33, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

You (@Djm-leighpark) can do, because you are master brother. Or else find some way so Admin can delete my account immediately.

If someone does not agree with you (@Djm-leighpark), then he does not know anything, he is hindering my work, etc. Brother (@Djm-leighpark) don't talk this things please.

I, used that phrase for the Article Page of Grand Mufti of India only.not for a person. Do not talk here and there thing Brother (@Djm-leighpark), answer the questions which I, asked you (@Djm-leighpark). so far didn't receive the answer of my questions from your (@Djm-leighpark) side.

Was there any mistake in that article Which I, suggested? Just added a name to the list and removed the infobox official post,and written both names as a Grand Mufti of India. As far as I remember I, did that only. I'm waiting for your (@Djm-leighpark) answer Thanks KhanQadriRazvi (talk) 04:32, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

@KhanQadriRazvi: You are both asking me to respond and asking me not to talk. As far as I am aware account deletion is not possible though account anonymisation and/or article deletion revision are possible in extreme circumstances, ask at the WP:TEAHOUSE if necessary. I have no power over admins, though if you nom. me at WP:RFA I might accept to prove the level of support I would have for suitability for the role. I have in general no answers to your specific questions, I have been mentored there is no such thing as a stupid question; though I have sometimes mentored managers on the questioned that needed to be asked to get the useful and usable answer rather than the question that only yields an inappropriate answer. I do feel you have hindered my consideration in placing a Template:POV on the Grand Mufti of India article which was previously removed (or perhaps a Template:Systemic bias tag) ... I feel I need to have solid confidence to defend any tagging if I were to do that ... and prepared to follow through on any inappropriate removal. Per your last edit request which was refused as "A full rehash and replace of the article cannot be readily evaluated. You need to propose changes in smaller, clearer pieces" ... I did attempt to place my concerns on your suggestion on my edit at "21:06, 4 June 2020 (UTC)" above where you made significant claims. My next post here indicated I intended to review sources for the Article .... though such a review is complex and I give no commitment to any actions I might take or what the timescales are. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:39, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

I, told don't talk this thingshe does not know anything, he is hindering my work, etc. and asked to response my question which I, asked to you (@Djm-leighpark).

Just tell me one thing that Article "Grand Mufti of India" needs correction or not? after seeing my question?

You (@Djm-leighpark) are telling that entire article can't be changed at once, so you should change it in small - small part?. Am I getting it right? Do you want to say this? Thanks KhanQadriRazvi (talk) 05:31, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

In general I would suggest when new or encountering problems doing smaller pieces slowly are with attention to detail will often be more successful than larger changes. THankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:01, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Proposal (Islam in the Indian subcontinent)

All IP editors, accounts with fewer than 500 edits, and accounts with less than 30 days tenure are prohibited from editing articles related to Islam in the Indian subcontinent. Administrators may apply extended confirmed protection for any length of time or indefinitely to enforce this prohibition on any article they reasonably believe to be related to the topic area.

Support as proposer; this has gone on for far too long. The drama between Barelvis, Deobandis, Salafis, and countless other sects present in the region really doesn't need to be making its way onto Wikipedia. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 01:59, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I understand the sentiment, but wonder if the drama would be eased if admins used discretionary sanction powers to issue final warnings to problematic editors insisting on operating in the ipa topic area. Removal of autoconfirmed user permission (if possible) would in my opinion be sensible, but I am unsure if admins can specifically do this. Semi-protection has helped in Grand Mufti but it has moved the problem to the talk page with disruptive edit requests.Djm-leighpark (talk) 04:36, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Comment Admin should understand that editors at Islamic pages are generally belonging to one school or other. Some may be good in editing some may not. Taking strict action should be avoided. Semi-page protection in case of page disruption is suggested. In case of user KhanQadriRazvi it is suggested he may be warned only. I found some of his contributions really helpful though he found it difficult to add reliable sources to Sufi Sunni Barelvi related articles. The reason is very clear most of Sufi Sunni or Barelvi or Deobandi scholars are rarely covered in mainstream media or reliable sources. The scholars who have millions of followers and number of books to their account get little or no space in English sources specially in India and up-to some extent in south Asia. Most of the Urdu/Bengali/Hindi sources are not online. These are some of specific reasons that many times articles are even deleted due to lack of notability and users/editors are at receiving end. ScholarM (talk) 09:25, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

The warning needs to occur. Perhaps early intervention with advice like JBW gave recently: "I see that you have made a number of attempts to create articles, either directly or via drafts, but that again and again you have met with problems, with the pages being deleted or nominated for deletion. I am sure that must be frustrating, so I thought it might be helpful to offer you some advice on how to get established as an editor. ..... My advice to new editors is that it is best to start by making small improvements to existing articles, rather than creating new articles. That way any mistakes you make will be small ones, and you won't have the discouraging experience of repeatedly seeing hours of work deleted. Gradually, you will get to learn how Wikipedia works, and after a while you will know enough about what is acceptable to be able to write whole new articles without fear that they will be deleted. Over the years I have found that editors who start by making small changes to existing articles and work up from there have a far better chance of having a successful time here than those who jump right into creating new articles from the start." might have helped, but KhanQadriRazvi typically seems to adapt advice given and cause pain ... the example I typically think of is the copyvio deleted article which was up for WP:AFD and I said give me precisely your THREE best sources (or WP:RS) to analyse as I was only prepared to look at the top three. They provided eight bare URLs. Maybe one of the first three might have stood WP:RS scrutiny; though a couple of those towards the end of the list looked possible. In the end a copyvio copy/paste blew the whole thing away on a CSD (though because of the knowledge level of licensing/attribution needed to spot/analyze the problem it could be argued reasonably this was a good faith copyvio, but if you copy/paste stuff in you really needs to know this). Some admins have actually been giving advice but it probably has reach the point where an independent admin needs to get an agreement with KhanQadriRazvi to stop attaining WP:XC through problematic editing; possibly via a voluntary WP:TBAN.Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:52, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose Too unilateral and unproductive. If you want such imposition then list all the pages where disruption is being caused by non ECP users. But remember that there are thousands or millions of pages related to this subject and disruption on several pages won't justify the proposal. Azuredivay (talk) 03:55, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per Azuredivay, but understand the reasoning. Unfortunately preparing good edit requests is actually for a semi-protected pages is a very skilled art and the risks of unpracticed failing and falling into frustration are very high; its also expensive in terms of talk page area, pending changes sometimes works better unless the summaries are being abused, in both cases its unwise if one person handles all edit rejections as disastrously happened in a case earlier this year.Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:50, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - I don't believe that the extent of the problem as presented is such as to justify this rather onerous sanction, which should be held in reserve for the very worst problems on Wikipedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:03, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Ongoing Problems

This edit [34], on a talk page of a claimant to the Grand Mufti of India title and within the scope of discretionary sanctions, this morning perhaps could have raised a reasonable associated point but seemed more framed, including the summary, as inflamatory and not in the spirit of WP:Wikipedia:No personal attacks.Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:09, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Netholic and haunting-related disruption

Netoholic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is behaving disruptively with regards to Talk:List of reportedly haunted locations#Requested move 1 June 2020, both bludgeoning the RM proposal with tendentious, circular argumentation (mostly focused on wikilawyering about Netoholic's idiosyncratic interpretation of WP:FRINGE and MOS:WTW and WP:NDESC), and attempting to censor posts on other talk pages. The gist is that Netoholic is convinced that the article must be moved to "List of haunted places" (or something very close to that), with a claim in Wikipedia's own voice that they are haunted. The RM clearly already WP:SNOWBALLed against that idea before I even arrived to comment there (though exactly what the title should be is still open to some question - "reported", "purported", "alleged", etc.).

• See this firehose of "proof by verbosity" posts to the RM, arguing with everyone Netoholic can (though singling me out in particular even after I raised WP:BLUDGEON and tried to disengage from Netoholic): [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47] (minor edits elided).
• Netoholic is not making a consistent, cogent argument throughout, but veers between various policy/guideline principles depending on who N. is arguing with. The goal appears to be shotgunning every argument that comes to mind as long as N. gets what N. wants.
• WP:ICANTHEARYOU: Multiple editors have clearly objected about how off-base the personal reinterpretation of WP:FRINGE and MOS:WTW by Netoholic are (LuckyLouie: [48]; me: [49], [50]). Yet Netoholic keeps citing the loose WTW guideline (sometimes at different shortcuts) [51] as if it is an ironclad policy, e.g.: "Still standing by FRINGE as an argument to violate MOS:WTW#Expressions of doubt?" [52] We all know that WTW is words to watch (i.e., to rarely use, only carefully and sparingly, for good reason), not "words that are banned from Wikipedia". Netoholic posted this after this was explained to them [53]. If it's not what N. wants to hear, it just doesn't sink in.
• I repeatedly warned of WP:BLUDGEON, and attempted explicitly to exit the discussion [54],[55], but Netoholic engaged in WP:WINNING-flavored baiting [56], and then pursued me to my talk page [57], [58], [59], where Netoholic seems unwilling to take no for an answer and has been making repeated demands for the same thing over and over.
• When Netoholic didn't get the demanded action from me (for me to self-revert my proposal [60] at WT:MOSWTW to revise the relevant section of the guideline to be clearer, in direct response to the FUD being sown in this RM), N. decided to just go censor me, and to try to dictate how and where I may post [61]. N.'s rationale for this nonsense is that I "poisoned the well" of the RM or of N.'s notice about it. But the RM was already clearly not going to proceed in the direction N. wants, and I entirely accurately described it in my preamble to the revision proposal: "this discussion is relying on MOS:ALLEGED to suggest that WP cannot cast doubt on WP:FRINGE topics with terms like "reportedly" or "purportedly", and that is obviously not the intent of this guideline." And I explained this all to N. very clearly [62].
• I restored my post [63], and warned Netoholic not censor it again [64] or I would ask ANI for a topic ban. N. did it again anyway (even with a repeated edit summary, as if talking to a child or an idiot) [65]. So here we are. Netoholic did not respond at N.'s talk page or mine, just decided to editwar against WP:TPO in pursuit of whatever weird WP:GREATWRONGS / WP:BATTLEGROUND thing this is for N.
• Before this escalated to this point, I also notified WT:FRINGE and WT:MOS of the RM (in just "please see this relevant discussion" terms), and also raised the BLUDGEON and FRINGE-PoV problem at WP:FTN, in a pre-existing thread (Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#List of reportedly haunted locations) but at this point ANI seems more appropriate, and I'll direct the FTN thread to this one. NB: Another editor there, Roxy the dog, appears to indicate the bludgeoning effect was strong enough for that editor to just abandon the discussion without commenting.

I think a topic ban, from something like "hauntings and ghosts" and from MOS:WTW is appropriate for some meaningful span of time. I have no idea whether this behavior is motivated out of a sincere belief in ghosts and in a "duty" of WP to treat them as real, or some kind of obsessive wikilawyering and argument-for-sport habit, or what. I just know that it's disruptive and that it appears to be confined to this particular topic (that said, I have not gone diff-digging for broader behavior patterns).
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:22, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the removing of the word reportedly when we have WP:RS showing the existance of ghosts at that location, or those locations. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 15:39, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I see healthy debate on a talk page involving an open discussion about page moves. Just because you can't get the last overly verbose word in for once doesn't make his behavior disruptive. You've had your input, now walk away and let a closer determine consensus. oknazevad (talk) 15:44, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

This isn't about the content decision being discussed in the RM, it's about edit-warring to delete other people's posts, and bludgeoning a discussion with WP:IDHT, then pushing the matter to the user-talk page of an "opponent" after that party already did walk away, and badgering them there with three posts of the same demand (two after an answer was already given).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:53, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

• The pot is really calling the kettle black here. Calidum 16:23, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

This got very heated and whilst no one should edit war to remove another users comments there were also counter accusations of canvasing. I am not going to judge the rights and wrongs just to say this should be closed and maybe a few quite words had.Slatersteven (talk) 16:34, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Quite a few words, a few quiet words, or quite a few quiet words? Johnbod (talk) 16:40, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Sorry Quiet Words.Slatersteven (talk) 16:45, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Which ones? -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 16:46, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

That would be up to the admin who utters them.Slatersteven (talk) 16:48, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

The heat is on one side though. I was deliberative, factual, avoidant of escalation or circularity, trusting that neutral notices to relevant pages like WT:MOS and WT:FRINGE will draw any necessary attention to the RM content matter, proposing guideline clarification on the guideline's talk page (the proper venue for that), and drawing WP:FTN noticeboard attention to the disruptive aspects of what's been going on at the RM discussion (without even naming a name, just pointing to a circumstance that needed some intervention). Netoholic, by contrast, has been posting sarky baiting messages after I've made it clear I don't want to continue the discussion, has IDHT-style browbeaten people at the RM who have a different viewpoint, then badgered me in repetitive fashion on my talk page, tried to censor my guideline clarification proposal, and done it again after a warning.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:22, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

• "See this firehose of "proof by verbosity" posts to the RM, arguing with everyone Netoholic can" (SMcCandlish, above). Well, I looked at the RM expecting to see an editor arguing with everyone in sight, and it has 18 !votes or comments by other editors - of with Netoholic has replied directly to four, and become involved in a discussion on a fifth. Apart from the nom, Netoholic has made eleven comments in that section. And the filer of this report, SMcCandlish, has made ... eleven as well. So IMO if Netoholic is "bludgeoning the discussion", then so is SMcCandlish. The spat at WTW was just that - a silly spat which wasn't needed. But the majority of this report involving the RM is spurious and can be closed with no action. Black Kite (talk) 17:13, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

  Nah. Netoholic has been serially challenging everyone who disagrees with him; that he hadn't yet gotten to all of them by the time we ended up here is a good thing, not evidence in support of his behavior. (And of course N. won't pick arguments with those who agree with him; your counting up of stuff isn't on-point). By contrast, I have mostly been responding to pings to bring me back to the thread, and to direct questions asked of me, and also chatted in a jokey subthread about ghosts of reporters. That's not WP:BLUDGEON or anything like it. You actually have to look at the posts and their context and content.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:08, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

  • It's obvious that both this discussion and the RM are haunted and thus outside the scope of Wikipedia, please stop before it spreads to the general text, Commons, and who the hell knows from there. Poking at and playing with the forces of non-nature seldom works out (although Mrs. Muir didn't do too bad). Randy Kryn (talk) 19:23, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

    Aaaiiieee! a wikigeist!  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:40, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• There was no good reason to edit war to remove SMcC's comment. If it was inappropriate, go to the appropriate venue and leave a note in the discussion it concerns. That said, the rest of this is a content dispute. The only thing actually concerning here is the idea that anyone thinks it's ok to use Wikipedia's voice to say that a place is haunted. Seriously? But I'll go and make that case elsewhere. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:30, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
• The firehose of "proof by verbosity" are mostly valid points that a reasonable editor would take on board and discuss. Do we really need to assume the readers are so stupid it is necessary to say "reportedly haunted". I don't know the answer but it's worth talking about. The inability of the group wielding the WP:FRINGE hammer to see any other perspective can be trying at times. fiveby(zero) 20:31, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
  • engaging with "the group wielding following the most fundamental aspects of the WP:FRINGE hammer content guideline" can indeed be trying when arguing to use Wikipedia's voice to legitimate fringe theories contrary to that guideline. It's uncontroversial that there are people who believe haunting is Real and True, and countless TV shows, etc. dedicated to promoting that perspective. So we don't need to assume anything to understand that it's WP:FRINGE 101 stuff. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:09, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

    Indeed. At least two cable TV networks that used to mostly produce educational and fact-based material have for about 15 years or so been engaging in almost propagandistic levels of programming devoted to fringe nonsense, especially ghosts and "ancient aliens". And it works. I know an otherwise scientifically minded elementary-school teacher who has become convinced by them that ghosts are real and common. It reminds me of actual belief in the kayfabe roleplay of professional wrestling; of the "alternative facts" echo chambers of far-right media; of anti-vaxers and other conspiracy theorists; and of the self-evident nonsense that people buy in supermarket tabloids like Weekly World News and National Enquirer. The less reasonable it is, the more it appeals to a certain subset of people who kind of revel in wallowing in entertaining falsehoods that allow them to identify with and feel they're part of a special group.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:40, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Like BlackKite, I was expecting to open that page and see the types of walls of text the complainant is renowned for. What I saw in reality was a fairly normal RM where the proposer challenges a few opponents. As a semi-regular RM closer, it wasn't anything out of the ordinary, and I'm pretty sure I've made more challenges than that during RMs. I honestly don't know what action is expected here, so I would suggest this is hatted and we all move on to more important things. Number 57 21:57, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

  That's fine. It's been my experience that virtually every time I raise concerns about an editor's behavior for the first time at ANI, no action is taken (unless it's a recent account that is an obvious troll or PoV-pushing SPA). What happens after that: either the behavior in question quietly changes so that the problem goes away (the best outcome), or the editor in question feels immune to consequences, so doubles-down and escalates the behavior, then community action is later taken when someone else reports the continued behavior pattern to ANI, another noticeboard, AE, or ArbCom, with my earlier ANI used as evidence. Either way, it gets resolved in the long run.

