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

BLP violations and edit warring by BigDwiki

• BigDwiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jazz Jennings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Despite an 8 year tenure on Wikipedia, BigDwiki seems unfamiliar with WP:BLP. This user keeps adding poorly sourced edits to Jazz Jennings to include her deadname, despite WP:BIRTHNAME and past discussion on the article's talk page. The user offers Youtube and voterrecords.com as a source. This is a clear violation of BLP in an area under discretionary sanctions. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:08, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

I was in the middle of adding a new section here when this one popped up, so I'll respond here. There appears to be an edit war going on at Jazz Jennings. Despite consensus on the talk page, and plenty of sourced contributions, several editors want to continue to revert edits and claim that they are "vandalism". Youtube is indeed a reliable source. The subject of the article plainly states on his/her own Youtube video that "my legal name is Jaren", and thus it was added as a source and added to the article. There seems to be a steady beat of editors adding the subject's real legal name to the article, and then having it reverted as "vandalism" by activist editors that are dead-set on keeping the subject's real name out of the article.BigDwiki (talk) 20:13, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

You can also stop templating me... but I'd love to see this supposed consensus on the article's talk page EvergreenFir (talk) 20:16, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Please describe your logic when you have left me three such templates.BigDwiki (talk) 20:21, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

I left 2 warning templates. When I realized you'd been here 8 years, I took it to ANI instead of AIV. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:23, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Let's stay focused on the issue at-hand here rather than go off about "who can template who". Warnings get left; people get templated. It's not a big deal... :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:51, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

If they've stated publicly that their legal name is Jaren, why is that a BLP violation? Natureium (talk) 20:19, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

WP:BLPPRIVACY, WP:BIRTHNAME. This is not widely published info. I'm sure you're aware of the issues surrounding deadnames with the whole Chelsea Manning naming issue. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:23, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

That's just it. It's not a violation. Both the video on the TLC episode page as well as the Youtube video state it. https://www.tlc.com/tv-shows/i-am-jazz/videos/jazz-and-jeanette-at-dmv BigDwiki (talk) 20:24, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm not. Manning's current and former names are both widely known as they were a public figure before and after transitioning. What's the BLP issue? Natureium (talk) 20:26, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning_naming_dispute. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:30, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict x2) I don't know if we have a reliable source for the spelling of that name, but in my view the main content problem here is the surname, which has been discussed multiple times without anyone ever providing a good enough source for it. —Granger (talk · contribs) 20:25, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

(EC x3) The Wikipedia manual of style does state that someone's name should be listed as the name they are famous under, and a name no longer in use should not be stated in the lead unless the subject was famous under it. The person in question was not famous under their birth name. Thus, if included in the article, it should not be in the lead. After looking in the aricle, BigDwiki seems to want it to be in the lead, when, frankly, much like the Laverne Cox article, it does not belong there. Icarosaurvus (talk) 20:30, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Whether it is in the lead or not is not a concern of mine. As long as it is included in the article.BigDwiki (talk) 20:35, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

You most certainly do not have consensus for such an edit. And I would object any proposals that include "sources" like that mocking book or non-RS like voterrecords. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:37, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

You are free to object, but I find that you are obviously very biased in this transgener/LGBT topic withj your reverts. You've called criticizm "mocking book", yet consider pro-transgender articles as fact. Also, you're convieniently dodging the Youtube and TLC network sources where the subject clearly and undeniably states that his/her legal name is Jaren.BigDwiki (talk) 20:48, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

I acknowledge my biases and that this topic is personal to me. Were I an admin, I would still have filed here at ANI because of that "involvement" with the topic. But my reverts don't make me "very biased" and I do not "consider pro-transgender articles as fact". Rather I understand the science behind these topics decently well enough and I am familiar enough with Wikipedia's rules and practices in the topic of trans issues. We do not include Laverne Cox's deadname, even though I think you can sources similar to the TLC clip. Why? Because of BLPPRIVACY, BIRTHNAME, and WP:HARM. Too often editors wish to add deadnames to shame or humiliate trans people, but claim it's for "the record" or "readers' information". The person's birthname in these cases adds nothing to the reader's understanding of the subject. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:56, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

BigDwiki, from looking at the page, you were edit warring to include their dead name right after the person's preferred moniker. This is generally inadvisable, and goes directly against our style guide. Whether or not it was a concern of yours, your inclusion of it there has become a concern. Further, wikipedia does not care about, as you put it "real names"; We care about the name a person became notable under. Icarosaurvus (talk) 20:43, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

• I've left formal DS alerts on both the BLP and GamerGate cases. If this behaviour continues, I believe it would be topic-ban time. Courcelles (talk) 20:29, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Please elaborate on this "behavior". As far as I see it, adding a properly sourced contribution to an article leads you to the conclusion of "topic ban time"?BigDwiki (talk) 20:36, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Properly sourced to YouTube? Try indef per CIR. 207.38.146.86 (talk) 00:15, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

• On one level I can understand the issue: the MOS sections on birthnames are inconsistent in their intent, and the one being applied here would appear to violate WP:NOTCENSORED, especially considering who the source of the information is. On the other hand, the politics of the matter are clear, and BigDwiki needs to drop the stick and give up. Mangoe (talk) 14:52, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

• As an aside, I just noticed that reference #12 is indeed a youtube video and it is used in the article and has remained there without objection. "In a Q&A video posted to her YouTube channel in July 2014, Jennings stated that she is pansexual, and that she loves people "for their personality", regardless of their sexual orientation or gender status." BigDwiki (talk) 18:19, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Proposing topic ban

• After reviewing the article, it's talk page, and associated sources, and considering the DS at WP:ARBBLP and BigDwiki's apparent intractability on this issue, I'm proposing a Topic Ban from BLPs, with a duration to be determined. I have full protected the article for avery short time until this issue is resolved. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:19, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support BigDwiki's use of such phrases as "his/her real name" shows a rather dire misunderstanding of wikipedia's policies on such matters, there was a claim of false consensus, and he seems rather hostile towards any who disagree with him. I'd suggest a ban until such time as he has shown significant improvement in these areas. Icarosaurvus (talk) 00:52, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support as per Icarosaurvus above. 68.42.64.71 (talk) 02:26, 28 March 2018 (UTC)— 68.42.64.71 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Oppose He edited a single article, was reverted, and took his concerned to AIV and the talk page which was proper. Banning him considering he has been here for eight years without any blocks or violations is a heavy handed move and smells like oppression because he seems to obviously have views That some people would like to suppress. It looks like the only mistake he made was editing the wrong article where people are extremely heated to begin with. 107.77.253.5 (talk) 02:46, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is totally out of line. BigDwiki (talk) 02:51, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose I'll join the IP-contributor bandwagon. This is an over-reaction right now, and if disruption continues it can be implemented as Discretionary Sanctions. 174.30.113.88 (talk) 02:55, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose There is no BLP violation. Sources support the edit and there is no suggestion the subject objects to its presence here or elsewhere. This is an MOS dispute. We don't topic ban for MOS disputes. Close, and take this discussion to the article's talk page. James J. Lambden (talk) 02:56, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

    I think there seems to be some confusion here. The inclusion of the legal first name is a MOS/editorial discretion issue, but the inclusion of the legal surname is a BLP issue—unless better sources can be found, including the surname is a WP:BLPPRIVACY problem. —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:02, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose (at this time until I read more arguments here), as no previous sanctions or administrative actions have been attempted or imposed against this user before. The issues are very problematic, I'm not disagreeing with that at all. But banning someone should mean that we have tried other methods and actions to correct this behavior and they have not worked, and that a ban is the logical next step necessary to stop the behavior and prevent additional disruption to the project. I think that we should attempt to impose a less-severe action in this situation, and then consider proceeding if the issue continues. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:02, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. I agree with Oshwah. User was disruptive, but too soon for tban. Tban should be a near last resort imho. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:21, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

It's interesting how a provocative suggestion like mine can be a useful tactic to stimulate some comment. That said, EvergreenFir, it begs the question as to what you hoped to gain by bringing the issue to ANI in the first place. It's either a run-of-the-mill content dispute, or a serious BLP/DS issue - what is it to be? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:45, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

@Kudpung: My hope was that an administrator would intervene and stop the disruption should it continue or that the request for such an intervention would stop the disruption, which was the case here. This board is for cases where there's not clear vandalism but there is clear disruption and that administrator intervention may be required. When I filed, it was not clear that the user would stop but it was clear that AIV was not the appropriate forum. My desired outcome was for the disruption to stop and possibly a block if it had continued or a warning if it had stopped. I do not think of topic ban is out of the question especially should the behavior had continued. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:05, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:27, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

There is and was no "disruption". As multiple editors have pointed out here, there isn't even clarity on whether a BLP violation occurred. It is my position that no violation occurred. If a violation occurred, there would not be so many editors saying that there was no violation.BigDwiki (talk) 20:10, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I don’t understand how you think there was no violation. Please read this quote from WP:BIRTHNAME.

In the case of transgender and non-binary people, birth names should be included in the lead sentence only when the person was notable prior to coming out.