  To be clear, I said nothing about the length of Netoholic's posts; the concern was the "Bible-thumping" and WP:IDHT style of them, browbeating other editors with a personal reinterpretation of WTW, a guideline which does not (and could not possibly) mean what N. thinks it means, treating that personal vision of WTW like an inviolable policy, plus snide baiting to escalate when people try to disengage.
   — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:40, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• This looks like a content dispute, and it should be kept that way. MiasmaEternal^TALK 23:30, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
• Comment - I just looked at the block log of User:Netoholic. Sometimes one should learn from fifteen years ago. There may be a longer block log, but I haven't seen it. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:24, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

  I can only dream of having a block log like that. EEng 04:11, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

  Yeah, I wasn't going to raise that, since none of the blocks are within the last year.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:29, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

  The great majority of those were a very long time ago, and a number of the early ones were quickly contested and overturned. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:41, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

MOS DATE violations

McGod1911 keeps changing dates to add commas to dmy dates (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paul_Turnbull&diff=next&oldid=954427917&diffmode=source), in violation of MOS:DATE. Looking at their contribution lists, this is the only things they've done on the encyclopedia. They have 9 warnings for this, asking them to stop and adhere to MOS:DATE, but they continue making these edits, and not responding. Clear WP:NOTLISTENING issue, please could an admin block them- my suggestion would be temporarily, to try and get them to talk. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:47, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Block. They've been told the same thing, by multiple editors, for the last three months. A block will at least get their attention—note they've never even used their talk page—and I'm not sure I'd even argue against a CIR indef. ——Serial ^# 11:25, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I've given them a final warning - one more incorrect date edit from them and I'll block them (or any other admin can do it). I haven't blocked yet simply because I really think they need to be given fair chance to have their right of reply first. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:31, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: Uh-uh: their 11th right to reply. ——Serial ^# 18:47, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Looks suspiciously similar to Bowtiebandit's contributions. The same kind of edits with the same edit summaries. – ².O.^Boxing 15:51, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

@Squared.Circle.Boxing: I agree. SPI filed, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bowtiebandit. --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 17:13, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, there's a massive sock farm going on here. The standard sock's userpage looks like 1 or 2, and some representive diffs are Special:Diff/957361611 and Special:Diff/956289969. Characteristic edit summaries are "improved grammar", "added info and citations", "added wikilinks", and similar. If anyone has any suspected socks who are not listed at the SPI, please report them. --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 22:59, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Central line

I made a very simple edit to Central line disambiguation page just to correct a misinformation about the type of a railway from fright to passenger, but user:Britmax reverted my edit on ground of "unexplained change". I reverted him and noted that the original text contradicates the information written in the railway article. Then s/he reverted me again stating "please find the source from the other article as otherwise you are using Wikipedia as its own source". I don't want to engage in 3RR and demand some sort of mediation from a third party. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 12:40, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

They were poor reverts - the information was easily verifiable from a quick Google search.[66] I've reinstate the change. Number 57 12:57, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

If the original changes were that easy to verify the original poster should have done it, and should learn to leave an Edit summary to say what they have done. Otherwise we have an unexplained change that requires me to do someone else's homework. Britmax (talk) 14:15, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Reverting is the least helpful response possible though. I regularly see IPs and editors making unexplained changes, but rather than blindly revert a possibly good edit, I take the time to see whether it's correct or not. Number 57 14:19, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• Yeah, the lack of an Edit Summary is no excuse to blindly revert. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 11:56, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Harassment, on and off Wikipedia, by User:89.159.44.130

Can someone please have a word with User:89.159.44.130? He or she is posting harassing messages on my User Talk page. This morning, I also received a harassing e-mail message - sent to my work account, sent to one of my personal accounts, and copied to others at my employer and Wikimedia staff - presumably from the same person. He or she is also using 37.165.33.241 so a CU may be illuminating although the harassment is not (yet) so widespread and persistent that I suspect a sophisticated operation. This same editor also posted similar harassment on Dawnseeker2000's User Talk page, too. ElKevbo (talk) 13:54, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

@ ElKevbo Please stop to lie and stop to abuse your moderator power on Wikipedia. What you are saying is UNTRUE. You are removing content unfairly while keeping similar pages and content. Can you post the email you talk about here so that everyone can read? It is simply a complaint against your autocratic behaviors on Wikipedia, no more no less. You are damaging the popularity of Wikipedia by your autocratic behavior. Wikipedia is popular because it is open and transparent. Do not damage it with your personal ego. If you continue to remove contents, I will stop to use Wikipedia and to promote it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.159.44.130 (talk) 14:06, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

@ElKevbo: - this not not "harassment". Do you have any other diffs which show behaviour from the IP what requires administrator intervention? Please also note that CUs will not link IP addresses. GiantSnowman 14:18, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: Are you seriously saying that multiple messages posted to my User Talk page accusing me of lying and abusing my "moderator power" - posted using multiple IP addresses including one message posted after I deleted the previous one - is not harassment? Are you really telling all of us that an editor looking up another editor's personal and work e-mail addresses - not using Wikipedia's built-in e-mail function - and sending that editor, his employer, and Wikimedia staff the same kind of message as he or she wrote above is not harassment? If that is your stance then you need to resign your admin bit; harassment of Wikipedia editors is a serious problem and if you can't help address the problem then you can at least not dissuade others from trying to address and stop gaslighting editors who are being harassed. ElKevbo (talk) 14:50, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

@ElKevbo: The opening remark from the IP was "Why are you removing referenced contents from Wikipedia?" - the dispute then escalated because you did not respond to that reasonable comment, but stuck your fingers in your ears, getting them annoyed. Can you provide me with a diff of the dispute so I can understand what's going on? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:53, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Ritchie333, sorry but I don't see any point here where the IP first made a "reasonable comment" and then ElKevbo failed to respond. I'm also not seeing any "escalation" afterwards. The only thing I'm seeing is the IP – evidently some kind of COI/fringe-pusher – coming to ElKevbo straight away with guns blazing, with a stream of wild, personalizing accusations. And whether or not you find that first message over the top enough to count as harassment, the mails to off-wiki third parties are clearly far beyond the pale. This needs an immediate block. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:34, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't know; they haven't provided any specific details and the messages to my User Talk page and the e-mail message was the first time that I heard from him or her. Maybe it's related to this article but I don't know. He or she does appear to be editing solely to promote one specific author/researcher and many of those edits have been removed by multiple editors so I have no idea why he or she has decided to target me with wild, vague accusations. I did specifically ask if he or she is connected to that author/researcher but he or she has not responded to that question. ElKevbo (talk) 15:19, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

@ElKevbo: You posted one diff - now you complain about multiple messages. Like Ritchie asks for, we need evidence. GiantSnowman 15:29, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

There are two links in my original message and you also have ready access to the contribution history of both IP addresses which are rather short. And if you don't see the messages I've shared - they're similar in tone and comment to the ridiculous message posted above by this editor - as harassing then you need to reevaluate your standards about what you think is acceptable for Wikipedia editors to write about and accuse one another of doing and being. ElKevbo (talk) 15:34, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Comment, for those with OTRS access, please see ticket:2020060410005699. This appears to be relevant. ~~ Alex Noble/1-2/TRB 15:13, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• I'm disengaging from this thread and removing ANI from my watchlist; please post a message at my User Talk page if you need anything else from me. If the information that has already been shared doesn't convince you that there is a problem here then I can't convince you. It shouldn't be acceptable for editors to make the accusations that have been made, post multiple messages to User Talk pages making these accusations, and e-mail editors and their employer to repeat the same accusations; if administrators can't understand that then I'm afraid that this volunteer-run project is in deep trouble. ElKevbo (talk) 15:39, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
• For Christ's sake, ElKevbo is a long-established and respected editor. If he says emails were sent to his employer, we can believe him, and that's harassment for sure. If he needs to submit evidence to OTRS or whatever, I guess so, but this committed skepticism is uncalled for. EEng 15:51, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

  EEng, yes, we should take claims like that at face value from established editors. The lack of any actual detail of what the dispute might be doesn't obscure that fact. On the face of it, this is a disgruntled refspammer. I am minded to prevent this bullshit wiuth an edit filter for now. What do others think? Guy (help!) 15:57, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

  I'd like to add my little voice to EENg and JzG. astonishing. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 15:59, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

  Especially since the IP admitted the emails were sent... Argento Surfer (talk) 16:39, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• (ec) If people want to check on the original editorial dispute, see the last two dozen article edits by 89.159.44.130. The IP keeps on posting mentions of a scholar named Khaled Moustafa to a variety of different articles. He also wants to promote a new Arabic-language preprint server called arabixiv.org, created by Khaled Moustafa. The IP user has protested indignantly against recent admin actions at User talk:89.159.44.130, in threads like 'Stop to abuse of your moderator position'. EdJohnston (talk) 16:32, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• Meanwhile, Future Perfect at Sunrise has blocked the IP in question, and I agree with this action. De728631 (talk) 16:50, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

<hat type="OTRS">

Per Alex Noble's link above, I confirm ElKevbo's story: there was an email sent to info@wikimedia.org, legal@wikimedia.org, business@wikimedia.org, donate@wikimedia.org, email addresses that appear to be ElKevbo's personal and work emails, and an email address that appears to belong to his employer. The email complained about ElKevbo's "autocratic" actions, stated that "a lot of people are complaining about [it]," and threatened to stop donating to Wikipedia, among other statements, and was generally similar in tone and content to the IP's post here and on ElKevbo's talk page. No further confirmation from ElKevbo should be necessary.

</hat> creffett (talk) 17:04, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Creffett, I think there's a "FOAD" template for that on OTRS. Guy (help!) 22:19, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Khaled Moustafa

The IP in question is essentially a WP:SPA devoted to adding articles and content related to Khaled Moustafa. This appears to have been going on sporadically since 2014, all from IPs allocated to SFR (mainly through its Numericable / Gaoland acquisition).

• 89.159.44.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 85.170.247.202 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 93.21.220.79 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 37.165.33.241 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Not cool. Guy (help!) 16:15, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Not cool indeed. An edit filter like you suggested above would be cool though. De728631 (talk) 16:50, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

In Impact factor the reference removed as "spam"[67] was added as one of two sources for the sentence before it; it was not just added as a reference with no content - both were published in Science and Engineering Ethics. Based on Special:Contributions/Corio, if one of the references is spam it's more likely the one that's still in the article. Peter James (talk) 20:21, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Peter James, that journal rings a bell. It's also where Brian Martin (social scientist) published his diatribe about how biased Wikipedia is because it is less glowing about him than about all the other social scientists who don't have a history of publishing or enabling anti-vaccine conspiracist bullshit.

I am beginning to wonder whether it functions as the axe-grinders' journal of choice? Guy (help!) 21:59, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support sanction. Posting confrontational notices on El Kevbo's talk page is one thing. Reseaching their real-life identity and sending a message to their employer is altogether different and totally, totally unacceptable. The subject user has admitted sending such a message. This kind of conduct is chilling and needs to be met with a strong sanction, preferably a block, IMO. Cbl62 (talk) 22:41, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I think a block would be lenient. Off-wiki harassment that includes emailing an editor's employer (potentially compromising their job) should result in a community ban IMO. Number 57 22:46, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

  Cbl62, sod blocks, that's siteban material. Guy (help!) 22:47, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• Site ban sounds good. My message was meant to express outrage at the extraordinary off wiki harassment presented here. Cbl62 (talk) 23:06, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

The obvious...

The anonymous SFR user promoting Khaled Moustafa is indefinitely banned for harassment.

1. Support. Guy (help!) 22:49, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
2. Hear, hear –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 23:01, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
3. Support. Cbl62 (talk) 23:03, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
4. Support. Anyone who does this should be shown the door. —{ CrypticCanadian } 00:37, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
5. Support per Cbl and N57 above. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 06:38, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
6. Support. I haven't looked at the on-wiki stuff, but contacting someone's employer about a content dispute on Wikipedia is clear cut harassment and must not be tolerated. GirthSummit _(blether) 07:03, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
7. Support. Completely unacceptable behaviour. Number 57 12:09, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
8. Support. Door. Backside. Don't let it hit on the way out. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:11, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
9. Support. "You won't be seeing that guy again". ——Serial ^# 13:12, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
10. Support Unacceptable behaviour.Lurking shadow (talk) 15:25, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
11. Support. And if they're laughing at this, bans will also apply to every other IP they use and whatever named accounts they may create in future, so a ban is more than just 86'ing their IPs. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{2020's a bust; thanks SARS-CoV-2} 04:14, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Arsi786

I have been watching editing of Arsi786 for sometime and there are issues that should be addressed because warnings have certainly not worked.

Problems include misrepresentation of sources,[68] edit warring,[69][70] removal of sourced content without providing edit summaries,[71] unexplained POV changes,[72] and extraordinarily outrageous edits like this.

Shashank5988 (talk) 16:33, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• I have suppressed the last of those, as it accused the subject of a serious crime without evidence; adding that is almost sanction-worthy in and of itself. I do not have the time to investigate the other issues. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:16, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

The edits warring have been dealt with and the madudi one was not a edit warring as I stopped. Arsi786 (talk) 19:36, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I have been also watching the editing of Arsi786 and have observed that his editing is problematic in that it includes POV pushing, blanking any mention of minorities among predominantly Muslim nations or ethnic groups, reducing figures of Muslim apostates or Cultural Muslims, misrepresenting sources and edit warring. I will try to explain all these in the next paragraph:

1. In this edit [73] and here again [74], he reduces the percentage of those raised Muslim who no longer embrace Islam in adulthood to from 32 to 22, even though the source clearly cited data from the General Social Survey in the United States which shows that 32 percent of those raised Muslim no longer embrace Islam in adulthood, and 18 percent hold no religious identification.
2. Another example of misrepresentation of sources is here [75], where the Pew source cited that the percentage Sunni Muslims in Morocco is 67% not 70% [76].
3. Another example is here [77], where he changes the percentage of Muslims form 89.1% to 90.39%, when the given source mentions that the percentage is 89.1%. Instead of changing the source to reflect his new edit or going to the talk page, he just started edit warring.
4. Another example is here [78], where he changed the information claiming that "the changes he made reflect the source" page 59, even though his new edit reflects page 58, but instead of keeping both statistics, he removed the first one.
5. Another example is here [79], where Arsi786 claims that his edit reflects the source and that "97% Javanese follow orthodox Islamic traditions", and it's not true; the source mentions that "97.3 per cent of these are officially Muslim", but "Only 5-10 per cent follow Agami Islam Santri". The Agami Islam Santri category is what is considered to be the "Orthodox Islam", while the other practices are syncretism with local beliefs along with Islam.
6. Another example is here [80], in which Arsi786 reduces the Iranian diaspora from 1 to 2 million, though the tree estimates them as 2 to 4 million; check here for example, so Arsi786 made the change based on what?
7. In this edit [81], he removed the Roman Catholic minority from ethnic group's box, claiming that "Roman catholic faith is not in the references given", even though the two references given (here and here) clearly mention the Roman Catholic minority. The same problems can be found here [82], where he removed mention of Hindus and Sikhs in the infobox without providing edit summaries. Another example is here [83], where he remove Christianity from the infobox even though, inside the article it is mentioned that "Most Gambians living in the United States are Muslim or Christian".
8. His removal of sourced content without providing edit summaries can be found in several places: [84], [85], [86], [87]. Eliko007 (talk) 20:30, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
9. And these are just few examples of his problematic edits. I'm not going even to start discussing his edit warring behaviour. Eliko007 (talk) 20:30, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

1.The reference given can't even be seen you have to pay to go to the article while pew did a study saying its 22% https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/01/26/the-share-of-americans-who-leave-islam-is-offset-by-those-who-become-muslim/

2. This is sectarian division among moroccan muslims those 30% said they are just muslim 67% identified as sunni muslim while 3% didn't leave a reply according to pew so what's the problem here exactly I combined both of them together.

3. The official bangladesh census wrote it was 90% but you chose to replace those figures from a usa cia estimation site.

4. Funny the original one was false which I corrected but I agree I should of read it more correctly.

5. You're just bring nickpicky.

6. Did you even bother to check the source it doesnt give the figure of 3 million but between 1 to 2 million mainly in the usa.

7.My bad I agree I didnt read the sources given at first I assumed you were lying its true 1% of iraqi turkmen Identify as christians. The pashtun one was already dealt with in the talk page the issue always comes back up they aren't considered as ethnic pashtuns. Gambia is a muslim dominated country there was no references given pf its diaspora in america having christians now.

8. Edit 127 was fixing the spelling mistakes so I just left it.

Edit 128 was the same to fix spelling mistakes while the inheritance part in the quran is only half of her brothers not all men quran.com/4/11 which I corrected. The hanafi part was not true as many hanafi dominated countries allow women to divorce for other reasons not just for those reasons given.

Edit 129 was from a biased source it was not a credible study.

Edit 130 if you bothered to look at futher edits made afterwards we discussed it and brought actual relevent information in which I left.

Just because I didnt leave edit summaries doesnt mean I deserve to get banned.

Arsi786 (talk) 22:33, 6 June 2020

Topic Ban for Arsi 786 on India-Pakistan and Religion-Atheism articles

• Support. Arsi786 has misrepresented sources to push a POV across ethnic groups, especially in relation to India-Pakistan articles and religious statistics regarding ethnic groups. If there is no objection to a community ban for his vandalism of the project (for example, replacing "jurist" with "pedophile" [88]), I would support that too.Eliko007 (talk) 20:30, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

I disagree its a extreme to do a total ban and if you have read the works of madudi he allows and advocates for men to be allowed to marry and consummate the marriage with girls who haven't reached puberty in his exegesis of the quran while traditional scholars were against sleeping with girls that haven't reached puberty so his basic pedophile

Madudi exegesis https://www.searchtruth.com/tafsir/tafsir.php?chapter=65.

View of traditional scholars https://www.islamweb.net/en/fatwa/84343/the-prophets-sallallaahu-alayhi-wa-sallam-marriage-to-aaishah-may-allaah-be-pleased-with-her

Arsi786 (talk) 21:59, 6 June 2020

I am confident that you still don't understand WP:OR. Your explanations to above diffs are not convincing. Shashank5988 (talk) 17:07, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

LegacyVisual and a medley of issues

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

I am reporting this here as I am involved; I had hoped to not have to. The gist of the issue: LegacyVisual is an ethnic/religious POV pusher with a healthy dose of WP:IDHT and WP:CIR. I first interacted last week when I answered a help request. The focus of their ire lies with the majority Muslim Tigre people of Eritrea, whom they think are being whitewashed by a concerted conspiracy of Wikipedians, see this rambling NOTFORUM screed. I tried to be helpful, and went out of my way to find some sources and correct info about the Tigre people, and to explain things to LegacyVisual. They either didn't answer my questions, heed what I said, or simply replied with more rambling political screeds, see this whole section. They have taken a very dim view of reliable sources, they may have been initially editing as an IP adding copyright vios [89], and as seen here they don't seem to care about reliable sources, and are incapable of listening. Last night I asked them to discuss issues with me in several different ways, but they have ignored me, and today gone on a spree of unfactual WP:RGW edits: [90], [91], [92], [93]. I tried to be overwhelmingly helpful and get them to edit productively, but alas they seem to be WP:NOTHERE. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:43, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

This narrative isn’t new. I have followed a trail of evidence on the Tigre people and other Muslim inhabitants indigenous to Eritrea, using trusted sources written by academics and scholars of history. This user has struggled to remain open to sources and made several personal attacks. User also exploited their platform by falsifying the origins and history of all Muslim Eritreans even when reliable references were used causing interruptions and rejecting written journals by academics backing our historical findings. User went on to deny Muslim existence and combined all Eritrean Diaspora into one ethnic group when they understand that we are not a monolithic set of people (which they denied at first but then fixed after a huge amount of persistence) Sharing knowledge should not be this difficult.

User only accepted ‘cia sources’ based in Eritrea (which by the checked and they don’t exist and are ‘Not found’) and are testament to the fact that they’re imposing only their political ideology and nothing else.

I tried show casing the diversity that has existed in Eritrea over the centuries because of its very strategic location on the Red Sea which again deleted many times by users denying all non cia materials even when written by trusted sources. Users continued being problematic and replicating their ideology using other accounts and references that simply don’t exist.

Another thing, user seems to have a history of making Islamophobic edits from different accounts, making sweeping opinions on the ‘Tigurat’ page which I fixed. Frequently reducing/changing population of Muslims from all demographics even when appropriate citations are used

Furthermore, included edits that suggested Tigre group were converted forcibly and were formerly Tigruat (another word for Tigrayan) the two groups are not analogous, and it is deeply ignorant to pretend not to mention patronising, to pretend otherwise or to try and impose a tigrai-centric view of history on Muslim majority groups inhabitants in Eritrea and elsewhere in the region not to mention the population number regularly changing with unexplained data, references and citations that don’t exist, while leaving Tigrayan to be untouched, clearly editing with an agenda. Forcibly imposing dishonest and offensive ideology causes more harm than you think, please stop. Seems to me that you want as little as Muslims as possible and your edits are a testament. Why should we subscribe to your opinions and ideology of things, what kind of chose is that? How about you start using reliable sources for your edits? And accept help. Your edits/statements are dangerous and will invoke divisions, doing immeasurable harm to the Muslim communities. All I’ve done is be clear in assertion and fixing any mythology that is being propagated by you and your marauding group. LegacyVisual (talk) 21:28, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

@LegacyVisual: Please indent your posts using :s. Provide WP:DIFFs for evidence when you make claims about other users. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:39, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

CaptainEek, I've started with a 1 week partial block from mainspace. LegacyVisual is clearly frustrated, but the edits are often are badly sourced, unsourced, WP:OR or some combination. Maybe explaining on Talk first will help the penny to drop. Guy (help!) 22:18, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

@JzG: No offense, but I highly doubt that. I'm usually the first to WP:AGF, but I just don't believe this is anything but WP:NOTHERE. This and this can give you a hint for what to expect when this user decides to utilize a talk page. LV just simply does not care for what a source actually says in making edits to Wikipedia.^[94][95][96] –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 22:32, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

MJL, I feel my block should contain the disclaimer "may contain WP:ROPE"... Guy (help!) 22:42, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

@JzG: Sounds good with me. I'm always perfectly fine with giving more rope out! –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 22:47, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Smallpox

Hi, I would appreciate an uninvolved admin to intervene here please. Thanks. Graham Beards (talk) 20:40, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Why do you need an admin? I don't see behavioral problems, I see editors disagreeing with each other, which happens now and again on Wikipedia. Why not start an RfC about the lede image? Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:04, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Umm, it's a never-ending "discussion" (starting in April 2017) about something that will never happen (smallpox is never going to be illustrated with a bowl of flowers). The who-cares response to a situation like that is to say that an RfC should be held, but there is no clear proposal other than that a small number of people do not want to see a picture of smallpox in the smallpox article (or perhaps not in the lead?). They should be told to make a firm proposal in an RfC. The problem is what to do if they don't follow that advice, but continue complaining. The matter would need ANI attention then. Johnuniq (talk) 02:02, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that the "bowl of flowers" folks have a point, I'm just saying that if you hold an RfC, it attracts other (presumably reasonable) editors who drive the consensus towards the common sense outcome, and the question is settled. Then disruptive editing can be dealt with, and an AN/I report is not necessary to do it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:26, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

One confirmed user vandalising minority language page.

• Sylheti Nagri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi, I want to raise a complaint. About this page: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sylheti_Nagri

Syloti Nagri or Sylheti is a language of minority community in Bangladesh, India and UK. Why only one confirmed user "Username" dominating the page, who hate the language, call it a dialect in several edits and doing whatever he wants. Discouraging all other contributors.

Only handful of community users use this script, known to them as "Syloti Nagri" who is trying to reintroduce the script. But this user who know nothing about the community dominating the page.

Please have a look at the name Syloti Nagri in our small community and resources and correct the spelling in the page name.

Syloti Nagri not Sylheti Nagri.

---

Community: https://sylhetilanguage.com/ https://www.endangeredalphabets.net/alphabets/syloti-nagri/ https://sylotinagri.com/ https://omniglot.com/writing/syloti.htm http://sylotilanguage.com/

International: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/api/system.text.unicode.unicoderanges.sylotinagri?view=netcore-3.1 https://www.google.com/get/noto/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coilsspit (talk • contribs) 23:50, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

@Coilsspit: Your concerns should be raised at the article's talk page. This page for is for matters that require administrative attention. I don't see anything in UserNumber's that requires administrative attention. A cursory look does suggest that Sylheti is a language, not a dialect—but again, that's a content matter for the talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 00:19, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I have also notified the user in question, since you did not. —C.Fred (talk) 00:22, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

It is curious, though, that a newly-created account has come straight to ANI with this, regarding a page that is protected due to sockpuppetry. —C.Fred (talk) 00:26, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

For background, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rajputro.nagaland/Archive. The named socks were all active on Sylheti-related pages. The person being criticized above is most likely User:UserNumber who has added a lot of content, and identifies as a speaker of Sylheti. (This is the person criticized above as knowing nothing about the language). The disagreement (above) appears to be which script is the correct one to use for the language and how its name should be spelled in English. Whatever the issue may actually be, it has tenacious advocates (or possibly, one advocate with many socks). EdJohnston (talk) 01:09, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi, it is a very strong accusation to make that I know nothing of the Sylheti language or script. In fact, I have not only contributed immensely to these articles, I have created related follow-up pages such as: List of works written in Sylheti Nagri, Ashraf Hussain, History of Sylhet and Sadeq Ali, which show my enthusiasm for the topic.UserNumber (talk) 11:10, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

im here over wikicommons via reported user talk page here see:[97]! he has some issues l.e creating baseless flag and edits related Sylhet. I know its not related the case above but just take a look at my reverts here List of regional anthems, enatrly bullshit edits- his edits have sometimes null evidence and I assume just for fun and wiki is not definitely for that!! - 2A0A:A546:E753:0:F1E4:54C6:8172:9252 (talk) 13:27, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Andrewl1995 reported by Smuckola

Moved from WP:AIV

 – ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:44, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

• Andrewl1995 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – This user is extremely abusive and I'd say WP:TEND WP:NOTHERE WP:CIR, having already been blocked for endlessly repeating the most basic disruptive editing akin to spam, as seen on his Talk page, and then made histrionic personal attacks here. The attack is the last straw, but the user says the same things repeatedly, over the same issues, repeating identical disruptions and making new ones of the same kind, claiming not to remember even doing any of it, half of which is arguing with a bot, and demonstrating no possibility of doing otherwise. Please kindly block this user for the sake of Wikipedia and Wikipedians. Thank you. — Smuckola(talk) 00:18, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
• Ping: Trappist the monk, who had blocked the user for two weeks. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:51, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Pi.1415926535, who had wanted to get the user blocked and was then attacked. Sorry to bug ya, just in case, according to typical practice. — Smuckola(talk) 02:45, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Nothing in the last 4 weeks though? Or are there edits you don't like but you haven't bothered to mention to him? The editor is perhaps a bit clueless, as he's talking back to a bot on his talk page, but maybe he needs a little more coaching? Dicklyon (talk) 04:21, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I think this kind of response YOU MONGRELS HERE CAN GO 🖕🏻 YOURSELVES!!! Andrew Lieb (talk) 14:50, 7 May 2020 (UTC) warrants some kind of administrative action beyond coaching... JoelleJay (talk) 04:41, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

That was four weeks ago. Admins don't punish, they just prevent continuing disruption. Do you see a continuing problem that needs admin intervention? Dicklyon (talk) 05:41, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Dicklyon That *was* the continuing problem. As we said and as you can see on the Talk page, he's already been specifically coached, already found to be WP:NOTHERE, he's been blocked for all this, and he continued to do it all again (at best, no edit summaries or reliable sources). Then he made that huge personal attack. Then, since your last comment here, he just made a personal attack to me and basically the whole Wikipedia process on his talk page, simply for having reported it here! And while knowing that it's blockably wrong, except also somehow it's not wrong when *he* does it. So actually we're all wrong and you're wrong. That basically proves that he's going to continue abusing us and the system *because* he's not being blocked. And I'll ping the involved users just in case, Trappist the monk and Johnuniq. — Smuckola(talk) 20:57, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

I can't see that he did anything like a personal attack since May 7. Why here now? Dicklyon (talk) 23:31, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

I left them a final warning. Please notify me of any further problems, preferably by a ping from a talk page illustrating the problem. Johnuniq (talk) 02:14, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Recreation of deleted page and other spam pages

Sumanrsb2, has been recreating deleted page Ashutosh Kumar and again. The talk page of the user is filled with such deletion tags for different pages. The user just keeps creating spam pages after several warnings. Zoodino (talk) 05:35, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Page salted, I'll let someone else decide whether this needs a block too. creffett (talk) 18:06, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Ashutosh Kumar is Sumanrsb2's only article where speedy G4 has been needed, so I don't think a block is needed at this stage. Hopefully the salting resolves this. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 11:51, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Personal attacks by blocked editor

At [98] and [99] a temporarily blocked user casts aspersions about me. I suggest indeffing according to WP:NOTHERE. As I told that editor: Get a grip on reality: I did not revert your edits, nor I changed them in any way (except indentation).

He/she is a vexatious troll. If you want more evidence: [100]. Somehow he/she seems to think (contrary to reality) that I reverted his/her edits or blocked him/her from editing. It is a mystery why he/she thinks that I would have moderator privileges. Oh, yes, the editor should be checked for sleepers. Maybe I had reverted his/her edits in a previous incarnation as a Wikipedia editor (i.e. another username). Tgeorgescu (talk) 07:23, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Well I think as many would say, a username like User:Truth lives here raises significant concerns in itself. But I wouldn't read too much into the moderator and other stuff. New and inexperienced editors get confused all the time. Since you were the most recently addressing them, there is a good chance they confused you with Materialscientist. Further the fact that the editor would refer to anyone as "moderator" is another sign that they don't understand how things work here, since we don't really have moderators. It's hardly uncommon that editors get confused and thinking anyone who reverts them is a "moderator", or anyone who can post on their talk page when they are blocked is an admin/"moderator", or anyone who can modify their edits even if to only add indentation is a "moderator" etc. Heck since we're at ANI, it's hardly uncommon that people assume anyone posting here must be an admin or should be an admin. Nil Einne (talk) 07:34, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: He/she wrote You have abused your privileges as a moderator as any moderator can not be biased due to the fact it leave no room for the truth or science only opinion before I have posted anything about him/her at WP:ANI.

@Nil Einne: I agree, passing creationism as objectively true or as equally valid with evolution is fundamentally against our policies or guidelines. I don't see how this editor could become a net positive if he/she is allowed to edit topics about creationism and evolution while still asserting their own POV. Either they quit asserting their POV, or they get topic banned from anything which has to do with evolution and/or the Bible. Tgeorgescu (talk) 08:02, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Quoting myself. So, yeah, if his/her only purpose at Wikipedia is to WP:SOAPbox for creationism, he/she will have to be indeffed. Till now he/she WP:IDHT that he/she is not allowed to do that. Tgeorgescu (talk) 08:19, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: I apologise for the confusion with my last comment. I wasn't intending to suggest that you posting at ANI had anything to do with why they assumed you were moderator. Rather is was just another example of how often new editors get confused, and therefore why it's silly to assume just because someone said something about you being a moderator or reverted their edit when you didn't, means they were a sock. And I stand by my point. It's a silly assumption. Anyone with even an inkling of experience here knows how often new editors get confused. If you want to propose an indef for NOTHERE, that's one thing. But don't make silly assumptions and expect to be unchallenged. Actually there is some irony here that you, an experienced editor here are calling for a block based on a silly assumption, when the likely problem is simply some new editor here making silly assumptions. If Truth here lives has brought you up before you had interacted with them you would have a point. But this is clearly not what happened therefore it's a silly assumption. New editors get confused all the time, and if we want to block them, we should block them for actual problems with their edits, not simply for some understandable under the circumstances, confusion. Nil Einne (talk) 09:50, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Further reading your comment more carefully, this discussion just gets more and more confusing. You said "passing creationism as objectively true" except how did creationism even come into this dispute? You mentioned it in your YESBIAS template, but the OP doesn't seems to have mentioned creationism AFAICT. Instead the dispute seems to be often this [101] over flood myths especially ones in the Torah or bible. AFAICT, there's no part of that edit which involves or explicitly refers creationism. It may be true that creationists often believe in flood myths, and especially those who believe in Noah's Ark tend to be creationists. But the fact remains, AFAICT, there is nothing in that edit which specifically referred to creationism. There are people who are not creationists who believe in flood myths just as there are people who are creationists who do not believe in flood myths. There are probably even some people who believe the story of Noah's Ark is literally true but rejected creationism, and more who accept Genesis creationism but reject the story of Noah's Ark. I agree that it's unacceptable to change our articles to imply pseudoscientific myths are factual, be they creationism or flood myths. However let us be clear what is actually going on and not conflate different things. Nil Einne (talk) 10:02, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: As the practice of WP:SPI shows, editors just have to have legitimate hunches about editors being WP:SOCKS and the checkusers will reply with confirmed or unlikely. I don't have to be 100% right for a checkuser to perform a check, just a legitimate hunch will do.