Also, I would like to know why you are so interested in including Jenning’s birth name. You’ve not actually stated any reasons why you want to include the name, you’ve only stated that her birth name should be included. I feel like you’re just trying to shame her and don’t want to admit it. EMachine03 (talk) 15:30, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. There is no BLP violation here, just emotionally-charged editors arguing. Natureium (talk) 18:51, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Perfect summarization of the situation. BigDwiki (talk) 20:10, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

• There's a discussion happening on the article talk page. Why don't we take this and put it there instead of here? GMG^talk 21:01, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support regrettably - BigDwiki is still showing WP:IDHT type behavior on the talk pages, despite multiple explanation as to why his sources will not work in the article, and worse, fail WP:BLP  ►К Ф Ƽ Ħ◄  12:41, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

If you read further down the discussion that you lent to, you will see where another editor has analyzed the same question that I raised, and then analyze your response, and found that there was no violation. There seems to be the same number of people accusing this of being a violation as there are people saying that it is not a violation. BigDwiki (talk) 00:53, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose Not even close to being a BLP violation. Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:56, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support. Have we learned nothing from the Manning case? The use of the phrase "his/her real name" appears to indicate an ideological agenda at work. Gamaliel (talk) 01:00, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

By this same logic, which I’m not saying is accurate, how is it not an idiological agenda to promote something along the lines of “her name”? BigDwiki (talk) 03:37, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

The MOS, reflecting tons of discussion, follows in the footsteps of other mainstream outlets in instructing users to use pronouns and names conforming with that person's gender identity. Repeated refusal to do so is disruptive and tendentious. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:30, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

It actually states "Use gender-neutral language where this can be done with clarity and precision." in addition to the gender-identity section. "His/her" is certainly neutral. BigDwiki (talk) 15:53, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

The sentence you quoted is talking about generic contexts (the next sentence is "For example, avoid the generic he."), not about referring to individual transgender people. For this issue, the relevant section of the MOS is MOS:GENDERID. —Granger (talk · contribs) 17:27, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

@BigDwiki: are you seriously suggesting using "his/her" in reference to a trans girl is remotely appropriate? EvergreenFir (talk) 21:37, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I am saying that it is neutral. BigDwiki (talk) 21:50, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

@BigDwiki: so you think it's appropriate? Shall we use it on all articles then? Or perhaps singular they? EvergreenFir (talk) 06:36, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

• support Whether or not one agrees with the MOS on this (I have my issues, as I stated above), the onus at this point would be to achieve a different consensus instead of doggedly defying what we have now. I also see similar issues with other BLP disputes (e.g. at Sandy Stimpson; see diff) where there are problems about inclusion of material. The arguments show a failure to appreciate the matters involved. Mangoe (talk) 21:55, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support - "his/her real name" is unacceptable verbiage, and to claim that it is "neutral" shows a profound lack of understanding. To protect the encyclopedia, a topic ban seems to be a very sensible measure. --bonadea contributions talk 22:14, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
• Comment - It's hard to take a BLP report seriously when the reporter turns around and opposes a BLP topic ban. Also I can sympathize with the users who don't buy the BLP argument. The content is sourced and not really contentious in terms of accuracy. However that doesn't change the fact that disregarding MOS rules so that you can use a article to "deadname" a trans subject is extremely tendentious and certainly demonstrates a highly warped view of "neutrality". A block is not debatable if this behavior continues, or perhaps a TBAN from LGBT BLPs. I would be inclined to discretionarily implement either of these immediately if issues persist. Swarm ♠ 12:28, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

@Swarm: please see my explanation above. I came here because of the incident, not for a topic ban. When considering the proposed topic ban, I know my personal views on this topic may cloud my judgement, so I was airing on the side of caution intentionally. However, to be honest, given the user's responses above I am warming up to the idea of a topic ban. They seem to have no inkling as to why their behavior is problematic. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:06, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support, particularly given the "his/her name" thing above. That BigDwiki thinks that's "neutral" language shows that they either do not possess the understanding of policy needed to edit in this space, or their own opinions are making them unable to edit appropriately here. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:30, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose a topic ban, but I would have no problem with the outcome being that BigDwiki is given a warning that describing a trans person's birth name as their "real name" is exceptionally offensive, and will incur a block if it happens again, as it would then be a deliberate act (at the moment I'll assume good faith and believe it was done through ignorance, not malice). Fish+Karate 09:02, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - Gigantic club being wielded in an edit war. Topping banning from that one article would be fine with me as the editing is tendentious. Carrite (talk) 16:00, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Detektyw_z_Wilna

Had real difficulties(not only me) with disruptive behaviour of this user. Texts with references to reliable sources like OECD, windeurope.org and other were removed multiple times(2-3) with pejorative and insufficient arguments "dubiuos", "flat out wrong", etc. thus violating BOLD in BRD (Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle) maliciously. It makes collecting facts difficult if they deleted instantly without discussing or corrections. As I explored the history of this user, most of the job he/she was done - guarding/reverting edits or deletion the sentences he/she likes most and removing facts which are verifiable but are not pleasing to him/her. Absent or very minimal discussion. Very little of new content was added by this user. The final result is poor and disruptive - editors waisting time reverting deleted and needlessly editing well sourced content.

Examples of deleting-restoring edits with reliable sources:
832058869
832183760
832072047 edit 5)
832418917
832492931 edit 2) - completely rewritten
832493177 completely rewritten introducing factual errros
832654342
Information about roads A1,A2,E67 - with the claim "Wikipedia is not yellowpages or adverting source" was removed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lithuania&diff=832497939&oldid=832493177

Detektyw z Wilna removed a sentence tertiary education percentage with reliable sources(OECD), claiming the facts are dubious, forcefully misediting another sentence about Gazprom monopoly, and, due to poor understanding of the subject leaving factual errors - "all of Lithuania’s gas supply is provided by an LNG terminal" which was never stated before. While "The terminal is able to meet the Lithuania's demand 100 percent..in the future" was stated in original source. But I decided to pass on this, since its hopeless to start reverting/editing game again. It were vain 2-3 reverts/misedits already before. 832493177
After some misedits/reverts the fact from OECD about tertiary education percentage in Lithuania was finally allowed to be in the text..
One might think - maybe there are very strict quality requirements are being pushed through by Detektyw_z_Wilna ? But the content which is defended by the abovementioned user has weak sources, having no direct support of the facts, neglecting Wikipedia:Neutral point of view principles and difficult to verify for a non-Lithuanian reader are blatantly defended. 832059097 "Law and crime" as it was in 831095300 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ke an (talk • contribs) 10:31, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

@Ke an: I currently lack of time to follow his every step, but I have noticed tendency that he is mostly (or all the time) inserting negative information about Lithuania (Wikipedia:Tendentious editing). Moreover, as you have already mentioned - he defends such negative information very aggressively. I cannot confirm it yet, however he more and more reminds me one of the Russian Troll Factory employee. Some of the examples: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Education_in_Lithuania&diff=prev&oldid=816385880 (only problems about the Lithuanian education), https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Invest_Lithuania&diff=prev&oldid=817685742 (suggestion to remove "Invest in Lithuania" article). His main troll duty currently seems to be corruption in Lithuania and he is mostly boasting it in his edits: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lithuania&diff=prev&oldid=828076611, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Corruption_in_Lithuania&diff=prev&oldid=810927608 , https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Corruption_in_Lithuania&diff=prev&oldid=810940795 , https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Corruption_in_Lithuania&diff=prev&oldid=810947028. I am against censorship, however a person who constantly adds only negative information about his home country really raises doubts about his nationality and his possible Black propaganda tasks. -- Pofka (talk) 11:13, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

@Pofka: I made a small research on this user contributions via Detektyw z Wilna Contributions it reveals very interesting picture:

1. ~90% of the added content of this user is on page Corruption in Lithuania. It has serious Wikipedia:Neutral point of view problems, speaking the least. I would suggest to add a warning regarding the poor sources and NPOV Balance on it.
2. Attempt to delete Lithuanian governmental non-profit (like Invest Lithuania, Lithuanian Development Agency) and Lithuanian Free Market Institute organizations from Wikipedia. How to properly do AfD?
3. Almost all activity on Lithuania page is closely watching deleting/misedit of contributions of others, reverting and edit warring and fiercely protecting the Corruption and Crime sections.
   -- Ke an (talk) 14:16, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Reply from the accused

1. Most of the content in this "report" does not even attempt to honestly deal with the situation, but rather focuses on character assassinations – "troll", "black propaganda", "inherit bias" and so on. It does not seem wise to rebut and continue down this slippery slope.
2. I would like to point out that I attempted to honestly deal with the situation and applied to Dispute_resolution_noticeboard before this report to "incident noticeboard".
3. Most of the edits which in the list above are identified as "disruptive", have concrete and detailed reasons listed in the edit summary. This example is particularly telling (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lithuania&diff=832493177&oldid=832492931). Attempt to correct souce missrepresentation (from a source that is inaccessible for most people) plus a very detailed and thorough edit explanation is identified as "disruptive". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Detektyw z Wilna (talk • contribs) 08:15, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
4. Yes, most of my edits have been about Lithuania. Exactly the same is true of both of the editors (Ke and and Pofka) who are accusing me.
5. I could have reused most of this text and made nearly identical report on both Ke an and Pofka. Just because you made an appeal first, does not mean that you are factually correct.
6. My edits have clear and extensive edit summaries and I only guard against censorship. Instead of multiple misrepresentations, wouldn't it at least be honest to mention that (a) most of your edits were never reverted nor altered (b) I allowed all edits as soon as they were factually accurate and (c) I improved some of your phrasings (grammar/spelling/word order/choice of words)?
7. My edits are factually accurate, encyclopaedic and relevant. Furthermore, I do my best to not extrapolate or misrepresent.
8. Claims that I am non-cooperative are not factually accurate – I strive to have clear and extensive edit summary to my every edit. I have also replied where a reply was needed. Sometimes, it was the other party that discontinued the discussion but I never threw around accusations of "non cooperation" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Detektyw_z_Wilna#Korupcija_Lietuvoje)

Now let's deal with specific accusations:

1. "Texts with references to reliable sources ... were removed multiple times" & "removing facts which are verifiable but are not pleasing to him/her" – every removal had an explanation in the edit summary. Text were removed primarily for contradictions to official EU statistics.
2. "most of the job he/she was done - guarding/reverting edits" – reverting what appeared to be needless censorship. I do not object to removal or changes. My issue is needless censorship.
3. "But I decided to pass on this, since its hopeless to start reverting/editing game again" – I reverted only the edits that seemed factually incorrect. Most of your edits I never reverted nor altered, so this crying foul behaviour is misdirected.
4. "OECD about tertiary education percentage in Lithuania was finally allowed to be in the text." – allowed as soon as it appeared factually accurate. I also improved on the initially awkward phrasing.
5. "abovementioned [Detektyw_z_Wilna] user has weak sources, having no direct support of the fact" – a claim that is false or completely unsubstantiated at the very least.
6. "[Detektyw_z_Wilna] neglecting Wikipedia:Neutral point of view principles" – a claim that is false or completely unsubstantiated at the very least.
7. "difficult to verify for a non-Lithuanian reader" – sometimes Lithuanian sources are used because (a) English sources are not available (b) Lithuanian sources are accurately represented on Wikipedia (c) Wikipedia does not ban or discourage non-English sources.
8. "he defends such negative information very aggressively" – for the thirty-eleventh time, I defend when it appears to be censorship.
9. "I cannot confirm it yet, however he [...] Russian Troll Factory employee." – beautiful, just beautiful. Almost Reductio ad Hitlerum level of arguments.
10. "A person who constantly adds only negative information about his home country" – I add relevant, encyclopaedic and factually accurate information which otherwise would have not been added because of the "we need to look good on Wikipedia" marketing-style approach.
11. "It has serious Wikipedia:Neutral point of view problems, speaking the least." – One of many unsubstantiated attacks. Feel free to improve the article.

Detektyw z Wilna (talk) 06:21, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments

I think I provided quite enough diffs with proves about disruptive behaviour. Just another very characteristic issue - user Detektyw_z_Wilna uses quite often - "I allowed". Do we deal with some dictatorship or authority here? Edit waring diffs show quite limited understanding of ethics and knowledge -- Ke an (talk) 07:29, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

English is not my native language, sorry for unfortunate phrasing. It was unintentional and I try to not do it again. As for "proving disruptive behavior", show two edits that prove "disruptiveness". You allege that there are many examples, but let's start with two. Pick your best examples. Detektyw z Wilna (talk) 07:50, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Furthermore, it is questionable if edits which Ke an identified as "disruptive" are actually disruptive. Here is one example – Ke an thought that this edit (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lithuania&diff=832072047&oldid=832059097) was disruptive. However, Mr. Ke an seems to willingly ignore that there were 7 concrete and detailed reasons for the edit, all named in the edit summary. Detektyw z Wilna (talk) 08:01, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

@Detektyw z Wilna: @Ke an:. Detektyw, I deleted your section about corruption because it is too minor for a country-level page and other FA/GA articles of countries have this crime (along with others) integrated to other sections (Law or Law enforcement). Your claims about "looking good" is a slander and I will not further discuss it because I have integrated information about corruption from your paragraph and did not tried to avoid this problematic area of Lithuania. You immediately restored it without listening what I have done and why I have done it because it is possibly your task to boast this problematic field above other crimes in Lithuania. My accusation that you are from the Troll Factory is because you have vastly used proxy previously in the Corruption in Lithuania page. Why would a normal person do that and try to hide his true identity in such peaceful website as Wikipedia? I have checked these IP addresses locations who were inserting information to the Corruption in Lithuania page and they are from many distant countries. This information was later added by you to Lithuania and is based on Lithuanian language sources, so it is really easy to understand that you was inserting information to this page by using at least three different IP addresses and your registered account Detektyw z Wilna. Here is the proof: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Corruption_in_Lithuania&diff=812717853&oldid=812699338 and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Corruption_in_Lithuania&diff=812699338&oldid=812699072 (both were added by 82.221.111.11 who is located in Reykjavik, Iceland, so is it cold there?), next: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Corruption_in_Lithuania&diff=812724333&oldid=812719269 and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Corruption_in_Lithuania&diff=812724624&oldid=812724333 (both were added by 66.212.31.138 who is located in Los Angeles, United States, so is it hot there?), then https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Corruption_in_Lithuania&diff=812732001&oldid=812724624 (added by 37.0.124.86 who is located in Moscow, Russia, so hello my dear Russian communist friend?). Caught your red tail? All these edits are based on Lithuanian sources and are very similar or are improving, expanding previously added edits by these distant IP adresses (more of them can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Corruption_in_Lithuania&offset=20171129101647&action=history&tagfilter=). By the way, your comparison with Hitler was priceless (ordinary slang used by the Troll Factory zombies, wanna call me fascist?). Banning of this proxy troll and protection of Corruption in Lithuania page from not registered users is a must. -- Pofka (talk) 08:53, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

@Pofka: (1) Slander? Please check what the word means. (2) My self-imposed task is to prevent censorship. (3) Troll factory accusations and other longshots (ignoring the problematic projection, unsubstantiated accusations and irrelevance) are a slippery slope (4) I agree that Corruption in Lithuania should be semi-protected. (5) I never made any comparison to Hitler. You seem to be intentionally misrepresenting my reductio argument Detektyw z Wilna (talk) 08:58, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

@Detektyw z Wilna: Will not discuss anymore with a red proxy troll because it is pointless. These IP adresses is a proof that you are a proxy troll from Moscow. Your days are counted here. Прощай мой друг! -- Pofka (talk) 09:16, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

WTF is going on? Let's wait for external mediation. Detektyw z Wilna (talk) 09:19, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

@Detektyw z Wilna: Wikipedia:Sock puppetry is illegal here, my friend from Moscow. ;-) -- Pofka (talk) 09:34, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

@Pofka: You provided edits done by 3 IP addresses. One of the three IPs I do recognise. The other two, I do not. Your accusations about Moscow, trolls or sockpuppetry are false and a textbook definition of character assassination. Desperate measures in lack of arguments? Detektyw z Wilna (talk) 09:46, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

@Detektyw z Wilna: Let me guess... It must be the 37.0.124.86: Moscow, Russia? ;-) Many as you call "characters" were just assassinated all across Europe and are flying to Moscow with their "diplomatic" secret agents identities torned. ;-) -- Pofka (talk) 09:59, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

It is amazing how difficult you find to stay on the actual case. Please note that I have never accused you of various unsubstantiated things. With your logic, I would have accused you for "working for Lithuanian ministry of Economy" which does various country promotion campaigns and has even founded organisations dedicated to that purpose (www.lithuania.travel, vilnius-tourism.lt, www.govilnius.lt). Back to the topic, while I admire your patriotism and energy, censorship will have to be reverted. Detektyw z Wilna (talk) 10:06, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

@Detektyw z Wilna: Lithuanian ministry of Economy does not have a Proxy Troll Factory. Russia? Well... Internet Research Agency, https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/18/world/europe/russia-troll-factory.html (Moscow). How much of your wage you will lose because of me? Hurts, isn't it? -- Pofka (talk) 10:15, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

@Pofka and Detektyw z Wilna: Detektyw z Wilna is also demonstrates what is defined as Wikipedia:Ownership of content. This user also flooded the Talk:Lithuania page, not only this one. -- Ke an (talk) 11:59, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Please note that this entire sentence is empty and unsubstantiated accusations. Both Ke an (34 edits) and Pofka (36) have far more edits on the aforementioned talk page than me (23). (https://xtools.wmflabs.org/articleinfo/en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Lithuania). Of course, spreading false claims hasn't stopped Ke an before, so why bother now? Detektyw z Wilna (talk) 12:01, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

On Wikipedia:Teahouse#Are these statements NPOV? this user asked if some statements that "are backed by reliable sources" (without providing those sources) would be sufficiently NPOV for a "legal paragraph of a country article on Wikipedia". (which country? who knows!) I had to drag this information out of this user. I was assuming good faith, but in light of this discussion I am questioning that now. Alexis Jazz (talk) 12:34, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz: Unfortunately Detektyw z Wilna doesn't demonstrate a good will. Rather a misuse of Wikipedia principles and conflict-solving tools(they are flooded with meaningless micro accusations and are difficult to read now). It looks like a professional trolling to me. -- Ke an (talk) 14:52, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz:Good that you bring that up here, but all sources were provided as soon as you asked for them. I initially did not see why it was necessary to provide sources for a generic question. However, you got them as soon as you asked for them. Same goes for country name. So implication that something was "hidden" isn't correct, is it? Detektyw z Wilna (talk) 12:41, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz: Nobody with good faith hides under multiple proxies when adding information about (now definitely) foreign country. "I don't recognise these IPs" was all he said when he got caught with indisputable evidence (just check these links which I posted before and decide by yourself if it was written by the same person at almost the same time in US/Iceland/Russia, haha). I posted about this there to inform about this situation, which is critical and requires punishment. -- Pofka (talk) 13:00, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

@Pofka: Critique and attack me all you like, but at least do it honestly without misrepresenting my quotes (don't know), making up stuff (hides under multiple proxies) or twisting the facts (at almost the same time) to suit your message. Detektyw z Wilna (talk) 13:08, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

@Detektyw z Wilna: Okey, lets make it without paraphrasing instead of "I don't know" you said "I do not recognise". Edited. End of feed for the troll from me, because you are simply speaking in the same manner as Vladimir Zhirinovsky, who also does not listen to other people arguments and only shouts that everybody are enemies/russophobics. -- Pofka (talk) 13:28, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

@Detektyw z Wilna: Asking without providing those sources right away is already strange. After I asked, you added the sources but still did not provide a link to the article. Yes, I had to drag the information out of you. @Pofka: It would probably help if you could organize/compact all the information here. Alexis Jazz (talk) 13:21, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz: All the needed information about his proxy usage is already here. See mine post from "08:53, 3 April 2018" and pay attention how aggresively he runs from this topic using absurd arguments. -- Pofka (talk) 13:36, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz: With all due respect, your bar for "dragging out" seems pretty low. Detektyw z Wilna (talk) 13:29, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

@Pofka: You throw some weak unsubstantiated accusation on me, so there is nothing to reply to, not that I am "running away". Speaking of which, there are plenty of other IP edits on that article. Why have you ignored them? Back to the topic, length and effort this tiny dispute is now consuming is ridiculous. See my suggested solution. What do you think?

Initial censorship issue

Multiple relevant, accurate and well-referenced claims have been aggressively censored from Lithuania. Here are four examples of sentences which are now removed:

1. Around half of Lithuanians believe that corruption is prevalent in the judicial system
2. National surveys have revealed that around half of Lithuanians would neglect to report corruption due to beliefs that corrupt individuals would not be punished
3. A 2016 corruption survey by STT found that majority of Lithuanian population perceives that corruption levels have increased in the past 1 year and past 5 year periods. However, according to local branch of Transparency International, corruption levels have been decreasing over the past decade.
4. In surveys of Lithuanian business people, corruption is highlighted as the primary issue prohibiting economic development and international competitiveness.