Just because you are paranoid, that doesn't mean that they aren't out to get you. There is an organized group that wishes to replace science with religious pseudoscience on Wikipedia, and this page is one of their main targets. As for bias, Yes. We are biased. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:02, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:11, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to a check is a CU feels it justified. But that would largely be based on the editing targets and the username. The fact they happened to call you a moderator or said that you reverted them, after you chose to engage with them is at best, only a very minor considerations because it's a silly assumption to make, since as I said anyone with even a small amount of experience here knows how often editors get confused. P.S. Although this is fairly off-topic, to ward of any nitpicking, I'd note that evolution combined with molecular biology provides strong evidence against flood myths, there's clearly no such population bottleneck, and indeed it's not plausible we would have the diversity of life we have if there was a worldwide deluge. So by that token, you could argue that claiming flood myths are true is challenging evolution (by which I mean our current understanding, not some wackadoodles idea of evolution which is consistent with their belief in flood myths). Hence why I was careful to concentrate on the creationism part since that's a separate issue. Nil Einne (talk) 10:51, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Their WP:ADVOCACY for WP:FRINGE/PS does not stop: [102]. According to them, me and Materialscientist are biased editors who abuse the system: In addition To the evidence above I am new on this space However the admin Materialscientist who is by his own assertions is biased and will never change is working to snuff out any free thought how can you ask a Biased person to not be biased when they claim they will never change that means they will not even consider anything that will not fit into there small narrow Biased point of view. Tgeorgescu (talk) 06:32, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Another vexatious troll

It is hard to see [103] for anything else than vexatious trolling. If you analyze all the edits of this editor (and those aren't many), you will see a pattern of WP:NOTHERE. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:44, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Indefinite WP:NOTHERE block applied. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:17, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Repeated racism against ethnic Chinese

On behalf of many people. I want to report Bablos939 for his blatant racism and anti-Chinese behaviours that had been happening for several months. I've decided to intervened after reading a forum about Bablos939 and the contribution he made in wikipedia.I counted total of 170 contribution to wikipedia made by Bablos939 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Bablos939&offset=20200529233528&limit=500&target=Bablos939

Every contribution/or edit made by Bablos939 to wikipedia targets only Chinese women and girls.You can in every prostitution in every country. It is offensive that wikipedia allows a anti-Chinese editor like him to roam around freely. All his contribution relates to nothing more but Chinese women being prostitutes oversea, Chinese women married with non-Chinese men, and removal of Chinese men married with foreign women. All country has it's own shares of prostitutes overseas and marriages to foreign men, but he only seems to target ethnic Chinese. Simply look at prostitution of Spain, New Zealand, Cambodia, Laos, Russia and every country and every edit are towards Chinese.. I'm sure wikipedia isn't a place where you can just target one ethnicity. If he is allowed to do this than wikipedia is a place where everyone can have a agenda to create anti-sentiments to any ethnicity.

Even in the Interracial marriage his was reverted multiple times because all his edits are about Chinese women and misinterpreted the source https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Interracial_marriage&action=history

His contribution since March are motivated by racism, anti-Chinese, nationalistic. I wish he get blocked for this type of offensive behaviours for several months. 70.77.154.228 (talk) 17:53, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

@70.77.154.228: In future, please remember to always notify users if you start topics about them here. I've done so for you. To your actual issue, I've done some review of Bablos939's edits, and I'm actually somewhat sympathetic. They really do seem to mostly focus on adding the fact that specifically Chinese women are prostitutes (also) to articles, and a great deal of their editing indeed deals with this. I'm not yet ready to say that they're pushing a WP:POV, but it does seem a strange focus. Then again, I also have strange editing focuses, so cannot really judge. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 18:46, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

• Comment - I've had numerous disagreements with Bablos939 over their edits on various prostitution articles, but, as they haven't edited these articles since early April and all issues have been resolved on an article by article basis, it would seem that any admin intervention is now unnecessary for these articles. Bablos939 has been editing Interracial marriage since then, but the edits have been reverted by other editors. (Interracial marriage has been edited by various editors with their own focuses and, in my opinion, it now needs a rewrite to restore balance). There has been a vendetta against Bablos939 since early May, initially by sockpuppet Buzinezz [104], and latterly by the IP. Whilst I'm not posting to defend Bablos939, I feel this is being blown out of proportion by the IP and is a case of six of one and half a dozen of the other, possibly down to Chinese/Korean rivalry. --John B123 (talk) 20:05, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

@John B123: Thank you very much for this helpful context. Yes, I came to much the same conclusion; Bablos939 certainly has a focus on Chinese prostitutes, but they seem to respect consensus when it emerges, and some of their edits are genuinely constructive, for someone interested in these topics. I did not catch the fact that the IP editor 70.77.154.228 is possibly a sock, but that does make sense given the history. Yet another tempest in a teacup, it seems. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 20:55, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

@Psiĥedelisto:Hello, esteemed administrator! I am interested in China's economy and women's issues in foreign country.

But I have nothing to say about the problem of the Chinese economy. Because Wikipedia is already complete. so I can only talk about the issue of Chinese women in Wikipedia. That's the only field I know. It is also true that Chinese women are frequently mentioned in the world, according to numerous academic sources.(ex) 'Trafficking in Persons Report' 'Major press'etc..) I only described it in proportion to its actual size and have no other intentions. I'm an ignorant person. I'm so ignorant that I don't even understand Wikipedia rules. So I got a lot of misunderstandings from other users in the beginning. But I had no malice and just worked hard I want to report to you about malicious users. Related: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Watersinfalls (I think I misunderstood 'Bamnamu') Related2:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Interracial_marriage/Archive_2#There_are_many_misinterpreting_the_source_about_Chinese_intermarrige 'single-purpose account : Watersinfalls, 41.34.93.140 ,102.44.199.16 , 41.232.35.139 , Buzinezz and 70.77.154.228' He existed even before I was active. Maybe he is 'Rajmaan'. He has contributed his lies and delusions to Wikipedia for a long time. Sometimes no one has looked at the details, so false information is left unattended. (Interracial_marriage) Rather, he is simply blaspheming foreign women and telling all kinds of lies. I had held a debate to point it out. Then single-purpose account began to interfere with all sorts of things. In the debate, he repeated only the wrong words without answering the question. I wanted the debate to be concise.I argued that falsehood should be deleted and the truth should be listed. but He repeats a long sentence on a topic that is not related to debate. Eventually the whole debate becomes incomprehensible. Perhaps he intentionally interferes with the debate. It is natural for other users to be angry...He is constantly disturbing Wikipedia by Bypass IP. Please block him and normalize the documents.thank you.Bablos939 (talk) 00:30, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

• This argument has been going on all over Wikipedia (see this), includng my talk page. and counter-SPI reports. The dispute seems intractable to me, but maybe someone can straighten it out. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:06, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Comment I believe many of the other wikipedia users that spoke out against Bablos939, had learned about his racist anti-Chinese behaviours through many different social media sites. For example one of them could be from here.

• https://www.sammyboy.com/threads/wikipedias-anti-chinese-racist-bablos939-chinese-prostitutes-chinese-women.286753/#post-3137596

Other users may have known him from a long time/or recent editors who suspected him because his actions were similar to previous socks such as Chinese-proti and Montalk123, both of them seem to target Chinese and edit negatively about them. Every edit Bablos939 made is negative towards Chinese men and Chinese women, that is so easy to see from his contribution history, especially when there are previously plenty of anti-Chinese socks editors that were banned or blocked doing similar things. I will not believe in something like Bablos939 saying "I am interested in China's economy and women's issues in foreign country. ". Not a single edit he made is about China's economy and not a single edit he made were about women that isn't related to China. Based on his contribution history, and everything he did, I have reason to think he is covering up the true agenda by saying he is interested in China's economy and women's issues in foreign country. I really don't know if this Bablos939 user is a Korean or someone who now hates Chinese for the coronavirus pandemic. Like it says from COVID-19 pandemic " There have been incidents of xenophobia and discrimination against Chinese people". I believe this exactly what's happening in wikipedia. I kind of agree with the person who created this thread that this should reported. The spread and hatred against Chinese is insane, and neither the government nor the media support it. I don't support it either.

Wikipedia users Bamnamu, Watersinfalls and other IP numbers all either reported him for his anti-Chinese behaviours or believe he is a banned sock who previously did the same thing. I have no idea if anyone of them is a sock but there's already a sockpuppet investigation going on and so I don't understand why he keeps lying bout something he couldn't confirm yet. Also the only person accused of being single-purpose account is Bablos939. Mz7 says that " From what I understand, Maomao4321 for supporting Bablos939 and written the exact same thing, making the exact same points is so far a single-purpose account that has only participated in the discussion in support of Bablos939. On that basis, I checked Maomao123 and Bablos939, and they are Possible to each other. "

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Chinese-proti

I agree with the other users that had already disputed with Bablos939, there is no reason why the discussion should only be about Chinese women, Chinese men and foreign women. If we were to discuss again we should also include Korean women with foreign men or any women ( of race/ethnicity) with foreign men.with Mongol men, Manchus men, American men/soldiers, Japanese men/soldiers, Chinese men or Chinese/Korean men with Russian women, European women ect. Unlike Bablos939 claiming, that only a few Chinese men married the other editors (even supported by admin/or respected editor ) shows Chinese men did intermarried with many white, black, mullato population in Cuba, Peru where there so many sources that shows (from Peru's and Cuba's own government statistic and historical records) that shows there are massive number of descendants of many mixed Chinese Peruvians and Chinese Cubans due to marriage with Chinese, they all look mixed. And also about your Chinese women marrying muslim men, fact is historically evidence also shows Chinese men married muslim women. You keep saying Chinese are concealing information of Chinese women foreign men marriages, when there's no concealment. The others didn't even reject the idea that foreign men married Chinese women but rejected your exaggerations from a single book source. The others posted historical record and genetic evidence to show it isn't as exaggerated as you wanted to be. Like the other editors said we should also talk about Korean women marriages with foreign men.

So Bablos939 if you really want to discuss again, I will join in too this time, but I suggest wait for the other editors too, it wouldn't be fair since they are much better than me at this ( I've spend plenty of time reading and copying their edits). You can also wait for that Maomao123 single purpose account. If you don't want to discuss I'm fine with that, if you wait for another time or wait for the right time, in my opinion is the best choice. You can also continue disputing in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Miscegenation ( the discussions is hidden but allowed to continue, we can talk there) or you can discuss in my talk page and I wil answer your question, but don't just make this about Chinese women. By all means we must also Korean women and other women (like the other suggested ) married to foreign men, because that is correct. I'm not interested in Chinese/Korean rivarly. Chinese and Koreans shouldn't be the only ones targeted. First I'll prefer to wait for Sockpuppet investigation, is not over yet. I really don't know who is a sock or not. In case, a sockpuppet supported me or I was supporting a sock the whole time, you will take the chance to accuse me of being him. I rather that is sorted out first. In the mean time, you can come to my talk page or I come to your talk page. Maybe there are some things we can both agree. 70.77.154.228 (talk) 03:51, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

This discussion should not have been opened here in my view, ip address 70.77.154.228 because this is mainly a sockpuppet case now. If the ip address here could help look over Chinese-proti and his sockpuppet edits it would be helpful for gathering evidence but I feel I have gathered enough evidence for a decisive conclusion.

Bablos939 is not a new editor. In Bablos939's second edit to prostitution in Cambodia he added this perfectly formatted citation and it's actually new editors tend to make the mistaken of edit warring to restore their contributions and get blocked for engaging in them rather than someone familiar with Wikipedia rules on consensus. Bablos939 used a lot of wordy terminology referring to Wikipedia rules on the talk page of interracial marriage showing he isn't a new editor. How many new Wikipedia accounts show immediately after account creation who know how to format citations perfectly and know how to refer to Wikipedia rules in arguments? Bablos939 isn't actually obeying those rules he just uses them as a crutch in his argument. He is violating original research and NPOV which he accuses others of doing by him deleting information on Korean miscegenation and lying about what sources say. He claimed no sources existed for Korean female miscegenation in the Yuan dynasty he was talking about, when shown them he promptly ignored it in the discussion and acted like it didn't happen. He claimed no sources existed for Persian women in Guangzhou. When showed them he then ignored and insisted he be able to restore his edits where he removed it. Read the talk page discussion edit by edit.

Primarily the argument on the investigation is rather about Bablos939 socking and evading a ban. His problematic edits which can easily be disproven are secondary. They can easily be dealt with if an administrator previews all his edits because he is lying and adding things to the article that aren't in the citation for example he claims a certain law from the Ming dynasty was about forcing foreigners to marry Chinese women when the source didn't mention gender at all and another source mentioned both genders marrying. Bablos939's focus on Chinese prostitution isn't the problem, it's that his edits Chinese prostitution matches that of a banned individual who engaged in nationalist edit warring to "conceal" (as he says) information about miscegenation of Korean women along with it. He's in a nationalist contest over whose women are miscegenating or prostituting more since he sees this as a nationalist contest to be won on Wikipedia. I ask any third editor who can do it with reliable sources, go ahead, add information on both Chinese women and Korean women to articles on miscegenation or prostitution with other races and see if this account cannot resist deleting Korean women from the pages. If Bablos939 had not made the edit removing the things about Korean women he wouldn't have blown his cover. I found another sockpuppet of his called Skyslandscanner and decisive evidence that he is a sockpuppet of Chinese-proti through available diffs. Skyslandscanner adds the same thing as Chinese-proti to articles while Bablos939 deletes the same thing as Chinese-proti from interracial marriage. They even use the hyphen the same way in their edit summaries.

I think we should end the discussion here and return to the sockpuppet investigation pages. You can read the evidence I added there which I think no reasonable person would doubt by now. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Chinese-proti]

Regarding Montalk123 he might be another Korean nationalist because he appears to be actually fluent in English unlike Chinese-proti who types with really bad grammar which gives away who his socks are. But I am absolutely confident now that Bablos939, Maomao4321 and Skyslandscanner are Chinese-proti and have provided the evidence to prove it on the investigation page. They speak the same, edited the same articles, deleted the same things and add the same material as each other. Montalk123 not sure but the other three definitely yes. Please return to the investigation page and help out there.Watersinfalls (talk) 01:00, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

• Comment - There are ongoing sockpuppet investigations at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Watersinfalls and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Chinese-proti. To include the same arguments here seems like WP:FORUMSHOPPING. Moving forward, I would suggest adding protection to Interracial marriage to prevent disruptions by sockpuppets and/or single issue editors, which causes other editors to spend a lot of time trying to sort things out, time that could be better spend elsewhere. As Interracial marriage, Miscegenation and Multiracial people have large overlaps in both coverage and content, I would suggest the latter two articles are also protected to prevent the "war" being transferred to those articles. --John B123 (talk) 13:09, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

• Watersinfalls blocked as a sockpuppet of Rajmaan. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:51, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

User:DReifGalaxyM31 persistently adds unsourced material and avoids discussion

• DReifGalaxyM31 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

As far back as 2014, I've left notices for DReifGalaxyM31 (a few personalized) regarding the need to backup claims with reliable sources. Some of their edits are fine, involving a simple rephrasing of existing text and other forms of light copyediting. Others are even helpful at times, correcting specs and removing outdated information. The good tended to outweigh the bad, and it wasn't much work to sweep behind and keep things tidy over the years. However, the bad now tends to outweigh the good, and the frequency that myself and a few others have had to get involved is increasing. The editor hasn't responded to repeated requests and keeps marching on. Here are some recent examples...

Adding unsourced content:

• diff1
• diff2
• diff3
• diff4
• diff5
• diff6

Continuation after 6th notice:

• diff7
• diff8

There are other minor concerns with some edits, but right now lack of sourcing and ignoring pleas to discuss are the biggest issues. Perhaps a short-term block is needed (1 week) to get their attention. --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:53, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 60 hours. El_C 08:47, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

IP range WP:HOUNDING my contributions

The range 221.132.119.0/24 has been constantly going through my contributions list and reverting my additions of Urdu-language titles to articles on Pakistani entertainment with strong ties to the Urdu language. Here are some examples:

• "Per infobox and do not add urdu everywhere, Its ok in intro but why in infobox too?"
• "per my previous edit, Urdu POV"
• no edit summary
• dont push Urdu POV everywhere, its already written
• unsourced
• unsourced and dont add urdu for international films, what is the logic of adding urdu everywhere? Its english wikipidea if you have so much concern about Urdu then create Urdu articles. You have zero contribution in Pakistani entertainment and suddenly you are awake and editing in only yours area of interest which is only Urdu, Also please read WP:INDICSCRIPT

There are plenty of other examples littered through their contribution history, but hopefully this is enough to get the point across. In their latest wave in particular, I find it highly unlikely that they just happened to stumble upon Shareek-e-Hayat, Load Wedding, and Shehr-e-Ajnabi mere hours after I had edited them, particularly given that IPs don't have access to a watchlist...

I did try to communicate with them on their talk page once, to no avail.