This initially became a dispute and led to disorganised discussions on the talk page and some edit warring. The issue of censorship has now been successfully rebranded by Ke an and Pofka to alleged "misbehaviour by Detektyw z Wilna [me]". It later escalated to unsubstantiated but very confident claims that I work at at "Moscow troll factory". Regardless, the initial censorship problem has been hidden.

Therefore, this separate section is created in order (a) to highlight and (b) get external input on the initial censorship issue.

Ping @Ke an: and ping @Pofka: // Detektyw z Wilna (talk) 10:48, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

All these sentences added by you using various proxies still exists in Corruption in Lithuania without any censorship and there is no need to spread lies that something was censored, but I guess that's how propaganda works in the most corrupted state in Europe. Does it, troll boy? Better explain how you are constantly travelling around the world, haha. -- Pofka (talk) 13:04, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Resorting to personal attacks to avoid discussing the primary issue at hand? Again? Detektyw z Wilna (talk) 13:11, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

@Detektyw z Wilna: Wikipedia:DNFT. For the normal people, here is comprehensive explanation what was done by myself in this Lithuania's section (copied from Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Lithuania#Corruption): "Corruption covers only three articles in the Criminal Code of Lithuania: 225, 226, 227 (http://www.infolex.lt/portal/start_ta.asp?act=doc&fr=pop&doc=66150) out of 330 articles. So comprehensive analysis about each crime genre would result in about 100 separate sections. This would definitely be too detailed for a country-level page. In my opinion, such comprehensive analysis of each crime genre may only be discussed in a separate newly created article Crime in Lithuania (other countries has this one, f. e., Crime in the United States). I have rewritten this section and integrated two important sentences about corruption from the Detektyw z Wilna "Corruption" section to the newly created "Lithuania#Law enforcement and crime" section, which was based on the "United States#Law enforcement and crime" section (named as a Good Article). These sentences are: "According to a European Union Anti-Corruption Report, Lithuania had the highest proportion of citizens - 29 percent, who have been asked or expected to pay bribes in the preceding 12 months of any EU country, with 95% of citizens considering corruption to be widespread and a major problem.[176] Though, according to local branch of Transparency International, corruption levels have been decreasing over the past decade.". Also, part of the information from the old section was split to the newly created "Lithuania#Law" section, which is based on the "Germany#Law" section (named as a Featured Article). Highlighting of problematic fields and boasting it over other less problematic fields (f. e., contrabanda, which in 2017 decreased by 27.2% from the 2016 numbers) in a separate extensive section in a country's article qualifies more as a Black propaganda for me than a censorship. In conclusion, I think two sentences about corruption, together with other popular crimes in Lithuania, is enough and comprehensive analysis should be done only in a newly created Crime in Lithuania article sections (similar to "Crime in the United States#Homicide" and "Crime in the United States#Gun violence").". -- Pofka (talk) 13:16, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Suggested solution

• There are two issues here – (a) my alleged misconduct and (b) content on corruption on Lithuania-related articles. For obvious reasons, I should not be making decision on (a). I do think that it's a desperate attempt to revert attention, but again – my opinion should not count here.
• However, I have a suggestion for (b) – @Ke an, Pofka, and Alexis Jazz: and whoever else thinks that content "is biased" should attempt to improve the article. And probably best without any involvement from me. In a few weeks or so, I will open a paragraph on the talk page with concrete suggestions (if there will be any) if I perceive that any important content is missing.
• What do you think? Detektyw z Wilna (talk) 13:36, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:DNFT until incident about his proxy usage is solved here. -- Pofka (talk) 13:41, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

DNFT is a baseless accusation which you insist on repeating. It is one of two issues. While I fully consent to "DNFT investigation" or any actions (a) might require, that's still one of two issues. What about issue (b)? Or do you feel uncomfortable discussing with factual arguments? Detektyw z Wilna (talk) 13:44, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

This is too slow and too time consuming. Feel free to decide without me or at least with limited involvement from me. And while you are attacking me left and right, at least keep the attacks honest, without misrepresentations, made up stuff and fact-twisting. Detektyw z Wilna (talk) 13:47, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Detektyw z Wilna's absurd attempt to hide this investigation

No more related discussion with the proxy usage accusation. -- Pofka (talk) 15:02, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz:@Doug Weller: Interesting fact. Detektyw z Wilna just deleted mine post to (you) Wikipedia administrator Doug Weller in my own talk page (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pofka&diff=834019007&oldid=834018391), so the Russian proxy troll attack is real here and requires actions. Edit: he deleted this sentence again later (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pofka&diff=834020259&oldid=834019841). Pain for the proxy usage idenfication can definitely be felt from his actions. -- Pofka (talk) 14:34, 3 April 2018 (UTC) @Doug Weller and Pofka: Pofka, with all due respect, you are once again misrepresenting my actions/quotes and twisting or making up stuff to fit your agenda. Of course, that has not stopped you before, so why bother now? Check the link you yourself have provided. I only edited some minor spelling mistakes without any changes to the content. There were no, not a single change to the content. There was no sentence deletion ffs. Which sentence? Detektyw z Wilna (talk) 14:41, 3 April 2018 (UTC) My mistake here, but your edits in mine private conversation are not welcome. This section can be removed. His absurd arguments all day got me exhausted. -- Pofka (talk) 14:50, 3 April 2018 (UTC) If we are now calling intentional misrepresentations "my mistake", we should not that it was not your first, second or third "my mistake" of this kind. Detektyw z Wilna (talk) 14:52, 3 April 2018 (UTC) I visited your talk page to see if I could find examples of intentional misrepresentation of my texts or actions. Did I find them? Yes. But I did no edits, not even rebuttals. Just edited some spelling mistakes. But ok, I will leave spelling mistakes as they are. Detektyw z Wilna (talk) 14:54, 3 April 2018 (UTC) Can't believe I am still feeding troll. Enough for today. Your proxy usage will be investigated anyway. -- Pofka (talk) 14:55, 3 April 2018 (UTC) Isn't it interesting that I have been catching your intentional misrepresentations of my texts or actions all day and get called a troll as a result? It's your trolling, but I am the troll? While your Wiki history and contributions are admirable, your behaviour towards me is strange to say the least. I welcome any and all investigations into my alleged proxy usage. Detektyw z Wilna (talk) 14:56, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

This Dispute Is Old and Tired

It has been 48 hours since anyone posted about this dispute. I couldn't figure out at DRN what the issue was, and I still can't, because the posts are too long, difficult to read. I suggest that this thread either be closed with a warning to both (all?) parties, the better option. However, if it is still necessary to adjudicate any conduct issues, I notice that Lithuania is in Eastern Europe, both as usually defined, and as defined in twentieth-century history as that part of Europe that was occupied by the Soviet Union and was therefore the battleground of the Cold War. If a remedy is needed, take this dispute to Arbitration Enforcement. Otherwise, close it. I am willing to try to mediate at DRN if there are no conduct issues and if everyone is concise, but I know that long posts make the poster feel better even if they don't communicate. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:10, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Nixon Now POV-pushing at Doug Ford Jr.

Doug Ford Jr. is a polarizing Canadian politician who was recently elected leader of the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party. Since then, his article has drawn a lot of attention among those who want to minimize and those who want to maximize unflattering information about him.

One of the most active of the "maximizers" has been User:Nixon Now. They have been editwarring over the inclusion or presentation of certain information, in particular (a) allegations that Ford was once a hashish dealer, and (b) allegedly antisemitic remarks Ford has made.

With regard to the hashish dealing, there is an open RfC (Talk:Doug Ford Jr.#Request for comment: Globe and Mail investigative report) in which a strong consensus has emerged that something about the allegations should be included, but it must be made clear that no charges have been laid and Ford continues to deny the allegations. Nixon Now has made numerous attempts to highlight the allegations beyond the consensus of the RfC and in violation of WP:BLP, including:

• placing it prominently in the "Early life" section, where it almost entirely dominated the section implying it was fact rather than allegation. This was removed several times [1][2]
• highlighting the one-paragraph incident via a subsection header in violation of the spirit of the RfC consensus and WP:WEIGHT—this numerous times after being reverted: [3][4][5][6]

  In response to concerns that NN had split the "Municipal politics" section into far too many short, one-paragraph subsections, NN split the "Allegations of hashish dealing in the 1980s" into two paragraphs at an arbitrary point to give the section the appearance of more substance.

• Nixon Now opened Doug Ford Jr.#RFC: Hashish dealing subsection and heading, which as of now is unanimous (minus Nixon Now themself) against having a subsection header, yet Nixon Now continues to battle against consensus to keep the subsection header in place—WP:BLP calls for disputed edits to reach a consensus before they can be included, not the reverse.

With regard to alleged antisemitic comments—they are about a particular quote Ford made in response to allegations that his brother, Rob Ford, had used a number of racist epithets (for Jews and other ethnicities). I has been questioned whether the quote—especially when quoted at length—even belongs in the article or whether it is simply WP:COATRACKing anything to make Ford look bad. Nixon Now has responded to concerns that their inclusion is WP:UNDUE at Talk:Doug Ford Jr.#Antisemitic comment by brother by expanding the text there, and again has editwarred to keep it in: [7][8][9][10]. Again, WP:BLP calls for disputed edits to reach a consensus before they can be included, not the reverse.

More editwarring:

• removing text in which a political rival, Jagmeet Singh, made positive comments about Ford: [11][12][13][14].

to keep in a bit about a John Oliver comment: [15] [16][17]

Nixon Now is also prolific on the talk page, but not in a cooperative spirit—refusing to acknowledge consensus and casting aspersions on those they disagree with—going as far as to insuate I've been sockpuppetting/meatpuppetting (offering no sort of evidence) and making false accusations that I've been "blocked a total of six times for personal attacks" (which he downgraded to "five times", which is still a lie). They make several accusations of other editors attempting to "bury" information by not highlighting or positioning it as Nixon Now would have it; "beating a dead horse" to concince opponents to stop discussing; and a lot of WP:IDHT posturing about there being "no consensus" for including/excluding information, when the consensus is clear but not worded in a specific way. There's little in the way of "discussion" coming from Nixon Now—mostly stonewalling, WP:IDHT, and insinuations against those whom they disagree with.

Nixon Now has tried to FUD their way out of an editwarring report I filed with the following comment: "You've consistently edited against consensus, pushing your own POV, and been obstructive and rude in your comments, continually engaged in personal attacks, and been uncivil even to the point of swearing."—notice there are no diffs or any other sort of evidence for any of this except the fact that I said "fucking" in exasperation when he accused me of having opposed in an RfC I actually supported. Notice they can't even spell out what POV I'm supposedly pushing (am I pro-Ford? anti-Ford? or is NPOV itself my insidious agenda?).

Nixon Now employs these muddy-the-water tactics throught these discussions, which, combined with the editwarring, make progress impossible. You'll see these tactics on display in their response to this report.

I'm at wit's end. Nixon Now shows no respect for collaboration or consensus and has taken WP:OWNership over the Doug Ford Jr. article to push a predominantly negative view of the subject. When even as clear a consensus as what has been arrived at at Doug Ford Jr.#RFC: Hashish dealing subsection and heading doesn't stop NN from editwarring to keep that header, how can this be dealt with? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:36, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

UPDATE: I had totally forgotten about this edit, in which Nixon Now actually restored a description of Ford as a "former drug dealer" in the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario leadership election, 2018 article, so that his description read:

"Doug Ford, 59, a businessman, a former drug dealer, who is currently seeking the PC nomination in Etobicoke North for the upcoming June 2018 Provincial election."

This is about as serious a breach of WP:BLP and WP:WEIGHT as you can get. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:05, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

It was sourced and several other editors supported inclusion. Consensus was against it so it was removed so frankly the history of that article disproved your OWN claims. If it was the breach you suggest you a) wouldn't have forgotten about it b) wouldn't fail to bring it up for more than two months. Nixon Now (talk) 22:25, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

"It was sourced"—and there we have it, folks. If it's sourced, then screw WP:BLP and WP:WEIGHT—but only if it fits NN's POV (NN's been removing plenty of sourced material that doesn't fit their POV). This is the problem we have to do with. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:29, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

You are parsing the first three words of my comment and ignoring the rest of it, the part that refuted your claim of OWN or even POV-pushing. That's fairly typical of your arguments. In fact, whether or not to include reference to Ford's past drug dealing was such a non-dispute that it wasnt even raised at Talk:Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario leadership election, 2018 by you, me or anyone else so your sudden outrage, two months later, while full of high school theatrics, is unconvincing. Nixon Now (talk) 22:37, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

REPLY Please see Talk: Doug Ford Jr. in which the consensus is against CT on several matters he raises above such as the antisemitism issue and the John Oliver issue. It is instructive that despite the specious claim of POV pushing, CT does not actually quote the passages in question from the article which he is claiming are POV. They are all neutrally worded, well-sourced and have been in the article for years until early this year when Doug Ford announced his candidacy for the PC Party of Ontario, after which some editors, including banned editor User:Soulspinr and various socks and IPs attempted to remove the material.

CT neglects to state that there has been a lot of editing of the article over the past few months by IPs and socks and suspected socks of banned user User:Soulspinr and that this is a factor in occasional edit warring. He also omits the fact that a number of the reversions in areas he's complaining about have been carried out by other editors (see the edit history of Doug Ford Jr..) He is misrepresenting the history of the article by implying it's a consensus of editors against me when in fact he has usually been in the minority and the edits restoring neutrally worded sourced material has been carried out by a large number of editors against one or two people attempting to censor this article on a public figure.

In addition to the talk page discussion, and the edit warring notice board, CT is also participating vigorously at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Doug_Ford_Jr.;_anti_semitic_comment_by_Subject's_brother and opened this complaint at ANI. User:Curly Turkey is engaging in WP:FORUMSHOPping. Nixon Now (talk) 10:50, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

As he alluded to, CT does have a long history of being blocked for incivility. I believe the temperment that led to those blocks has played a negative role in his recent exchanges and had exacerbated the situation. Nixon Now (talk) 12:25, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Notice the lack of diffs or other forms of substantiation, and notice how virtually nothing he has written has contradicted any of the evidence I've provided, but only deflected from it. Expect more of the same, folks. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 12:41, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I work. If I have time I'll add diffs tonight but honestly I think it's better if people just read the talk page, the BlP discussion, and look over the past few weeks of article edits in context. Nixon Now (talk) 13:32, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

• Note to admins: I was trying to track down where that bit about Jagmeet Singh had been removed by myself some time before this present incident. Admins can view it here; it is revdeleted for being copied from the source, and the IP that added it in January was a sock of Soulspinr who some of you might know better as Ontario Teacher BFA BEd. This new close paraphrase from the same source by another IP in Toronto with the same attention span and area of focus is very likely the same user, but I consider myself WP:INVOLVED here.

As for the antisemitic slur incident, it's really a content dispute and should be settled on the article's talk page. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:25, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Ivanvector: most of the reverts were of legitimate editors, often of material currently under discussion—and how does this demonstrate good faith on NN's part? How can we have a legitimate discusion with someone who would make an edit like that? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:12, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

• Yes, IP now blocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:18, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

This complaint flows out of a 3RR complaint CT filed against me. As I suspected User:Katy Park, the reversion of whose edits User:Curly Turkey objected to, has been confirmed to be a sockpuppet. I expect the IP who was reverted will soon be confirmed as a sockpuppet as well. Nixon Now (talk) 15:52, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

This complaint does not flow out of a 3RR complaint, though the editwarring is a part of the larger WP:OWNership issue, and a great many of the reverts are of legitimate editors such as myself and Nocturnalnow. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:58, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

• • The IP on the 3RR edit warring report has now also been confirmed as a sock[18]. While CurlyTurkey dismissed my justification as "FUD" my suspicions about socking have now been confirmed. Nixon Now (talk) 16:23, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I think that User:Curly Turkey has the edit history to back up what he is saying, and here is an example of what he is talking about. I also agree 100% with Nixon Now's suggestion above that, although time consuming, for sure, it's better if people just read the talk page and look over the past few weeks of article edits in context. I believe that NixonNow, who has spent a lot of time editing this Blp, truly believes strongly that he is within policy and that the various negative content belongs in the Blp in a substantive way in order to correctly represent the entirety of the Subject's life, however, putting in a negative heading with no consensus and then quickly setting uo a Rfc and claiming the Rfc keeps that heading in there for 30 days, (its been a week so far), even though the RFC is 9-1, the 1 being NixonNow, against using the heading, seems to me to be a bit overbearing (full disclosure, I also have a history of being too pushy). Ivanvector has done a great job of "herding cats" at the Blp and fortunately, NixonNow cooperates fully with Ivan as far as I can tell, but otoh, its entirely up to Ivan when/if he wants to step in as he did constructively at the time of the edit I refer to above. The Blp itself is pretty good, imo, in fact not long afo I was suggesting it might be FA material (shows my shortcoming in things like FA selection, apparently). NixonNow is reaaaaaly stubborn, but so am I so I have lots of empathy and relate well to his determination to do what he thinks id best for the Blp. But the thing with the heading was not cool, even if not meant to be such an "OWN" type move. I think Ivan can work with NixonNow to fix these matters and that maybe an actual mentorship type arrangement can be informally set up between them, if they both are willing, that would be the ideal solution, in my opinion. Win, win for all the editors and the Blp. Nocturnalnow (talk) 15:57, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Other editors have also reverted attempts to remove the subheadings while the RFC is underway.[19] Singling me out for doing this or claiming it's somehow aberrant to do so is specious. Nixon Now (talk) 16:46, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Numerous editors (User:Nocturnal Now, and myself before the RfC) have removed the subheadings because opposition to them is literally unanimous. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:20, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Curly Turkey's belligerent attitude to editors can be seen here[20] where in short order, in separate comments, he tells an editor "The flying fuck is this shit?", "You admitted to it yourself. Now fuck off" and "just fuck off with the trolling horseshit". Nixon Now (talk) 16:54, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Otoh, he has been very gentle and respectful when dealing with you or me, you must admit. Nocturnalnow (talk) 18:58, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

No, he's sworn at me too[21], refused to AGF, and has been shopping around specious complaints. If that's "gentle" I feel sorry for the editors he's harsh with. Nixon Now (talk) 19:37, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I swear a lot, but that is neither actionable nor relevant to your persistent POV-pushing or WP:OWNership of the article. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:27, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Your swearing is abusive and a violation of Wikipedia:Civility and it is actionable so govern yourself accordingly. Nixon Now (talk) 23:37, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

"abusive"? Here's the complete quote: Nixon Now: "a passage you'd like to remove"—what the fuck is this?! I voted include in the fucking RfC!!!. If "swearing is abusive and a violation of Wikipedia:Civility", then here's your chance to have me blocked: fuck, fuck, fuck, fuck, fuck. NeilN, Ivanvector: please block me now if this is true. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:53, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

CurlyTurkey falsely claims that I placed the Ford drug dealing allegations "prominently in the "Early life" section,] where it almost entirely dominated the section implying it was fact rather than allegation." In fact, the allegation had been there for years, see for example[22] I simply restored it when POV editors, most of whom have been banned, attempted to censor the material from the article since around January 2018 when Ford re-entered politics. I have said this several times yet CT persists in repeating the myth that I am the author of the drug allegation passage. Nixon Now (talk) 20:44, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

CT also resents my saying that removing subheadings would be effectively burying the allegations in a large wall of text when WP policy prefers the use of section headings. As I said on the talk page:

I said it appears to be buried because that is the effect. Whether or not that is your intention is irrelevant. I'm not speaking of your motives, simply of the outcome. I was mistaken in assuming you had previously opposed inclusion of the drug material in the article and I apologise for that.[23]