Regardless of the content issue at hand, I really don't think this sort of WP:HOUNDING should be acceptable, and to bring some attention to it I am posting here. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 09:26, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

The user seems to be on a bit of a crusade against inclusion of Urdu names. Quite a bit of it seems to have been pointed at your edits, but looking at their recent contributions, it's not solely that. I've rangeblocked for a week for anonymous users only (account creation still allowed), so if they want to create an account and discuss this style issue civilly, they can. As it stands, I consider this disruptive editing because some of those edit summaries are really quite personal, and they're massively misrepresenting the WP:INDICSCRIPT project guideline in two ways - (a) it only applies to India-related articles, while these are predominantly Pakistani, and (b) Urdu isn't even an Indic script. The actual related guideline, WP:URDUSCRIPT, seems to have no issue with inclusion of Urdu in these types of article. ~ mazca ^talk 12:04, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Mazca :-) M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 01:02, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Years of incivility

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

---

For the first 13 years I edited here, I had never heard of JzG. I first encountered him about a year ago and was struck by the uncivil tone he took in his interactions with those who disagreed with him. Eventually I had enough and in April I filed a complaint here at ANI. Bagumba found both of us at fault, but noted in the closing note that "at least three editors did not consider [JzG's] edit summary reference to "magic bread" to be WP:CIVIL."

In May, I complained again about 1) a series of uncivil comments and 2) his revdel-ing one of his own talk page comments. The conversation that ensued revolved around the deleted comment. In it, JZG declared that I was one of seven people in the world that he didn't like and that he didn't want to interact with me ever again. Lourdes then closed the discussion, saying "the interaction between JzG and Slugger are not of benchmark standard, and JzG has said he will voluntarily avoid interacting with Slugger from hereon. In my view, this is enough for the thread to be closed." She did so before there was any real discussion about the uncivil comments and only 14 hours after my original post.

I never asked for him to avoid interacting with me, and as long as he can remain civil have no problem interacting with him. Because of this, and because I thought he should have a voice in a particular discussion, I pinged him on a request at a noticeboard earlier this week. He opposed my request, which I knew he would. However, he went beyond this making six additional comments (plus subsequent expansions of those comments), trying to convince others to oppose me as well. He made more comments than any other user, save me. I am not upset about his participation for the reasons stated above. However, the content of some of those messages is troubling.

I am not sure how I am supposed to take this comment as anything but a personal attack: "He is religious, and like so many religious people he knows he is right, therefore everybody else is simply wrong, and that's all there is to it. He is acting in absolute good faith, and that is the problem." Painting religious people with such a broad brush is troublesome. I'd normally let it go, but I've since learned that he has a long history dating back to at least 2007 of bias against those who are (or he believes to be) religious. In the May ANI discussion, Mr Ernie said "I think we're close to the point where JzG's personal beliefs regarding Christians / Pro-life / Conservatives may be impeding their ability to edit those topics without conflict."

In her closing comment, Lourdes said "If the OP in the future believes JzG's voluntary offer of avoiding them has been contravened, they can come back here with evidence." Since she hasn't been actively lately, I can't ask her exactly what she meant by that. I took it to mean, however, that if JzG interacted with me again then the community would review my initial complaint of comments described by Mr Ernie, LokiTheLiar, XavierItzm, and Steve Quinn as "belittling," "harmfully antagonistic," "unnecessarily hostile," " offensive remarks - perhaps as a way to be intimidating," and "construed as harassment." Aside from the noticeboard where I pinged him, JzG has not avoided me. I posted three queries in WP:RSN. JzG responded on all three, sometimes more than once, and addressed me directly (though admittedly civilly).

I have also since learned that I am not the first to raise concerns about JzG's uncivil behavior. When ElKevbo complained about him last year, the lengthy discussion closed with Ivanvector saying "Formally, JzG is warned that the community's patience for repeated incidents of incivility is wearing extremely thin. In particular, JzG, I kindly advise you to note the number of editors endorsing blocking you here who are themselves administrators, and that a number of editors have made good arguments for why blocking you several days after this incident would easily fit within policy as a preventive measure."

In that discussion, Fish and karate found numerous other complaints about him, but sanctions never seem to get applied:

• • JzG is admonished
  • JzG is specifically admonished
  • JzG warned re civility
  • JzG is warned
  • JZG is warned

What is it that is so special about JzG? It was three years ago that DuncanHill asked "Does Arbcom think admonishing JzG will have any effect at all? He's been behaving atrociously for years." Three years later and JzG is still saying that because someone is religious that they can't be neutral. Three years later and he is making offensive comments towards others' religions. Just how thin does the ice have to get before it cracks? I've seen people blocked for a lot less, and rightfully so. As an administrator, he should be held to a higher standard. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 16:46, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Slugger O'Toole, this noticeboard is for active incidents — so what active (i.e. recent) incident are you reporting? El_C 16:49, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

El C, The discussion Lourdes said could be revisited was held on ANI, so I assumed this was the correct place for it. If it would best be held elsewhere, kindly inform me of where and I will retract this and repost it there. Thanks for the help. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 16:59, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Slugger O'Toole, I'm not sure what discussion you are referring to, but you cannot ask for sanctions on the basis of Stale evidence. El_C 17:02, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

El C, In May, I posted here at ANI. In closing that discussion, Lourdes said "If the OP in the future believes JzG's voluntary offer of avoiding them has been contravened, they can come back here with evidence" (emphasis mine). Since then, JZG has interacted with me two days ago and made a personal attack three days ago. I assume that is recent enough. Again, however, I am not terribly familiar with this forum. If it's best addressed elsewhere I'd be glad to move the discussion there. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 17:15, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Slugger O'Toole, JzG is not obligated to avoid all interactions with or about you (like commenting on your request to lift your ban). As for the purported attack you mention, while granted, it is a bit too polemical for my liking, JzG went to some lengths to note that he feels you are acting in good faith, but that you have blinders that distorts your approach to neutrality. El_C 17:22, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

El C, thank you, yes, I freely admit I could have phrased it better - in particular I stated opinion as fact, which was wrong of me. What I meant was that this is what appears to me to be the case, having reviewed his edit stats while dealing with the KofC article and subsequently, including his being most prolific editor of Knights of Columbus and its talk page, second most prolific at Catholic Church and homosexuality, #1 at Political activity of the Knights of Columbus (which political activity is Catholic faith-driven and not uncontroversial, also includes anti-LGBT activism), Catholic Church and HIV/AIDS, Dissent from Catholic teaching on homosexuality, Political activity of the Catholic Church on LGBT issues, History of the Catholic Church and homosexuality, Pastoral care for gay Catholics, Catholic teaching on homosexuality, Catholic University of America, Stop the Church (a protest against the Catholic response to HIV/AIDS), #2 at Catholic social teaching and so on.

But Slugger says that calling him a Catholic is an attack and he does not identify as such, so of course I apologise unreservedly and will not call him that again.

You are right: I think Slugger is editing in good faith, and pursuing truth as he sees it. The issue at KofC was an unwillingess to accept any pushback about sources with an obvious dog in the fight, and it's my view that this was true at Stop the Church as well. Guy (help!) 18:02, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

JzG, First of all, calling me a Catholic is not an attack, per se. It's that I've asked you many, many times not to, and you continued to do it. This is the first time you have even acknowledged my request. Secondly, and relatedly, "of course" you apologize? I asked you to stop one last time just two days ago. Did you apologize then? No. Did you agree to stop then? No. How did you respond? With six paragraphs of unsolicited advice that said how I could do better, but didn't even mention my request, much less agree not to do it. I am glad you have now apologized unreservedly, and accept it. I just wish it hadn't taken a complaint at ANI to obtain. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 18:48, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Slugger O'Toole, seriously, if I had noticed I would have stopped. We both tend to the prolix, and I may well have skimmed over it. I can only apologise, the intent was never to offend but instead to recognise sincerity. As I have said, I think you are sincere. I also think that you have a tendency to dominate any matter in which you are involved - hence your #1 position in the edit stats of so many highly edited articles and their talk pages.

You can hardly call advice "unsolicited" when you came to my talk page. Guy (help!) 19:48, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

JzG, You didn't notice? In both prior complaints about you at ANI I have raised the issue. I've raised the issue on article talk pages. In a one paragraph entry on your talk page entitled "Please stop" I asked you not to do it. I don't know how you possibly could have missed it. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 20:00, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Slugger O'Toole, the "please stop" was when I did. And you'll note I haven't said it since. Guy (help!) 20:35, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

JzG, You haven't said anything to me since then. If it was your intention to stop, perhaps you should have said so, instead of offering me instruction on other topics. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 20:41, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Slugger O'Toole, I apologised for getting it wrong. Are we done? Guy (help!) 21:37, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

JzG, Yes. I've already accepted your apology. It's your statement that you didn't know I was upset by it that I find incredulous. As far as I am concerned, we are done with this line of conversation. The greater issue of your longstanding incivility remains, however. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 22:52, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

If you wanted a interaction ban you should have asked for one then, if you had offered it probably would have happened. Since you didn't you would probably need new issues to get one. Its seems JzG stayed away from you until you tried to have your topic ban removed with a request that I believe misrepresented my participation with you.AlmostFrancis (talk) 17:10, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

AlmostFrancis, As I said above, I didn't want one. I don't want one. I don't want JZG to avoid me, I want him to be civil towards everyone. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 17:16, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Unless you have a specific request this is just going to be a timesuck. Also you should add diffs to your last paragraph otherwise they are aspersions and sanctionable as such.AlmostFrancis (talk) 17:37, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

• My interactions with JzG have been uniformly extremely unpleasant. I haven't reviewed all the links Slugger provided above, but I am not surprised to hear that he has a long history of incivility.

For my own experiences, a month ago JzG accidentally rolled back hundreds of my template edits completely unrelated to a pending matter at the time, and while that in and of itself is not a big issue (misclicks happen), he has still not cleaned up after himself a month later. Other editors have generously helped clean up some of the edits, but many of them remain undone (with compounding damage), and he has so far brushed off or ignored follow-up.

If the examples that Slugger linked to hold up in context (and again, I'm not asserting that they have, since I haven't checked them), it seems that the carelessness I witnessed may be part of a larger pattern of irresponsibility. If that is the case, then I would suggest that this may be an instance of an unblockable leaning on the blue wall, and that JzG has lost the confidence of the community. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:27, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Sdkb, This refers to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1037 § Change to all our welcome templates. Context: you were granted template editor rights at your request, the granting admin expressed reservations in the ANI thread. You made large scale changes to templates without prior consensus. I restored the status quo ante. L235 then came and asked for some tweaks which I did. You clearly feel this is unfinished business - you reopened the ANI thread and undid the auto-archive on my talk page - but the final status of that ANI was that there should be a RfC to decide on the template content issue. Is that now complete? Guy (help!) 19:52, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

You did not just restore the status quo ante, you undid hundreds of my template edits in some cases going back years, most of which had zero connection to the ANI thread. This was clearly explained to you by other editors on your talk page in the discussion I linked above; do not obfuscate the issue. Here are three rollbacks/page deletions that you have still not undone [105][106][3] (deleted page); there are tons more, so do not just fix these and then call it a day. The mass rollback feature is an extremely powerful tool that needs to be used judiciously and with care; that you still do not seem to understand how you messed up with it after it has been clearly explained to you multiple times is negligent. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:27, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

(Regarding your "context", I object to your characterization. You closed the discussion less than two hours after it was opened, hours before I ever saw it. As a result, you missed the highly pertinent discussions previously held about the issue. Your choice not to modify your close in any way after what happened became clear created a further mess. All of that reflects on the issues of irresponsibility raised in this thread. (For anyone who follows the link and is curious about the reclose, Serial Number 54129 has clarified that it was done just to get the thread to archive, and is not intended as an endorsement of your close.)) {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:44, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Sdkb, you were granted template editor rights 2020-05-06T14:18:08. I removed the right at 2020-05-08T14:11:13. Between those two timestamps you made 103 edits to Template space [107] and created five new ones. You didn't think that was a bit bold?

I rolled back 145 edits by you in template space [108]. The discrepancy is due to a screwup in the date filter on one refresh.

My inability to "understand how [I] messed up with it" is primarily due to a lack of specificity in your comments to me. Example: there is massive cleanup left to be done - sure, but... details? My rough count of the difference in numbers did not then and still does not indicate a problem of vast scale such that specificity would be a problem. Feel free to show where I went wrong there.

But sure: 100% of the problem is the guy who tried to clean up the mess. We're used to that. Guy (help!) 21:35, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

• I posted three queries in WP:RSN. JzG responded on all three, sometimes more than once, and addressed me directly (though admittedly civilly). If the responses were civil, shouldn't we be congratulating Guy for taking on board prior concerns? Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 23:11, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
• I have encountered JzG a number of times over the years and I there hasn't been a lack of decorum in my eyes. Throughout last year, there was a problematic editor who couldn't take a hint 1 2 and even with said editor trying to edit war and campaign against JzG, this administrator still gave him ample rope in the first place, before finally drop the hammer and ban him from Wikipedia all together. If there's active unprofessional conduct, I have yet to see it. DÅRTHBØTTØ _(T•C) 23:40, 6 June 2020 (UTC)givacy.
• How many times is JzG going to be brought here for incivility before something is done? Up top El_c tries to excuse it for stale reasons or something similar, but it is clear that in certain topics he holds very strong opinions and in many cases he crosses the line of civility. His being an admin does play a role because this is conduct not becoming an admin and he is held to a higher standard, even if he doesn't use his admin actions. He wrote a whole long screed calling all US conservatives nasty names, now he calls anyone religious similar, and the links to prior ANI actions is where people have had enough of his behavior. It is unacceptable and we should not tolerate it. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 01:33, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

• Comment - JzG is a valuable editor and an extremely effective admin. Calling a spade a spade is not "incivility", and should never be the reason for blocking, banning or even admonishment. If Sir Joseph perceives Guy as a problem, it's most likely because he's been on the wrong -- i.e. non-policy -- side of disputes with him. That's Sir Joseph's problem, not ours, although it could well contribute in the future to further sanctions for SJ. [109], [110], [111] Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:29, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

  Beyond My Ken, I don't think I've ever been involved in a dispute with JzG, but thank you for showing everyone why ANI and Wikipedia is such a toxic place to edit. My block log has no bearing on this and you threatening me is inexcusable, especially considering the way you treated me before. Just look at this thread and see how many times JzG has been warned about incivility. What you did by bringing my log into this is a form of harassment and bullying considering I am not a party to this. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 02:50, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

• I can't "threaten" you, as I have no power to do anything to you. And if you have had no interactions with JzG, then you really don't have anything particularly pertinent to contribute to this thread, do you? As for "toxic": "How long are we going to put up with this dude before we do something to him" (paraphrase), "Guy's buddies are protecting him from lettingus do something to him" (paraphrase), "Guy dares to have opinions about politics that are different from mine" (paraphrase), "We cannot tolerate this! Man the barricades!! Up against the wall!!!" (ultra-paraphrase). Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:07, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

  Beyond My Ken, I can ask the same to you, although much stronger. He's an admin and civility is very important and he's been brought here many times before. I assume you read the ANI and didn't just jump to my name to comment. This isn't the first time he's been brought here, and it wasn't the first time he's been brought here in the past couple of months. As to why comment, I can you the same question, why would you comment on ANI threads? I really don't know what I did to you that you have such animosity. The only interaction I've had with you was a positive one about some synagogue in NYC, as far as I can remember, yet every interaction you have is a negative one. Also note how I'm not pasting your block log or your warnings. Just please stay away from me. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 03:13, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

• "yet every interaction you have is a negative one" Wrong again, Ernie. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:39, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

• Re "What is it that is so special about JzG?", the answer is that he works in the fringe area and frequently has to argue with nutcases trying to use Wikipedia to promote their favored anti-science view. ANI is not the place to post a bunch of historical links. Links should be selected for relevant and recent problems, not sprayed with a firehose. Johnuniq (talk) 03:19, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
• I was pinged (you rang?). I wasn't going to comment here, but here I am. First let me say, I really like the title of this thread. I think it is a great name for a novel, a memoir, or even a soap opera. Having said that, I agree with Johnuniq and in a different way say the same thing. RFC/U has been dropped by the community and this has become one of those. I recommend that editors with their own complaints open a specific thread regarding those complaints. As it stands now, any complaint that is not Slugger's is off topic.