Note as well that I apologized for assuming CT had earlier opposed inclusion of the drug allegations at all. He has yet to apologise to me for any of his personal attacks or incorrect allegations. Nixon Now (talk) 21:15, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I have nothing to apologize for. My only allegations—that you a pushing a POV, will editwar to support your POV, and are stonewalling discussion—all stand. I haven't seen you retract any of your other allegations against me—that I'm pushing some unnamed POV, that I'm some sock/meatpuppet of Katy, that I've personally attacked you, that I've been "obstructive", etc. But what really matters is your WP:OWNership of the article. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:47, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

• Perhaps best we lock up the page till they all figure out what to do.....I see will still have reverts all over.--Moxy (talk) 20:55, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Moxy: perhaps, but only after the removal of disputed material first, per WP:BLP.
  • Then it should be locked to the state it was back in January prior to the descent of a sockpuppet army - save for later sections on Ford winning the leadership etc. Nixon Now (talk) 22:07, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
    • It should absolutely not be locked under a "Nixon Now-approved" version—it should be locked under a version in which disputed material has first been removed until consensu to add it back is formed on the talk page, per WP:BLP. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:15, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
  • semi-protection until the June 7 election would remove the socks and IP editors from the mix and allow legitimate discussion and editing to continue. Pending revisions has failed to stop sockpuppet editing. Nixon Now (talk) 23:08, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
    • Semiprotection might help defend the article against socking, but the issues are not limited to socks. Most of the editors are legitimate, and you're reverting them, too—against clear talk page consensus, and on a WP:BLP no less. On top of that is your POV-pushing, which is the subject of this report. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:31, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Certainly not back to January, there is a lot of great non-disputed content over the past 2 months covering the Leadership race and new content about the upcoming Ontario general election, 2018, so please leave the Provincial politics section as it is today and we can add more via admin. requests. Nocturnalnow (talk) 23:16, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
    • Right—far too much legitimate material has been aded since Ford's election as party leader to revert the entire article, and we would have to be careful anything reverted to didn't violate WP:BLP or any of the consensuses reached already on the talk page. Reverting would cause far, far more problems than it could solve.
      But we still have NN's WP:OWNership issues to deal with. Regardless of any other issues, progress won't be made until we do. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:25, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
      • So, I'd say remove all disputed content and go to either full or semi-protection until, as Nixon Now says, the election is over, at least. In terms of NN lets just all cool down for awhile and I think we can eventually all get along just fine. Nocturnalnow (talk) 23:31, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
        • There is a consensus for keeping the drug dealing allegations. Would you remove that? There appears to be consensus for the response to antisemitic comments? Would you remove that? It looks like you're trying to achieve here what you've failed to achieve through RFC, BLP discussion page, and talk page discussion. Nixon Now (talk) 23:35, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
          • I'd have all of it removed until their respective RfCs closed, and then have someone other than Nixon Now add the information in that has officially achieved consensus. NN's "Doug Ford is a former drug dealer" edit and intransigence over the subsectioning (etc) show that they cannot be trusted with sensitive material. Proposed wordings for the drug dealing allegations, etc, should be proposed on the Talk Page first, so they aren't open to "creative interpretation" by POV-pushers claiming to be working under "consensus". Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:46, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
            • So you would overturn consensus until some point in the future and impose your preferred version in the mean time. At least now we know the motivation for this ANI. This is a content dispute and doesn't belong here. Your ANI is an abuse of process. Nixon Now (talk) 23:54, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
              • And here you are accusing me of pushing some POV again, and yet still can't name that POV. Am I pro-Ford? Anti-Ford? Your very accusation is gibberish. Meanwhile, you continue to defend "Doug Ford is a businessman and former drug dealer ..." Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:47, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
                • CT did not say he would impose his version, more along the lines of an uninvolved person coming up with the right content and Ivanvector is perfect for that, if he's willing, imo, even if he's had some involvement. Nocturnalnow (talk) 03:32, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
                  • I'd be fine with that, along with a WP:0RR restriction on Nixon Now in light of their continued defence of "Doug Ford, 59, a businessman, a former drug dealer, ..." Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:37, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

If the best User:Curly Turkey can do is try to make a mountain out of a more than two month old molehill of an edit in an entirely different article which was also done by other experienced editors before and after and which did not even raise a mention on the article's talk page - and rather than a "dispute" the disagreement was resolved amicably within the article by removing the reference (contrary to CT's claims that I violate WP:OWN) - then he really is straining hard. It looks like of the dozens of people who edit Doug Ford Jr. there are precisely two people who care about this ANI, Curly Turkey and his editing partner User:Nocturnalnow and even Nocturnalnow lacks commitment to this ANI saying " lets just all cool down for awhile and I think we can eventually all get along just fine." CT has been blowing a lot of smoke here but there's not even a flicker of actual fire. He has yet to actually specify any non-neutral wording in the Doug Ford Jr. article that he can attribute to me, the best he can do is point to another article entirely (where, in retrospect, WP voice should not have been used, rather "alleged by the Globe and Mail" should have been). Nixon Now (talk) 12:39, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Um ... scroll up and there's that mountain of diffs. A clear pattern of behaviour over several months that demonstrates bad faith and WP:OWNership issues that have brought the article to a standstill at your "preferred version", including that subsection heading for which there is a literal unanimous consensus against—and the fact that you continue to defend that "two-month-old edit" in light of the past several months' behaviour makes that edit very relevant to your unceasing behaviour here and now. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 12:47, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

You mean like the diff where Nocturnalnow "closed" an RFC and implemented an assessment of it even though he's an involved editor and is not allowed to close RFCs that he is involved with and didn't start? Your diffs are cherrypicked and out of context and I suggest you see my earlier responses. Nixon Now (talk) 13:36, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I agree this thread is more heat than light, and really nothing has been presented which warrants having been brought here in the first place. It's a content dispute, and for the most part it has been discussed remarkably civilly within the article's talk page (remarkably so because of the polarizing nature of the subject and the persistence of sockpuppets). Nixon Now has not been a disruptive influence on this article, notwithstanding the fact that they have reverted a persistent banned editor several times, reverts which are permitted by WP:3RRNO and WP:BANREVERT. Of the diffs Curly Turkey provided at ANEW, all but one were reverting this banned editor. There really is nothing here or on the talk page to justify Curly Turkey's persistent accusations of POV battling by Nixon Now; NN has pushed suggested some bold POV edits, but not to the extent of being unacceptably undue or obvious BLP vios, and when challenged he has joined discussion every single time, often starting the discussion. See for example:

• #Positioning of hashish report
• #Referencing Subject as a "drug dealer" or "dealing drugs"
• #Antisemitic comment by brother

There's surely nothing that justifies Nixon Now being referred to as "pushing a very anti-Ford agenda" or any of his edits as "a desperate attempt to smear the Fords". Perhaps Nixon Now should consider not reverting the banned editor when that editor returns to disrupt the article: although they are explicitly permitted to do so by policy there are several admins watching the article now. And perhaps Curly Turkey should consider discussing the article's content rather than repeatedly casting aspersions about other editors' motivations and running to admin noticeboards whenever someone doesn't agree with their opinion.

If admins are going to do anything here, I suggest full protection to enforce discussion, which has been overwhelmingly productive in moving this article past its long-running stalemates. Distracting the productive discussions with these sideshows is not. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:29, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Ivanvector, you have to be joking. How do you justify "Doug Ford, 59, a businessman, a former drug dealer, ..."? How do you justify that every edit NN has pushed has put Ford in a bad light, while every edit he insists on keeping out puts him in a positive light? How do you justify NN's insistence that edits under discussion that NN supports be kept in the article until discussion closes, but edits that NN opposes be kept in until discussion closes? What of WP:BLP, which mandates challenged material be kept out when challenged?

I agree—full page protection is what is needed to enforce discussion and keep certain editors from forcing their version of "the truth" on the article. The disputed material needs to be removed first, per WP:BLP. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:31, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

In my view, and I suspect that of millions of people in Ontario across the political spectrum it is factual to say Ford is a former drug dealer given the credibility of the Globe and Mail report and I have always held that position when discussing the matter on the Doug Ford talk page. Am I insisting that the Doug Ford page state that? No, I'm not. Contrary to your claims I am not trying to impose my view on the article. I recognize that it is preferable not to put that in Wikipedia's "voice" and to state that these are allegations made in a Globe and Mail investigative report. However, if you want to ban anyone who thinks or says Ford is a former drug dealer from editing the article then you should also ban everyone who says he wasn't. Good luck with that. 23:04, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Ivanvector: do you agree that this comment accurately reflects how I've characterized NN? Do you believe that "Doug Ford, 59, a businessman, a former drug dealer, ..." was NN honestly trying to be NPOV? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:12, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

The Globe and Mail is a credible source, so yes. But others disagree and I've engaged in discussion and compromised. What you seem to think is a (two month old) smoking gun actually disproves your case precisely because I haven't insisted on that wording and have compromised in the two months since that edit. Thank you for bringing it up. Nixon Now (talk) 23:17, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

So this is official—you defend that edit. This is why your editing needs to be restricted. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:22, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm amazed that you only ever seem to read the first four words of anything I say. Read my entire comment rather than parsing out the parts you don't like.Nixon Now (talk) 23:27, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

That you violate WP:BLP and then "allow" others to clean up your POV-pushing mess? Yes, that's what this whole report is about. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:30, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

You've failed to convince a single person of that, despite repeating the same thing over and over again, with the possible exception of Nocturnalnow (and even he seems less and less sure the more you talk). Have you actually listened to what anyone else here has said or do you stop reading after the fourth or fifth word? Have you considered that you might possibly be wrong or do you insist that you are always right and everyone else is wrong? Nixon Now (talk) 23:40, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

We have yet to have a single non-involved party examine the evidence, and more than one commenter agrees we need page protection to enforce discussion. Nobody suggests it needs to be protected from me, and nobody suggests the socks should engage in discussion (their talk-page comments have been struck). Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:59, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Nocturnalnow can speak for himself. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:01, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I was one of those calling for full protection. You've twisted the call to mean something else - and you've been twisting and parsing things consistently so that's not a surprise. And Nocturnalnow has spoken, evidently you haven't read his comments in their entirety either. Nixon Now (talk) 00:07, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

An editor suggests the article be locked. You throw a fit that it shouldn't be locked in its current state because somehow that's my version but now you claim the editor wanted it locked to protect it from me? Incredible. Nixon Now (talk) 00:13, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