JzG has apologised (or apologized) for the "Catholic" remark. The other "uncivil" remark I think is debatable. What exactly here [112] is a personal attack? I think it serves as JzG's description of how someone edits more than accusing someone of something. So, what particularly is offensive? I am asking in good faith here. (Redacted) --- Steve Quinn (talk) 04:53, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

(Redacted) ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:03, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

• Slugger O'Toole, it looks highly likely to me that you have come here to complain about JzG because he opposed your recent request to have your topic ban on the Knights of Columbus lifted. You must have worked hard to uncover admonishments that JzG received five to twelve years ago, but stuff that old is of very limited relevance in 2020. As for JzG guessing at your religion, I think that we can agree that if a hypothetical editor spent most of their time editing very positively and tenaciously on Zoroastrian theology and Zoroastrian men's groups and Zoroastrian controversies and so on, constantly citing sources from Zoroastrian publishers, that another editor might be forgiven for concluding that the first editor was a follower of Zoroastrianism. But now that we all know that you do not want your own religious identity to be mentioned on Wikipedia, anyone who reads this discussion will try not to mention what everyone thinks. What you call a personal attack I see as a frank evaluation of your style of editing, and criticizing your editing is not a personal attack. Other editors are chiming in, claiming that JzG has been mean to them, but JzG and many other editors think that he is defending this encyclopedia and its policies and guidelines from editors who are here to push assorted versions of a pseudoscientific world view. I endorse Johnuniq's assessment right above. An administrator who has JzG's focus "frequently has to argue with nutcases trying to use Wikipedia to promote their favored anti-science view", and that good work as a Wikipedia adminstrator tends to make enemies. This encyclopedia has a problem with articles on topics specifically related to particular religious denominations relying solely on sources published by those religious denominations, or with heavy reliance on such sources for sweeping assertions. As a result, we end up with articles that state, in Wikipedia's voice, that certain myths and legends are actually "miracles", and other overtly non-neutral content. That is untenable for a neutral encyclopedia, though it may be excellent content for the denomination's own publications. We cannot host "articles" that are really religious tracts and recruitment brochures in disguise. There are many academics working in the field of Comparative religion and related fields who produce high quality neutral analysis of various religious beliefs and practices, and those are the type of sources that should be preferred for such articles. I am 100% in favor of rigorously neutral, properly referenced articles about religious topics. Editors who work to undermine the neutral point of view need to be monitored, restricted and blocked if the behavior persists. As for JzG, I encourage him to use diplomatic language when dealing with problematic editors, and to avoid writing anything that could be construed as a personal attack. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:29, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
• I'm really not seeing anything here that is actionable. Slugger is recounting old UNCIVIL violations to begin with, then adding one on top. There really isn't anything much here. Recounting past uncivil violations in this context does not seem applicable. This is not the same as, for example, an editor with a long history of tendentious editing, thwarting the project at every turn. JzG's positive contributions outweigh the other issues that have been brought to the community's attention imho.

Also, I feel he has been able to describe most situations with uncanny accuracy and I often appreciate their candid remarks, whether or not I am INVOLVED. And that applies to a number of edits going back a number of years. Dealing with fringe editing and POV edting can understandably result in becoming testy from time to time. I echo Cullen here except for one a couple of words. "I encourage JzG to use diplomatic language when dealing with problematic editors" specifically "to avoid" any comments "that could be construed as a personal attack." ---Steve Quinn (talk) 06:33, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Steve Quinn, I added one word to my comment to improve clarity, I hope. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:58, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

• Rather than say the same thing three different ways, this comment should serve as a response to Steve Quinn, Johnuniq, and Cullen328. First of all, we should all be glad that JzG does some laudable work. Good work over here does not excuse incivility over there, however. Secondly, this is not personal. Others opposed my request last week, including you, Cullen and Steve, but I am not filing complaints against anyone else. Why? I haven't found anyone else to be so uncivil. In fact, Steve opposed me and I said some nice things about him in response. Third, I thought I had already litigated the timeliness issue above. Let's look at Lourdes' closing comment above in its entirety:

There are two issues here. One, JzG (Guy) made an erroneous admin action, reversed it. Two, the interaction between JzG and Slugger are not of benchmark standard, and JzG has said he will voluntarily avoid interacting with Slugger from hereon. In my view, this is enough for the thread to be closed. If the OP in the future believes JzG's voluntary offer of avoiding them has been contravened, they can come back here with evidence. I'm closing this here now.

Now remember that she closed it after less than a day, before any of the uncivil comments were discussed, and after other editors specifically asked for it not to be closed to give them time to look into the uncivil comments. I'm not sure how to interpret that except to say that if JZG interacted with me in the future that the uncivil comments would be examined. What was I supposed to bring back here otherwise? Evidence that he didn't live up to his voluntary pledge to avoid me? What would be actionable about that? If you still believe that ANI is not the right place for this, I've already said I will take it to another forum. Finally, the community has decided that I should not edit in the area of the Knights of Columbus because I cannot do so within the community's standards. If JzG cannot edit in "fringe areas" without becoming uncivil, then perhaps he shouldn't edit in those areas either. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 10:58, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

• I don't wish to see any more admin board complaints regarding JzG by Slugger unless there are very recent and tangible violations. Otherwise Slugger should be sanctioned. The ANI, to which Slugger referred [113], resolved the above issues, as did the ANI before that [114], from which everyone was supposed to move on - including the redev action. Even if Slugger doesn't think so. All this has been dealt with, so please stop beating a dead horse. The community has spoken more than once. It's not fair to drag an editor into ANI unnecessarily. For future reference, when an AN or ANI thread closes, that means it's time to move on. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 16:47, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
• Here is some advice. If Slugger wants to know what Lourdes or any other closer meant, then please ask Lourdes (or other closers) on their talk page. That is a targeted effort that may yield tangible results before flailing about in high-traffic ANIs and ANs. This will save lots of time. The energy spent writing here could be used more productively elsewhere, imho. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 17:18, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
• I'll say this another way. To correctly interpret the decision elucidated in a closer's remark, it is best to ask the closer what they meant, rather than before coming to this or any other drama board. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 17:45, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

  Steve Quinn, As I said originally, I wanted to, but she hasn't been active here lately. She's only made one edit in the last two weeks and hasn't responded yet to several messages I've already left on her page. I don't know when or if she will be back. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 18:43, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

@Slugger O'Toole: That is unfortunate. If you are basing this complaint on interpreting what she meant, then we're stuck. Because, I don't know either. I don't know what this means: "...the interaction between JzG and Slugger are not of benchmark standard." And I don't know what this means, "If the OP in the future believes JzG's voluntary offer of avoiding them has been contravened, they can come back here with evidence."

It appears JzG interacted with civility before this thread. Then he apologized here for the "Catholic" remark. There has been no discernible civil violation in the previous ANI interaction - at least not one that you have presented. Also, as JzG said, he probably scanned your last post on his talk page, rather than read it, so he gave you friendly advice instead of acknowledging what you said. But, again, JzG apologized here.

Judging from what you have posted here, it seems you feel it is not necessary for JzG to avoid interacting with you, as long as it is civil. If I have covered all the bases here, then I suggest waiting for Lourdes to return before coming back to ANI, or AN. But, I strongly recommend coming back is based on recent and tangible violations, otherwise the thread will probably lack direction, and probably the complaint will not garner support - as is the case with this thread.

If I may, I will also add this: if you are thinking of going to Arbcom based on the history you have presented here, I am pretty sure that case will not be accepted. JzG's history shows low-level CIVIL violations. Arbcom deals with complex highly contentious issues. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 19:15, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

One more thing. I am guessing, but I am pretty sure Lourdes meant, if JzG contravened his offer based on "(recent) uncivil remarks" then it would be OK to file another complaint at an Admin board. I am guessing, they left out "(recent) uncivil remarks". It seems that is implied. But, again, to have clarity, consult Lourdes. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 19:40, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

OK. Just one more thing. Arbcom will not take a case if the Dispute Resolution process is working. That would be a high bar to overcome regarding JzG. If anything, the evidence presented in this ANI shows the DR process has been and is working. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 21:41, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

---

Unless another uninvolved admin objects, I intend to close this report as not being actionable. As I mention above, if Slugger O'Toole has an active (which is to say recent) incident to report, they are welcome to do so — but as the other two uninvolved admins who commented on this report (Johnuniq and Cullen) have said: ANI is not a fishing expedition. El_C 11:42, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

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

User:Smith0124

Smith0124 has been repeatedly removing candidates from the sub-pages of 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries contrary to consensus that all candidates that receive over 5% are to be included in the infobox. As many of you know, there is a long standing guideline to include candidates that receive over 5%, which has been stated in this 2017 RfC, among other places. Most recently, there was a RfC on the main page which determined consensus for part B with the addition of candidates that receive 5% of the vote. Notwithstanding this Smith0124 has been removing Sanders, Warren and Bloomberg from infoboxes, suggesting that only two people can be in them. He has removed them from Washington, Arizona, Florida, District of Columbia, Minnesota among others. He has been notified about this on his talk page, the DC talk page and the main page. Unfortunately, he refuses to respect RfC consensus and has attempted to come up with various reasons to take matters into his own hands and simply disregard that consensus. He refuses to reconsider his behaviour.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:31, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Darryl refuses to listen here. For months, the standard was that only the top two candidates went in the infobox because everyone except Biden had withdrawn. There was no pushback and I didn’t even think twice about it. The second place candidate, usually Sanders, went up because of a 2017 Rfc stating that there always had to be at least two candidates. There is an Rfc that I participated in and strongly agree with stating that candidates should go in the infobox if they get more than 5% of the vote, but nowhere in this Rfc does it say that this includes candidates that have withdrawn, and clearly that’s how everyone except Darryl interpreted it because that’s how it’s been for months. The only reason other candidates are included in 2020 Democratic presidential primaries is because they won a contest. Darryl clearly has no consensus for the changes since it’s been like this for months, there is no reason to accuse me of going against the 5% rule. It makes no sense to include candidates that have withdrawn inside the infobox, which is supposed to be a summary. They belong in the results table. If Darryl wants to change what’s been the standard for months with no pushback until now, a consensus is needed. My behavior has not been disruptive in the slightest, I am simply protecting the standard. Smith0124 (talk) 21:48, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

As you have been told, the recent RfC considered removing withdrawn candidates. There was no consensus to do so. It was also considered in the context of the main page, again no consensus to remove. The consensus reached was to include all candidates which receive 5% of the vote. As you have been told before, if you don't like it start another RfC, but you don't just get to disregard the consensus reached.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:56, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

No consensus means no consensus. Not that they should be included. Clearly that's how everyone else saw it. Smith0124 (talk) 22:04, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps, but the closing comment is that there is consensus to include candidates which receive delegates or 5% of the vote. That is a positive consensus. And in considering withdrawn candidates the closing comment is that there is consensus against Option B (removing withdrawn candidates). You do not get to disregard the positive consensus to include candidates that receive 5% of the vote.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:13, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

This is what I mean when I say Darryl doesn't listen. The consensus is for candidates still running, that's how it's been interpreted on all these pages for months, with no pushback. No consensus was reached on withdrawn candidates, and the standard has been to not include them. I hate repeating the same thing over and over. Smith0124 (talk) 22:16, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

That is not how it was uniformly applied, and that was while the RfC was underway. We now have a positive consensus from the RfC. You are also disregarding the fact that, many articles had a de facto loose polling consensus for before the contest actually happened. That meant that only Sanders and Biden were in the infobox for most articles before the election occurred. After the contest (when we have reliable data/votes) we have a consensus that ALL CANDIDATES THAT RECEIVE 5% ARE INCLUDED IN THE INFOBOX. What part of the RfC consensus do you not understand? I can only explain it so many times.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:24, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

You admitted that no consensus was reached on withdrawn candidates. No consensus. I agree with you that there is a consensus to put candidates who have more than 5% of the vote, but by saying there is no consensus for withdrawn candidates they are clearly separating candidates who are running and candidates who are withdrawn. They are clearly separated in this consensus and that's how it's been on the state by state pages for months. If you want to get a consensus to change that, go ahead, but there is no consensus for withdrawn candidates. Smith0124 (talk) 22:30, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

There IS A CONSENSUS to include all candidates that receive 5%. If you don't want to follow that consensus, start a RfC to reconsider it. The current consensus is to include them. Simply asserting a new criteria to ignore that consensus is disruptive and not appropriate.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:45, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

"The recent RfC considered removing withdrawn candidates. There was no consensus to do so" in your own words. No consensus means you shouldn't break the standard. If there had been a consensus not to remove withdrawn candidates I would agree with you. The standard for months has been to not include the withdrawn candidates, and as you said there's no consensus, so if you want to change the standard for the state by state pages that have not included them for months I encourage you to get a consensus. Your words prove my point, I'm sick of arguing and I've presented my argument which I believe settles this. If you want to keep ranting in all caps go ahead. This is my last response until we get a third person involved because this is getting us nowhere. Smith0124 (talk) 22:51, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

What part of this do you not understand? There was no consensus to remove withdrawn candidates (you insist on doing so anyway). There is consensus to include all candidates that receive 5% of the vote after a contest (you refuse to do so). You are disrupting the application of the consensus that was reached. STOP.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:56, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Ok, I have to respond to this I'm sorry. It wasn't just me, it was basically everyone else. These are commonly edited pages that are edited by a lot of different people, plenty of these people could've objected in April or May but not a single person did until now. That is because everyone else that has edited these pages in the past few months realizes that the consensus on the Rfc didn't apply to withdrawn candidates, that by saying there was no consensus on withdrawn candidates the Rfc was separating candidates who are running and candidates who are withdrawn. I could just as easily say that there was no consensus not to remove withdrawn candidates because it means the same thing. It is not just me. That's why I say it's the standard, because everyone else who has made these infoboxes has done the exact same thing as me. The only way to prove me wrong on that is to start an Rfc yourself on withdrawn candidates specifically and get a consensus. Smith0124 (talk) 23:00, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

The recent RfC was closed on May 22. Before that, we didn't know for sure what the consensus was. But you had agreed in this participant discussion, meant to narrow the issues, that the consensus was "After a caucus or primary, candidates should only be included in result infoboxes if they have earned a delegate OR 5% Popular Vote in that race." Many of the sub-articles edited in April and May concerned contests that had not closed, so as I said only Sanders and Biden were included before the election (on the view that others were not polling above 5%). In other sub-articles, only Biden or Sanders received over 5%, so after the primary only they were included in the infobox. But none of that matters, because when the RfC closed on May 22 the consensus was to include all candidates who received over 5%. I have spent far too much time trying to explain things to you, which you are either unable or unwilling to understand. I will try not to respond further and instead try to let others explain why you can't just disregard consensus you don't like.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:17, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

I will also wait for a third person. But I will say that the close was on March 10, it was archived on May 22. The most recent message from anyone on that section that I could find was on April 9th, though substantial discussion about the consensus largely ended on March 22. Smith0124 (talk) 23:21, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Again, what are you talking about? The RfC was closed by SpinningSpark on May 22, 2020. They added closing comments then... you know... when it closed. It remains un-archived on the regular talk page, not in archives.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:27, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

That was just a brief statement. Davemoth wrote up the consensus on March 10. Nobody objected to part B. The consensus was effectively reached then and it was used from then on, the May 22 statement came months after and was only done so it could be archived. Users were well aware of the consensus months before May 22. To this day there is still no consensus on withdrawn candidates as stated in that Rfc. Smith0124 (talk) 23:35, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

That was a participant discussion meant to narrow the issues and make a formal close easier for the impartial closer. Davemoth (an involved party) never purported to close the RfC and it continued until it was formally closed by SpinningSpark on May 22.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:44, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Davemoth had every intention of establishing a consensus, as that's exactly what he/she did. Substantial discussion largely ended on March 22. By then everyone probably read Davemoth's consensus and that was what was used from then on. Smith0124 (talk) 23:58, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Smith0124, I am not sure which part of "After a caucus or primary, candidates should only be included in the infoboxes of primary and caucus articles if they have won delegates in that contest or received 5% of the vote" is confusing. Consensus seems pretty clear there, and the consensus for withdrawn candidates was not determined for the main article. Why don't you just open up another RfC that simply asks "Should withdrawn candidates be removed from the infoboxes of the individual primary articles?"? A. Yes, if they did not receive a delegate or received less than 5% of the vote. B. Yes, all withdrawn candidates should be removed. C. No, they should not be removed under any circumstances. You have to be specific with your RfCs otherwise you end up with unfocused discussion and impossible to evaluate consensus. Nihlus 23:41, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

If the consensus was clear on withdrawn candidates, it wouldn't have taken all the way from March 10 to early June for someone to pushback on the notion that no consensus was reached on withdrawn candidates, as said in the Rfc. The May 22nd closer did mention that he/she thought the Rfc was unclear. I fully agree that a new Rfc is the best solution, but until then the months old standard of removing the withdrawn candidates unless we need a second face in the infobox should stay. That's the rules I believe, the standard sticks until there is consensus to change it. Smith0124 (talk) 23:46, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

This RfC was for the main page. I don't see a consensus to remove or keep withdrawn candidates from the individual primary pages on that page, however. I think the best thing would be to keep whatever was in the articles prior to today and to start a new RfC as mentioned above. There is no sense in edit warring over that while the discussion is taking place. Nihlus 23:56, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

My way is the initial way. I can make an Rfc, I assume it should go on 2020 Democratic presidential primaries. Smith0124 (talk) 23:59, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

I am not familiar with where most discussion for those pages takes place, but given that the talk page has been used before, I imagine that would be fine. Nihlus 00:03, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

It’s where the initial Rfc was. Thank you so much for helping us sort this out! I very much appreciate it. Smith0124 (talk) 00:04, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

This RfC was for the sub-pages. It says we include them. If Smith wants to do a new RfC he can have at it, but the existing consensus is to include them. We are not going to erase candidates who have received significant support from the infoboxes pending the two months it will take for that RfC to run its course, after we just did that. How many RfC's do we need to hold for participants to respect the consensus that is reached in them? Another editor went through and removed them saying only candidates that received delegates should be included, though they accepted the consensus when pointed to the RfC. Smith hasn't even articulated a clear standard here. He has removed some candidates that have withdrawn, and not others. He thinks only one withdrawn candidate can be included, because apparently there is some unwritten rule of two. Otherwise, only Joe Biden would be in any of the infoboxes. He has removed Bloomberg from the Minnesota despite the fact that he withdrew the day after, and left in a Warren as a third candidate for some unknown reason. He has removed Warren from Washington despite the fact that she had not withdrawn when voting began. Are we really going to refuse to implement the RfC consensus and instead just use the Smith says so (based on nothing) standard? I do not accept, that we ignore the RfC consensus until a new RfC is done. Withdrawn candidates were considered in that RfC and consensus was all candidates who receive 5% are included, not all but those who have withdrawn.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:14, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Darryl Kerrigan, I do not see any discussion in that RfC that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the consensus is what you say it is. There are at best a few comments that mention it. Perhaps it would be best if both of you just avoided changing them and avoid each other until a new consensus is reached. There is WP:NORUSH to get this resolved and fixed immediately. Nihlus 05:50, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

The consensus in that RfC clearly states that all candidates that received delegates or over 5% are included. There was not a significant debate in that RfC about withdrawn candidates, but it was considered and discussed in passing and nonetheless the consensus formed was that all candidates that received delegates or over 5% are included. Now one editor is trying to claim that it was always accepted that withdrawn candidates had to be excluded. He has not even been applying that standard uniformity. I am sure there is no rush for Smith0124 now that he has imposed his own views on the articles without any care for the RfC consensus. Editors have already waited months while the last RfC was underway and we were waiting for a close. I see no reason to wait another two months for this RfC to close when we already have a consensus to include them. I also have no trust for Smith0124 now. They have not been straight with me on their talk page, claiming that there was a consensus somewhere that specifically supported removal of withdrawn candidates. Their responses to me on the main page talk, also do not make sense and appear to me to be attempts to revise what they actually said. There is no consensus to remove withdrawn candidates, so I see no reason I should accept Smith0124 going against the RfC consensus or the other editors that have now commented in the RfC he has now started. Several have suggested he put down the stick. Sure we could wait forever, but why should we?--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 06:08, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Darryl Kerrigan, at the end of the day, this RfC will end up resolving these issues so that you can move on to other things. Also, the RfC has no set amount of time that it needs to be kept open. Per WP:RFCEND, it can be closed early for many reasons. With the way the votes are going now, it appears a consensus will be formed sooner rather than later. I understand things are a bit heated, and it probably seems overly bureaucratic, but you'll be in a better position to handle future conflicts going down this route. Nihlus 06:47, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Sure, RfCs can in theory be closed after less than a month, and a close can come earlier, but in my experience they tend to take two months or longer from open to close. I invited Smith to start one early on to alter the consensus as he is proposing, but he decided instead to make edits contrary to the existing consensus, then start this RfC and demand the "status quo" (that he unilaterally created) be maintained. What is to stop him from finding a new reason to refuse to follow the next RfC consensus? Nothing apparently.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk)

This Rfc is very specific and straightforward. I promise to follow it. You can take my word on it. Smith0124 (talk) 07:04, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

• This user has also been removing polls that they deem unimportant based on their own personal criteria, for which they do not have a consensus for. I noticed this at 2020 United States Senate election in Maine but they have done this elsewhere. I've asked them to gain consensus for their criteria and self-revert but they have declined. (the polling was restored first by me and then by someone else) 331dot (talk) 12:58, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

That polling is junk. It assumes that the primary elections won’t happen and pits either a bunch of Republicans against one Democrat in the same poll or vise versa. That’s not how an election works, that’s why primaries exist. We need to not include them because they are deeply misleading and don’t represent the actual election. It’s something that would never happen. Smith0124 (talk) 19:33, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Smith0124, that should be discussed in greater detail elsewhere and determined prior to removing them (or whatever the status quo was prior) per WP:BRD. I think WP:BRDDISCUSS specifically would be helpful for you as well. If your edit is challenged, it's best to discuss it rather than edit war about it. Nihlus 20:43, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Smith0124 That's your opinion, which you are entitled to have, but you cannot impose it by fiat. This is a community and you need consensus for your change, especially since you seem to have some sort of personal criteria as to what you deem to be a 'junk' poll and what you don't. All I am asking is that you be more collaborative and seek a consensus for what you want to do. 331dot (talk) 01:05, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

PutItOnAMap had a good solution which was to combine all the Democratic and Republican candidates and put a note about how much each candidate got on their own. You can see what I mean on 2020 Montana gubernatorial election. We are in agreement so let's just leave it at that. Smith0124 (talk) 01:09, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Easy solution: Have different inclusion criteria for infoboxes of elections & infoboxes of primaries/caucuses. GoodDay (talk) 22:02, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Anon User Kdchan on No Game No life

Been a while since I looked into Wikipedia policies so this might not be the right place to post.

Since August 2016, the user KDchan has been displeased with the negative reception of the article No Game No life, (Talk Page Discussion); the user was permanently blocked as an end result. Here is the last revert done on the user his IP hopping spree before the page was protected for 2-years which ended last week (Link).

Before the expiration, the user has returned recently to voice his protest on the talk page via vandalism. Here is a link to the last revision before the latest talk page protection (Link).

Since the protection expired on the main page, the user has returned to changing the reception to de-clarify a negative reception for whatever reason (Link). Third edit, third day, third IP address.

Is there an alternative measure besides protecting the page just because of this one user? Thanks D.Zero (Talk · Contribs) 21:43, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

DragonZero, I have restored semiprotection, this time indefinitely. We also have pending changes in the toolkit, but that puts the burden on you to patrol and approve or reject changes, and sometimes people unfamiliar with the page may approve the IP's edits. In this case I think semiprotection may be best. Guy (help!) 21:49, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Dan arndt

Dan arndt (talk · contribs), who is a rollbacker, is repeatedly abusing their Rollback flag in a contentual dispute for reverting clearly good faith edits: [115] [116] [117] [118]

From my part, there were several attemts to resolve the issues on their talk page, and also a warning because of Rollback abuse, but all useless.

Given that, I hereby kindly request to consider revoking the Rollback flag of this user. Thanks --A.Savin (talk) 02:45, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Note that I also had asked for advice at Wikipedia_talk:Rollback#What_to_do_in_case_of_Rollback_abuse and Eumat114 has confirmed me that repeated cases of Rollback misuse are subject to flag removal. Now we have at least four abusive rollback edits, this cannot be considered accident or lack of experience or the like. --A.Savin (talk) 03:15, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Baseless allegations as my explanation for reverting the images are clearly given on each article’s talk page a simple fact that A.Savin appears to have purposely overlooked, despite my comments on his talk page. Dan arndt (talk) 02:58, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Dan arndt, so you have a disagreement over content, which is very much not where rollback is to be used. Per WP:ROLLBACKUSE: Use of standard rollback for any other purposes – such as reverting good-faith changes which you happen to disagree with – is likely to be considered misuse of the tool. When in doubt, use another method of reversion and supply an edit summary to explain your reasoning. Your reverts do not fall into any of the five categories listed. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 04:33, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Which means the flag has to be revoked, because this is a systematic abuse. --A.Savin (talk) 13:22, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: Notwithstanding the above, it should be noted that A.Savin (the OP) reverted Dan's edit again after Dan had started the discussion at Talk:Pidurutalagala. Also, A.Savin should be more WP:CIVIL to prevent content disagreements escalating into personal attacks. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 11:35, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

• I'm just as (un)civil as Dan arndt. --A.Savin (talk) 13:22, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
• The diffs linked above are as clear as can be that Dan arndt has been using rollback to revert edits that are nothing like vandalism. If A.Savin has also done something wrong (which I haven't checked) then that can be dealt with, but Dan arndt has obviously been misusing this tool. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:56, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

  Phil Bridger, A.Savin has edit-warred to include his own image without discussion in place of a long-standing image. Dan has at least started a discussion. Trouts all round. Guy (help!) 21:47, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

• This is quite an unjust assessment from you, since the initial edit war starter definitely was Dan arndt (meanwhile I have withdrawn my image until further notice) and they alone abused the Rollbacker flag, what this thread actually is about. --A.Savin (talk) 22:24, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Galendalia, again

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

---

Skipping to the end, Galendalia's most recent edits include telling one good faith user to go to hell (twice), adding "Take me to ani see if I give a fuck" to a discussion Ponyo and I were having, and then the uncalled use of a phrase that rhymes with duck zoo directed to Ponyo. These seem to have come as a result of myself and another user pointing out that he should not have G11 speedied a perfectly normal user page. Bottom line: the user can't take advice, but persistently needs truckloads of it because they go around doing things that are wrong. (I will freely admit to keeping an eye on their contribs following the recent ANI.) It's late here in my time zone, but there you are. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:21, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

In my defense I accepted that and moved on. The conversation on their page was about me and they were trying to be slick about it by not using my SN. I can use any phrase I feel necessary when I am constantly being harassed by other people within the community and the fact that I’m being called out for something I felt was AGF attempt and having long ass stories put on my talk page and being told I’m not doing what I should be based on a conversation that was closed awhile ago but still gets constantly brought up because some people can’t or won’t let things go. I brought it up as I stated because I wasn’t sure do the fact their email is on the user page and their website. I quoted my exact reasoning “ Privacy-breaching non-public material, whether added by yourself or others, may be removed from any page upon request, either by administrators or (unless impractical) by purging from the page history and any logs by oversighters (see requests for oversight).” I was told that my misreading of it is that the user voluntarily posted it therefore my CSD was inappropriate. My argument is right there in the first sentence “whether added by yourself or others....” Maybe it was the wrong template but the correct way to go about it is simply stating that “hey the template you used was not appropriate in the way in which you used it, instead here is a better way.” No instead it turned into once again an attack on me and the administrator went on a tangent Then in comes everyone else about something including Ponyo who again is stating it fell on deaf ears, etc etc etc. Then to top that off a user posted a COI to their page however they didn’t post it correctly to put it in the category so I created the COI for them (as they only had a sentence stating they have a COI and the user account is only a few days old). Therefore I was being helpful in this particular incident. Furthermore the poster of the ANI did not post anything about this discussion to my talk page, and for an administrator none the less, should be doing this instead of (referencing conversation on their talk page with another admin about me) trying to skirt the system and go behind my back. I did nothing wrong nor did I do anything outside of my promise on the previous conversation. When I see this posted by an administrator on my talk page “This might be an area that requires some restriction.” Then I see it as a threat that I will be restricted by the admin from editing certain parts of Wikipedia. I will note that throughout the conversation eventually the admin did start to explain everything which was helpful and not as condescending. Now as far as the other user posting on my talk page, they added their four (count them) four paragraphs of their opinion on stuff already talked about and therefore was unneeded on my talk page. This was completely uncalled for in any aspect. I am getting tired of having to defend my every single action on this site especially when it’s the same admins over and over who have the issue. Btw I happened to come into this conversation as I look at the board once in a while before I start CV to see what has been reported so I don’t waste my time on revisions if someone was reported. PS I can take advice if it is presented as such. Simply leaving 4 paragraphs of crap on my talk page is not advice, nor is telling me I’ll be restricted is advice. Galendalia Talk to me ^{CVU Graduate} 06:08, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot to notify you of the ANI. Done.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 12:16, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

PS I can take advice if it is presented as such. Simply leaving 4 paragraphs of crap on my talk page is not advice, nor is telling me I’ll be restricted is advice. Editors aren't under any obligation to make sure things are worded in a way only you can understand. If you don't want to be treated like a newbie (ie. templated) stop with the boy-who-cried-wolf WP:BITE stuff and start listening to what several experienced editors are telling you. Praxidicae (talk) 17:35, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

• Seeing Galendalia's initial reaction to ThatMontralIP's explanation as to why the G11 tagging was incorrect made me realize that there will always be issues with Galendalia's editing on this project because they have great difficulty admitting when they are wrong. Their entire temperament is unsuited to collaboration, which is obviously an issue as this project relies on collaboration. Who is ever going to want to try to discuss anything with Galendalia when odds are you'll be met with denials, claims of harassment and petulant responses? When I recently expressed concerns on their talk page, they responsed angrily and blanked the discussion with the edit summary "No need for the smack down from an admin" whereupon Nick, who closed the last lengthy ANI thread, noted that "You've already been given a significant amount of leeway that is not always extended to new contributors causing low-level disruption, please do not use up the last of the good will that exists for you within the community". Consider my patience exhausted. -- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:21, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Also noting that in Galendalia's response above they state " I am getting tired of having to defend my every single action on this site especially when it’s the same admins over and over who have the issue", yet when I approached them on their talk page, having never interacted with them before (that I'm aware of), their response was "I don’t even know who the f*** you are but now you are on the prowl against me". So any new admins who bring up concerns get dumped on the Admins Who Harass Me pile. There doesn't seem to be an avenue for discourse that doesn't veer into uncivil territory.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:49, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
• For someone who loves to drop the "DONT BITE NEWBIES" line, they sure like to dabble in non-newbie areas. I see no benefit of allowing this to continue and would suggest a WP:NOTHERE or WP:CIR block. You don't get to cry WP:BITE while attempting to edit in areas that require experience. Second time at ANI, only been here what, a month? Praxidicae (talk) 17:28, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Praxidicae, I am actually editing articles as I am learning AWB and WikiCleaner as well as asking questions. Please take a look at my contributions before you say I am WP:NOTHERE. As far as WP:CIR I am not causing a major cleanup of anything. However, if administrators would just clearly state the point and provide an explanation on what would be the correct way to do something, it is far easier to have a conversation than to just outright write 4-5 paragraphs on what was wrong, without a proper explanation and requiring the end-user (i.e. me) to have to basically goat the answer from them, as I stated above. If an admin is only going to leave a short little sentence or two on "Oh you did that wrong...." then it is not helpful. As far as the first ANI the user and I had a disagreement, and in their normal course as I have seen them do numerous times, as soon as they have a disagreeement with someone, instead of talking about it, they immediately bring it to ANI. Talk about a blatant misuse of the system. Then it turned into an all out war on me as all these admins had issues and some I had never heard from before, but they had a lot to say in the ANI but never once talked to me about anything. Never once have you engaged me in any conversation, however, you sure had a lot to say about me during the ANI. Yes an editor, regardless of who it is, should leave a clear and concise statement of what the issue is instead of a vague one which requires poking and proding to get something done. I come across various pages as does everyone else does and I flagged it due to the policy mentioned above. The user has the option to remove it and that was done. But yet, here I am at ANI for something I did within the policies of Wikipedia (as previously stated). I don't always apologize and that is something I need to work on, but if I am not debating it, then I am accepting fault for it. So yes, I need to make sure I apologize in words. Template:U:Ponyo - Yet again, you are passing judgement on me. You have yet to show any WP:Civil towards me. All you have done is berate me and pass judgment on me as you even state you have never had anything to say to me, but yet you have had no problems joining in (with paragraphs and accusations) saying I am not being constructive, saying I am violating all the rules, but yet my contributions show otherwise. The circumvention of using my user name as you both did here User_talk:ThatMontrealIP#thank_you_for_trying is uncalled for, but to each their own. Galendalia Talk to me ^{CVU Graduate} 18:17, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Ironic you complained above about a lengthy warning and yet added this diatribe here, while complaining about incivility of other editors who you said "fuck you" to. Is "do as I say, not as I do your Wikipedia motto, Galendalia? Praxidicae (talk) 18:24, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Praxidicae, and this was a necessary commentary to serve what purpose? Galendalia Talk to me ^{CVU Graduate} 18:26, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

So, i'm not allowed to register an opinion of a habitually problematic editor? I was hoping you'd respond with some sort of acknowledgement about your disruptive behavior before I made a formal proposal for a block and/or ban. Praxidicae (talk) 18:27, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Galendalia, I am curious about something. Is your position that a) you should not be warned or advised when you make poor edits that affect others, and b) if you are warned or advised on bad edits, you will continue to tell experienced editors to "go to hell" or go fuck themselves? Slightly paraphrasing your use of "fuck", but it's more or less accurate. Do you see nothing wrong with your conduct? ThatMontrealIP (talk)

Praxidicae You are allowed to 'register your opinion' however, I was curious as to what purpose the comment was for other then trying to goat me into replying in a bad manner. ThatMontrealIP No, neither one of those are my positions, however, I need to stop being so angry at people who are making attempts to point out my wrongs, however, there is a correct way to do it and should include what can be done to correct it not just "That was the wrong template, don't go peddling in things you don't know.....etc etc..." Galendalia Talk to me ^{CVU Graduate} 18:48, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

• What a mess. Galendalia's edits (and commentary about them) have been a prominent fixture on my watchlist as of late, and that's never a good thing - especially for a user who's been here around a month! Making mistakes due to inexperience isn't a problem, and I'm the one of the first to bat for folks who're accused of "incivility" when frustrated, but Galendalia's frankly obtuse attitude towards any and all users, admin or not, who offer constructive criticisism about their behaviour is getting incredibly old. Their apparent unwillingness to even acknowledge they have a problem combined with their rabid obsession with collecting responsibility (their behaviour around the Spoken Wikipedia Project is incredibly concerning) suggests to me that a WP:CIR block is required for a year or two, until they gain the willingness to actually work WITH people. Until then, their presence here serves to simply burn the time and goodwill of valuable constructive editors. -- a ^{they/them | argue | contribs} 19:06, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

• : Oh wow, I just discovered this. I am struggling to find a justification for this kind of hot-headedness. -- a ^{they/them | argue | contribs} 19:10, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

I think that was an...unwise request on their part. ——Serial ^# 19:14, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

• Yeah, the diffs in the initial complaint are enough for an indef on their own, and given the history here, there are CIR issues. I've gone ahead and indefinitely blocked. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:13, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Carlstak being problematical

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

---

User, typically visible by his edit summaries, in my honest opinion ever was being, blatanty biased and vandal in his editions, but, ok, it's the same to me. Today, in this case, in article Aztecs he is creating artificial polemic around a image caption about the word "abuse", first, "Carlstak" in his edit summary stats: ""abuse to" is not correct English, editor left out the "file:" part of image code" (?) but I decided leave his edition, later, in arbitrary way states: "(ce: logical order)" in this caption: "Codex Kingsborough, showing the abuse of a Nahua under the encomienda Spanish labor system by Spaniards", edit deform caption as it: "Codex Kingsborough, showing the abuse /by Spaniards of a Nahua under the encomienda /Spanish labor system", I undo that page change showing to he that is ungramatical because his target word are repeated many times, later, Carlstak returns again and again make his target change, now with a high tone: (Reverted 1 edit by Picklespitlizyr: No, your edit and your summary are ungrammatical; "many "Spanish, Spanish" sayed in few time" is not coherent English and indicates, that your English is not that good. You were reverted, so please respect BRD process and take to talk page. (TW)) ("Tag: Undo"). Please, take the applicable actions against the user. Good night. --Picklespitlizyr (talk) 05:39, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Until you have a better grasp of English syntax and grammar, maybe you should stop correcting such things, per WP:CIR. The problem here is clearly you and not the other editor. Heiro 06:21, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

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

User:107.77.204.52

Has history of introducing facutal errors and making political comments in the body of articles. Has now begun to insert antisemitic comments (Example)–DMartin 06:00, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

• I've blocked for one week for disruptive editing. If they were an account, I'd've indef WP:NOTHEREd them. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:19, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Ram nareshji

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

---

Ram nareshji (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Blocked once before for disruption of the reference desks / help desk, at it again, even though every one of his questions gets hatted (and not always by the same person).