It needs to be locked and all material currently under discussion needs to be removed per WP:BLP until consensus to keep it has been reached. That includes material I support inclusion of. If you're not pushing a POV, you should have no issue with that. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:38, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

There is an overwhelming 2:1 consensus to include the drug allegation material and yet you're arguing for removing the material while the article is indefinitely locked - likely until after the election. And you claim not to have a political agenda? Nixon Now (talk) 00:56, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

And I was a vigorous supporter of its inclusion. What's my agenda? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:32, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

But now you're saying any material "under discussion" should be removed. That would include the drug allegations since they are "under discussion" in an RFC. Nixon Now (talk) 01:37, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

That's right—so stop dodging like a coward: tell everyone what my "agenda" is. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:47, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

So that would mean that despite a 2:1 consensus for inclusion the drug allegations would disappear from the article, probably until after the June 7 elections or at least for much of the campaign, if your proposal was implemented. I don't think I have to tell anyone what your agenda is. You've just revealed it yourself. Nixon Now (talk) 01:51, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

RfCs run 30 days, and Doug Ford Jr.#Request for comment: Globe and Mail investigative report—(which I explicitly supported)—has been open since 12 March. Again—you keep dodging—what's my agenda? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:03, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Except that earlier in this discussion you said that after the RFCs close, wording should be proposed on the Talk page and then agreed upon until entering the article - a process which could easily be dragged out for 8 weeks, until after the election by dedicated political partisans. Your solution fits a partisan political agenda despite your protests to the contrary. Nixon Now (talk) 18:38, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

You're still pushing this shit? You've convinced literally nobody that I have any sort of political agenda—which you still can't even name. Meanwhile you've even managed to state your own bias again Ford. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:38, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Could we get an uninvolved party to comment here?

Could we get someone who's not already involved in the talk page discussions to take a look at this stuff? That's in large part the point of bringing it to ANI in the first place. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:04, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Am I summarizing things correctly here? A newspaper published unsubstantiated allegations based on interviews with anonymous sources that the BLP subject sold hashish in the 1980s. The BLP subject denies the allegations, and there have been no criminal charges and no convictions. If that is reasonably accurate, then I believe that BLP policy requires that we keep this news gossip out of this BLP. Let the newspaper publish it but not Wikipedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:57, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm afraid you're missing several crucial elements such as WP:WELLKNOWN. Please see the RFC at Talk:Doug Ford Jr.#Request for comment: Globe and Mail investigative report for a thorough discussion of the issue. Nixon Now (talk) 02:12, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Cullen328: That's the subject of the RfC open at Doug Ford Jr.#Request for comment: Globe and Mail investigative report, not this ANI report. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:04, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Sure, this looks like a total mess and no one is going to want to touch it. It isn't clear what either of you want done, or what the right course of action would be. What is preferred over waiting for the RFC process to establish consensus on the points of dispute? Is anyone making edits contrary to a clear consensus? Prodego ^talk 02:11, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I would suggest that the best course would be for an uninvolved admin to close the two active RFCs at Talk:Doug Ford Jr. and interpret the results. Nixon Now (talk) 02:15, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Cullen328 - can you do one (or both) of these? I cannot immediately, but within 24 hours I can get to it. Prodego ^talk 02:21, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

@Cullen328:, I have to smile at your immediate bafflement that such info is in the Blp at all. I took the anonymous allegations of hashish dealing (no charges or arrest, ever) completely out of the Blp when I first noticed it 2 months ago and it stayed out until a few weeks ago, but now we have several editors, including at least one admin.,Ivanvector who want the allegations in the BLP. Imo, this is a no-brainer direct conflict with the spirit of Blp policy, but others feel that Blp policy demands its inclusion. There have been Blp Noticeboard discussions and Rfcs galore, with several admins, like you, at various times, seeing the blatant inappropriateness that I do, but none stick with the issue long enough to get things settled. Now the absurdity, imo, has extended to fighting over allowing a headline for the alleged hashish dealing, with an RFC sentiment 8-2 against yet the heading remains in the article for 30 days as demanded by the initiator of the RFC. Cullen328, please take some bold action here, if you can. Nocturnalnow (talk) 15:14, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry Nocturnalnow but your comments are highly misleading. It's false to say the drug allegations "stayed out until a few weeks ago". In fact, they were in the article for years, since 2013[24] and were still in the article as late as December 2017[25], and only disappeared in January around the time Ford announced his candidacy for the PC Party leadership and were kept out due to edit-warring by a now banned editor and their sockpuppets. To suggest, as you do above, that these allegations are a recent addition to the article is simply false. You are also cherrypicking policy and are completely ignoring WP:WELLKNOWN which is a component of BLP. Nixon Now (talk) 18:24, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Prodego: What I'd like to see done is something to ensure Nixon Now

• adheres to WP:BLP, so:
  • no edits like this, and
  • challenged material is removed from BLPs until consensus to re-add is achieved
• adheres to WP:CONSENSUS
• ceases from editwarring (not just strictly WP:3RR, which is too easy to game).

Between now and the June election (and quite likely beyond), this BLP will be very active, and the polarizing nature of the subject means there will be POV pushers left and right (probably peaking in the month leading up to the election). The page itself should probably be locked down, which looks like where things are headed already. All disputed material that has not yet reached consensus for inclusion should be removed until their respective RfCs have closed—the article should not be protected at one POV's "preferred version", which is what will happen if it is locked down right now. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 08:33, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

User talk:Curly Turkey has an unhealthy fixation with me. While we're engaging in fantasy wish lists it would be helpful if he were placed on a strict civility patrol as well as banned from the article and banned from Wikipedia for 48 hours the next time he uses rude language (ie swearing) in a discussion. Or we could ask people to focus on the article rather than personalities and have uninvolved admins weigh in on the remaining content disputes. Nixon Now (talk) 10:27, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Mmm. That's very good advice, which you should follow yourself. Fish+Karate 10:37, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm quite happy to and despite there being a number of editors with conflicting views, CT is the only editor I've had a serious problem with apart from the User:Soulspinr sockpuppets. If he focussed on the article rather than me we'd all be much more productive and able to resolve disputes amicably.Nixon Now (talk) 10:58, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

People don't seem to be buying your act, NN, and you have yet to provide us with a single diff demonstrating I've disrupted anything or pushed any sort of POV. This ANI is not about personalities, but about your disruptive behaviour—which is what ANI deals with. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:30, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I refer admins to comments made by admin User:Ivanvector and other editors in the main discussion above the break, particularly this one[26]. If I require a defence to CT's specious complaint, I will rely entirely on what Ivanvector has said and see no reason to add anything further. If CT brings up a two month old edit to an entirely different article (as he does below) please see this response[27]. These two diffs are all that need to be said. Nixon Now (talk) 11:56, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

There's only one editor here on any kind of crusade, and if editors like Curly Turkey would focus half the energy on building articles and contributing civilly to talk page discussions as they apparently do finding battles to fight, we would have a much better encyclopedia. Don't ping me five more times, I'm done commenting here. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:07, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ivanvector has yet to comment on [this WP:BLP violation or how your keeping disputed under-discussion material in the article doesn't violate WP:BLP. He also hasn't backed up any of your accusations against me. Another admin, Masem, has commented on certain editors' desires to include negative material (in particular, the antisemitism material) in this BLP in violation of WP:UNDUE, WP:BLP, WP:NOT#NEWS, and WP:NPOV—material you have fought to keep in the text even while it is under discussion (it's still there now, and the discussion hasn't closed). Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 12:15, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Again Ivan refuses to comment on these BLP violations. Why? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 12:19, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

• Okay, this is my last comment, then I have work to do and won't be back on today. Since roughly late December when Mr. Ford became a news item again, in general there have been two main approaches to editing this article:

1. The typical BRD approach, which has occasionally pushed the limits of BLP in both directions, followed by at times heated but generally civil discussion;
2. Screaming BLP! BLP! Revert! Revert! any time anybody makes any edit with any kind of POV skew, no matter how minor nor how far in the past, or even on different articles entirely.

One of these approaches has led to several constructive discussions and building out of article content, and has resolved some long-standing issues with the article. One of these approaches is plainly obstructive, and has led, repeatedly, to article progress being undone.

To answer Curly Turkey's repeated insistence that I comment on one particular edit: it was one edit on a different but related article which occurred more than two months ago, which was restored once when a sockpuppet removed it, and then reworked to be compliant with BLP and NPOV. It was not a case, as Curly Turkey repeatedly insists, of a POV-warring editor repeatedly inserting false and derogatory information about a living person; this situation is much more complicated than that black-and-white thinking. The fact is, in 2013 a major Canadian newspaper (Canada's largest by circulation, not some tabloid or gossip rag) published a report (not a column or opinion piece) which stated that Doug Ford dealt hashish in the 1980s, and repeated this statement in 2018. Coverage of Ford in other publications then and now regularly mentions this information. It's not much a stretch to thus say "Doug Ford is a former drug dealer" - it is not BLP compliant when you take all of the facts of the matter into consideration (he denies it, no criminal charges were laid), but it is not on the level of out of the blue saying "Doug Ford is a Russian puppet" or "Doug Ford killed a guy", or whatever other drive-by vandalism politicians' bios are regularly subject to. Nixon Now has offered edits like these for discussion, has offered their viewpoint sometimes insistently but has always respected consensus when it emerges, including with this one edit from two months ago. This is exactly how BLP and BRD are supposed to interact. Some of these things belong in the article and some don't - we don't get to NPOV without bringing these things up and talking about them. There is no constructive purpose today for demanding sanctions over one isolated edit from two months ago, except in trying to browbeat your opponents with policy instead of participating in consensus-seeking activities.