Warned by Quisqualis[119] and Ian.thomson[120] yet continues the behavior.[121][122]

Examples:

• Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Computing/2020 May 27#How to IMPORT this blocked attachments from gmail to another gmail?

copied from

• [ https://stackoverflow.com/questions/62023626/how-to-import-this-blocked-attachments-from-gmail-to-another-gmail ]

Also see:

• Transit by road through Kenya

copied from

• [ https://travel.stackexchange.com/questions/38631/transit-by-road-through-kenya ]

Also see

• Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing#What happen I turn off computer during system Windows update at start up?

copied from

• [ https://www.quora.com/What-happens-if-I-turn-off-my-computer-during-Windows-updates ]

Sometimes he paraphrases the question (identifiable by the poor grammar) instead of copying it, but his answers to requests for clarification make it clear that he is not posting about any actual problem that he personally is trying to solve. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:08, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

• This certainly looks like a WP:NOTHERE. I see four edits in article space in 2014, and none since. I think all the rest have been Talk and Desk questions. User claims all the questions posted here as well as outside Wikipedia were posted by them. Not sure if that helps the Copyright issue, but it certainly looks like a lack of interest in encyclopedia building. --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 08:07, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) WMFlabs edit count. 35% of their edits are these damn refdesk questions. Another 34% are posting suggestions to article talk pages instead of actually editing (and these suggestions are not great). While I do think there are times that it is more appropriate to suggest an edit on a talk page before trying to carry it out (I have done that within the past week), doing only that to the exclusion of actual editing (especially when they could have carried out the edit themselves and had some WP:Gnome fix it) strikes me as an implied admission to a lack of competence or willingness. Beyond that, 18% of their edits were to the help desk and the older help desk, which I would take as sufficient WP:ROPE for them to get off their ass and contribute but no, it's just them being scared to edit, being scared of getting blocked, asking us to let them edit (they weren't blocked or anything), asking how to edit, being scared we're going to call the cops on them, being scared to post to user talk pages, and giving bad advice. Also, repeatedly begging for attention. I think this may be the first time that WP:BOLD should be the reason given for blocking someone (though I'm just gonna go with WP:NOTHERE and WP:CIR). Oh well, they thought they were already blocked anyway. Indefinitely blocked for not being here to build an encyclopedia (among other reasons). Ian.thomson (talk) 08:21, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Oh, btw, just to make this case weirder, I'm totally cool with unblocking from article space for no reason whatsoever. Ian.thomson (talk) 08:28, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

This is odd. I was told, in no uncertain terms, that if someone wants to use Wikipedia just for the reference desk, that that is part of our encyclopedic mission. I do not see why people here are taking into account Ram's lack of mainspace contributions, because that should not enter into the calculus. Okay, if he's being disruptive on the reference desk that should count against him, but why bring up mainspace if the poor guy just wants to do the reference desk? Elizium23 (talk) 12:37, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

It is true that there is no policy against only using the refdesks, but there are a couple of subtleties here.

First, if you actually contribute to building an encyclopedia we give you more slack when it comes to other things. Let me give you an example. Every so often someone (usually not seriously) mentions a Cabal. See Wikipedia:Cabals. I often reply by writing the following:

"There Is No Cabal (TINC). We discussed this at the last cabal meeting, and everyone agreed that there is no cabal. An announcement was made in Cabalist: The Official Newsletter of The Cabal making it clear that there is no cabal. The words "There Is No Cabal" are in ten-foot letters on the side of the international cabal headquarters, and an announcement that there is no cabal is shown at the start of every program on the Cabal Network. If that doesn't convince people that there is no cabal, I don't know what will."

It is just a bit of lighthearted fun, and nobody minds because of all the work I put in trying to improve the encyclopedia. But what if the only thing I did was post jokes? I could very well end up with a WP:NOTHERE warning.

Second, It is generally agreed that what we are looking for on the refdesks is [A] questions that lead directly to improving the encyclopedia, and [B] questions that the poster wants to know the answer to. Ram nareshji is just copying questions from elsewhere. He shows zero evidence about actually wanting an answer regarding Windows shutdown of traveling in Kenya. Please read User talk:Ram nareshji#Need confirmaton where he admits to copying questions from stack exchange he doesn't need answers to and where he promises to stop doing it. As he was told in that discussion:

"The purpose of the reference desk is so that you can ask questions that you want to know the answer to, not so that you can turn the reference desk archives into a 'question bank'. The people who put time and effort into answering questions that you asked did so in order to help you. How do you think they are likely to feel about having spent time and effort into producing an answer that nobody visiting the reference desk actually wants to know about?"

--Guy Macon (talk) 15:21, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Guy Macon, I'd say [123] tells pretty much the whole story. Wikipedia is... not a substitute for porn? Something like that? Anyway: WP:NOTHERE. Guy (help!) 18:03, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Wow! I don't think I've seen that thin a red slice in a long time! Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:17, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

And all (count 'em) 4 posts to mainspace in 2014. Narky Blert (talk) 20:54, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Disruptive behavior at Brumby

• Shenqijing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (editor being reported)
• Brumby (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Since May 30, the above user has been editing the above article based on their local knowledge, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, there's a couple dozen more.

They have been edit-warring against multiple editors to their preferred version, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff

Main discussion on the article's talk page about their edits, where the editor has been arguing that this term (feral) has been legislated against and is derogatory in nature, arguing that Chinese medicine is somehow related to the subject of the article and could have medical ramifications for the reader, diff, diff, diff.

Consensus on the talk page for the last stable version, diff

Warnings left for editor for edit-warring and editing against consensus, diff, diff, diff

As per the evidence presented, Shenqijing is edit-warring, editing against consensus, exhibiting signs of WP:IDHT, WP:OWN, and apparently is here to WP:RGW. I'm asking for relief from this disruptive behavior, take your pick, topic ban from the article, partial block from editing the article, or whatever is necessary to stop the disruptive behavior. Thanks. Isaidnoway (talk) 09:25, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

• Pretty bad WP:SPA behavior with WP:CIR to complicate the issue. It seems unkind to take away their hobby but something has to happen. I would support an indefinite block or at least a partial block from the article and its talk page. Johnuniq (talk) 10:35, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
• Just read the talkpage and my brain hurts now; the user wont listen and keeps posting screeds that seem to have little relevance to what is being discussed. Oh, and they have taken it to the arbitration committee diff Curdle (talk)
• I was asked (Canvassed) by the user in question to take a look at the situation and it is clear: this is a longstanding Good article (full disclosure: I worked on the GAN) and requires consensus for change. All the issues raised by this user were debated and a consensus reached long ago. While a paragraph of updated political news with proper reliable sources may be useful to bring the article current to any new political developments, the approach by this user is not useful. The user has a serious case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and if they don’t chill out and back down, a block is in order. Montanabw^(talk) 17:57, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Interestingly, Montanabw, for good article status, All editors are welcome to make changes and improve the article, but some discussion of significant changes is recommended is as good as it gets (re: "requires consensus for change"). However, I agree that these edits are poor enough to fall into the latter category, and that, having been reverted, they then should discuss it (which in any case is in line with the basic principle of BRD). Mind you, having gone to the talk page they then made for painful reading. Depending on their responses in this thread, I'd suspect a CIR issue. ——Serial ^# 18:25, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Nsenaratna creating flood of "in creation" Sri Lanka stubs and orphan categories

Nsenaratna (talk · contribs) is creating a flood of articles on Sri Lankan electoral districts, filling various alerting lists, and in particular Category:Stubs. Each article is labelled {{In creation}}, and they are being developed piecemeal in mainspace, overwriting edits by other editors such as stub-sorters who are trying to empty that category. They have been left a variety of messages on their talk page over the few days since they registered as an editor, but have not replied to any of them.

They have also created a number of categories with no parent categories, such as Category:Polling Divisions of the Kalutara Electoral District. PamD 11:35, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

PamD, They are currently the editor with the most unreviewed articles, 149 by my last count. Vexations (talk) 11:44, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

I asked them yesterday to please stop mass creating low quality stubs - in fact there was one point they did 6 in a minute and given this is more than just a single line of text, which I could see being possible in that time frame, I'm concerned about the rapid fire creation that seems bot like given the stubs also include detailed/difficult templates that this is automated/semi automated. Praxidicae (talk) 12:05, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

I also realize this is rather quick for a proposal but I'd suggest a block at least from mainspace until they respond to their talk page. I find their unwillingness to communicate and collaborate the most problematic and the sheer number of messages that have gone unacknowledged is unacceptable. Praxidicae (talk) 12:08, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Praxidicae, Done. El_C 12:37, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

El C, righteous partial block. Guy (help!) 21:21, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

AIV

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

---

WP:AIV not only backlogged but being used by a new sock to fuck about. DuncanHill (talk) 20:53, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Block review of AManWithNoPlan

Following the addition of a new identifier to the 'cite' templates, some editors have used Citation bot to make multiple rapid edits that remove the link to the article from the title in the citation. Examples are:

• Trimix (breathing gas)
• Ethosuximide

There is a very clear general support for the position that titles in citations should link to the relevant article, as can be seen in this well-supported RfC Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 167 #Auto-linking titles in citations of works with free-to-read DOIs held at Village pump (proposals).

I made AManWithNoPlan aware of the problem. This was removed with the edit summary Technically not my edit. Will discuss on bot page. We have had the same problem in March where AManWithNoPlan refused to accept that when they initiate a bot run, they remain responsible for the consequences of its edits: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1033 #AManWithNoPlan and Citation bot.

I then warned AManWithNoPlan that they are expected to discuss concerns about their editing on their talk page. That was dismissed with the edit summary the was not the conclusion reacje.

I had earlier raised my concerns at User talk:Citation bot #Removing links from title without result. AManWithNoPlan then commented "I personally do not see a the consensus that you claim to exist based upon the discussion ... Lastly, I do not have time at this point to make changes to the bot to implement a new consensus. I took this as a clear indication that he intended to continue removing links from titles, and I have now blocked him until he no longer poses a further threat of disruption.

I am bringing the block for review to this board, and I appreciate other thoughts on how best to proceed. --RexxS (talk) 22:28, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

• It kind of seems you warned him, justifiably, but blocked him before he actually made any actions against your warning. ie: a pre-emptive block, which is not something we normally do. Or maybe I'm reading it wrong. We normally don't block until an action is repeated after the final warning is given, regardless of their expressed intentions. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:15, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
• This is an epically bad block. If the bot is malfunctioning (which it wasn't, that RFC supports autolinking from free identifiers, there's still consensus to use identifier parameters to put identifier in instead of |url=), block the bot, not the user per WP:BOTISSUE. Especially the user who maintains the bot and can fix the problematic behaviour. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:44, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
  • There is no consensus to remove the links from titles in citations. Quite the opposite as demonstrated in the RfC. It is also well established that a user who initiates a bot run is responsible for the edits performed. I've yet to see any sign of anyone offering to clean up by relinking all of the titles that have been unlinked. --RexxS (talk) 23:58, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
    • Whatever 'damage' there is can easily be 'repaired' with OA bot running on pages with |s2cid= set and a template update to CS1/CS2 templates autolink when |s2cid-access=free is set. User:Nemo bis can offer some insight here. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:02, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
      • The damage is the removal of links from citation titles; it is real and there's no need for scare quotes. Or do I have to ask all of the other editors who are against removal of those links to explain their objections to you again? If the damage is that easy to fix, then why hasn't it been done already? --RexxS (talk) 00:08, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
        • You have to know there's an issue before you can fix the issue. For templates updates, go to Help talk:CS1 and try to make things budge out of Trappist the monk's schedule, you're an admin, you've got the ability to edit the templates. For OAbot, go to User:OAbot. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:11, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
          • Either way, the block to AManWithNoPlan is bad and should be undone. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:16, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
          • (edit conflict) @Headbomb: I alerted you to the problem quite clearly at 19:38, 7 June 2020 (UTC) and yet you still used Citation bot to remove a link from a title at 00:07, 8 June 2020 (UTC) as part of a huge bot run which undoubtedly has unlinked more titles. You seem to believe that you can edit in any way you choose, regardless of the damage you do. I have now blocked Citation bot to prevent further damage. You need to carefully consider your position and start looking for ways to clean up the mess you've caused. --RexxS (talk) 00:40, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

• If the bot was not functioning correctly wouldn't the first thing to do be blocking that bot? Why was that not done first? I see you started a discussion on the bot page which is good, but that did not seem to completely agree with you. PackMecEng (talk) 01:05, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
• So you blocked someone for using a permissible bot and then for not respecting your authority, when you could have just blocked the bot? You also supported the underlying RFC so I am not sure how uninvolved you are. Bad blockAlmostFrancis (talk) 01:22, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Many of the links point to copyright violating PDF copies that S2 scraped, which is one reason why converting URLs to S2 ID's was strongly encouraged (similar to citeceerx conversion, which the bot has been doing for over a decade). IDs largely avoid the direct copyright violation, that the links have. Although, this discussion should probably be had on the bot page or on the copyright pages. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 01:23, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
• RexxS, this was a bad block that served no purpose. The block should have been on the bot first with you following up with a discussion with the bot owner and those using the bot. I don't see any attempts by you to reach out to Smith609 or the other editors who were using the bot. Additionally, your comments here towards Headbomb are concerning, as you are claiming that he is openly defying your "orders" when it is possible that they submitted the bot job prior to your comments and claiming that he "damaged" articles like they are physical property. He has advised you how this could be corrected and you respond with threats? I just see a lot of missed opportunities for deescalation by you. Nihlus 01:27, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Headbomb

Despite being warned of the problems caused by Citation bot removing links from titles, Headbomb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has continued to run the bot, making around 100 edits per hour, many of which remove links. I would like to see Headbomb held responsible for the damage done and required to restore those links which were removed. Failure to do so should result in sanctions. It is unacceptable for editors to initiate bot runs that make sometimes thousands of edits without any sensitivity to other editors' concerns. --RexxS (talk) 00:40, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

What the hell are you talking about? Get off your high horse. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:12, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Where is the authorization to make this run? Where is the consensus to remove the links? No consensus, no authorization, please block the editor until they clean up their mess. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:14, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

The bot was operating, so I asked the bot to edit articles (I asked the bot to make its run prior to seeing RexxS's message for what it's worth). The bot misbehaved, so now it's blocked until the bot code gets updated. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:18, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

He ran a permissible bot which was unblocked at the time. If you have blocked the bot originally as opposed to going after the user this would not have been and issue. What sanction do you even want.AlmostFrancis (talk) 01:22, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

I should note that blocking individual users did not stop existing bot runs. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 01:25, 8 June 2020 (UTC)