In the time since the edit for which Curly Turkey seeks sanctions against Nixon Now, particular probably-BLP-violating edits from many editors have spawned discussions on the article's talk page and have made significant progress to resolve:

• whether to include the Globe & Mail investigative report, how much of it, and where it should be placed in the article if so;
• how much detail to include regarding one campaign event;
• whether to include the G&M report again, and whether the prose suggested that the subject expressing intent to take legal action but not doing so implied guilt by association in Wikipedia's voice;
• a still-ongoing RfC on major aspects of inclusion of the G&M report;
• whether mentioning the subject's brother (not the one who was Mayor of Toronto) in the G&M allegations section violated WP:BLPCRIME;
• whether the subject's political position should be described as "populist";
• where to place the G&M allegations, despite the RfC on the topic still being open and active;
• the subject's middle name, which turned out to be based on a flawed source;
• whether to include subsection headings for various paragraphs within a long section covering the subject's political career;
• whether to include supposedly anti-Semitic comments made by the subject and his brother, along with discussion of this incident on a leading American late-night comedy show;
• a discussion on whether certain municipal activities which occurred while the subject was a municipal councillor should be attributed to him;
• a discussion of coverage of an episode of a local public television show on which the subject was featured.

In my admittedly biased opinion, this is remarkable progress for a BLP on a divisive politician during a campaign. Nixon Now has participated in most of these discussions, while Curly Turkey has mostly just tried to filibuster and start separate parallel side-discussions at other noticeboards, like this one. It's curious to me that Curly Turkey demands sanctions for this but is utterly silent on edits like this or this. What does WP:NPOV even mean if you can't use it to get your editorial adversaries blocked, right?

Anyway, I'm intending to ignore whatever else happens in this thread and encourage everyone else to do the same, particularly administrators, and participate at Talk:Doug Ford Jr. instead if you want to contribute. Leave a message on my talk page if something requires my urgent attention. I'm off to fight with Great Plains' confusing inventory costing layers database now. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:15, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Ivanvector wonders why I haven't kicked up a fuss about two edits that are no longer in the article, versus edits that Nixon Now has editwarred to keep in the article (and are still there now)? What is this even supposed to imply? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 20:37, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Moving forward

Hi all. In an attempt to impose some order on the article, I've gone ahead and removed pending changes, extended the semi-protection for three months, and implemented a 1RR restriction on the article. Also, since I haven't seen it addressed specifically, this is contentious label and if I see anything like that again, Nixon Now, you're going to be topic banned from the subject area without further notice. Regarding the content issue, there are two RfCs and a BLPN thread which need to be formally closed before that can be resolved. Swarm ♠ 20:30, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 20:42, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Possible issues at AfD

I'm not sure if this is an issue or not, but it looks problematic to me. I noticed this when looking at the issue above regarding User:And Adoil Descended. The AfD referred to (where AAD removed a perfectly good G11 speedy) is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Google Tech Mela, and whilst it looks like it is heading for a Delete, now has a number of WP:ITSNOTABLE Keep votes. Looking further, a number of those editors have done the same at other AfDs, spamming "It's notable" at multiple Pakistan-related AfDs - some examples are

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iqbal Jogi
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amb Jogi
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suhai Aziz Talpur (this one was closed as a NAC Keep by User:And Adoil Descended and looks particularly dubious)

Users involved;

• JogiAsad (talk · contribs)
• Arif80s (talk · contribs)
• Spasage (talk · contribs)
• مھتاب احمد (talk · contribs)

There doesn't appear to me any on-wiki canvassing, but it does look suspicious, especially when you look at the contribs of some of those editors. What do others think? Black Kite (talk) 23:13, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

if its not canvassing, and there is no proof of canvassing, then its derogatory using words suspicious and canvassing. Disappointed much with such words are being used here.Jogi Asad Rajpar, Talk to me 20:05, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

It does look very suspicious and almost coordinated to me also. Pinging Mar4d for requesting some potential insight. Alex Shih (talk) 00:30, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

• Comment--Some of these users are active on Sindhi Wikipedia (two are sysops) and....... ~ Winged Blades^Godric 02:47, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
• Comment -- Anybody please help me understand the issue clearly.--مھتاب احمد (talk) 03:13, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
• Comment-How fine is this !vote.I mean, why we don't just dole out XFD-topic bans?!~ Winged Blades^Godric 04:35, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Talk about having entrenched wrong ideas about what constitutes stub eligibility - [28],[29],[30],[31]. Can we haz that topic ban as an actual possibility please? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:08, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Check article Kakakhel (tribe) which you posted above as an example. User:Saqib voted to keep it, check this [32]. Then, this goes for him as well ".. having entrenched wrong ideas ..", a quote by you. --Spasage (talk) 19:00, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Spasage's AfD nomination in retaliation: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tehseen Fawad. --Saqib (talk) 08:01, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Whilst, I mentioned the possibility, I would prefer to let him off with a warning to increase his understanding of our guidelines.

But, I'm highly confused that how someone with such an apparently poor idea about notability and RS, can constructively patrol new pages, (from the few examples I"ve seen).

And, that points to the fact that he might be intentionally harassing Saqib by spamming his nominations (as Saqib's example brilliantly hightlights), which is umm......~ Winged Blades^Godric 08:37, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I am not in business of harassing anyone. I gave my opinion. About Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tehseen_Fawad, he is creating very small articles, almost one liner articles with no possibility of expansion, which was bothering me. --Spasage (talk) 19:00, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Thank you for bringing this here. I was working and only got a glimpse. Is my impression correct that they were involved in editing said articles? My impression was one of overlap. Have not looked closely.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 07:25, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
• Perhaps promospam is acceptable on Sindhi W? Winged's "fine" dif above clearly illustrates the disconnect betweeen their !votes and views here on spam and notability. I guess there, Wikipedia is a business directory and that existence is sufficient. @مھتاب احم:, I think this encompasses the problem is a nutshell-- that y'all see promospam as acceptable. And I have to say And Adoil Descended's advocacy for at least one of these articles (have not been back through the AfD's) is what drew my attention to the problems.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 07:34, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
• CommentThanks for inviting me here. I am being accused of something, I would like to hear apology if you can not prove something. I recently got active on delete page for articles around Pakistan. And after reading comments above, I am really disappointed. Comments and words like "suspicions","suspicious and almost coordinated", "XFD-topic bans", "constitutes stub eligibility", "Spasage's AfD nomination in retaliation", "off with a warning ", "here on spam and notability", According to rules, if you have issue, which are stated on top of this page, you should have comments my talk page. On the deletion request, if I voted to keep something, you have right to reject it or voice your concern. There is a user who is saying, I have no idea of stub. What I understand from above discussion, is that there are few people who can speak, and rest can not. If they talk they are accused of coordinating. If there is a coordination, please prove it. Your idea of coordination seems like, if few people are working on similar articles, it is coordination. In above discussion started for 3 articles ,and one is added later. Out of original three, I only commented on 2 to keep it. I did not vote on Suhai Aziz Talpur. I have issue with editors who put up articles for deletions, without doing any search on the net to make sure that there is difference in badly written article and article which has notability issues. There are many articles on wikipedia which are based on one or two sources. So, number of sources is not an issue, since there are few topics which do not get a lot of attention from every news paper or similar places. Bigger issue is if source is unreliable or paid content. That should not be involved. In 3 examples which are quoted above, all of them have atleast one source which can be considered reliable, rest can support. Proving a source is reliable or not can be discussed on their deletion talk pages. As things go, majority vote wins. I do not have issue if I have minority vote. From above discussion, I only understand one thing, which is not to comment on deletion discussion, because we disagree with you. Which is wrong at every level. I am not arguing with anyone, I am just putting my vote in some of the articles. Others are arguing with me. So, not sure how I am aggressor. For coordination, I just want to state again, that I am not coordinating with anyother user.--Spasage (talk) 13:55, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
  • @Spasage:--There is no inalienable right to free-speech over here.Rest can speak, provided they display a minimal competence.Secondly, AFDs are not poll(s).And, please mandtaorily read the edit-notice and the linked policies, that is so-prominently visible at every AfD edit-window.~ Winged Blades^Godric 15:03, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Additionally, number of sources is not an issue, since there are few topics which do not get a lot of attention from every news paper or similar place flies in the face of GNG and/or most SNG(s), in the areas you have choosen to work upon, which is miles away from being a victim of systemic-bias.~ Winged Blades^Godric 15:03, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

So, in your opinion there is no place of single source articles? Go and see my comments, I used reference to vote, see my history. This is for all the users who are adding articles for deletion. Do research before putting articles for deletion. It is easy to put article for deletion and it takes a lot of time on discussion. We can save a lot of time, if editor spend some time and see if it is reliable or not. I see lack of judgment in many deletion requests.--Spasage (talk) 15:31, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

User User:Winged Blades of Godric added article Allah Dino Khawaja for deletion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allah Dino Khawaja (2nd nomination). With comments "... Trivial mentions in sources and no significant position held, (which by-default equates to notability)...". I do not know what to make of it. He also goes by AD Khawaja. He is top most officer of second largest Police force in Pakistan. His article is using thenews.com.pk, tribune.com.pk, www.dawn.com, www.geo.tv and many other news paper. He received very large attention. His case went all the way to court because of politics behind his appointments. And this article is up for deletion. Not sure what to make of it. If I put these comments, I will be banned. Another article is for deletion Abdul Majeed (bodybuilder), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdul Majeed (bodybuilder). He is covered in images.dawn.com and tribune.com.pk, both are leading news papers in Pakistan, not spammy. He is Mr. Pakistan which is highest level of body building competition you can win in Pakistan. In deletion text this is written "Won some local competitions.Not even professionally recognized.Most of sources are spammy". "won some local competitions ", he is Mr. Pakistan. Since, there is proposal for banning me, so not sure what to make of it. --Spasage (talk) 16:33, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allah Dino Khawaja (2nd nomination) and Abdul Majeed (bodybuilder), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdul Majeed (bodybuilder) both of these AFDs articles have one & more than one reliable sources and both articles subjects are notable, I wonder how its passing the criteria of deletion?. Some neutral Admin should go through the refernces will offcourse find reliable sources and notability. Rest in details is described by the Spasage, is it not a biased nomination, despite of some reliable sources?. Other nominations AFDs are also being contradiction and biased nominations. Jogi Asad Rajpar, Talk to me 21:31, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Thanks for yiur kindness to notifying me here. If there any proof of canvassing?, then it should be proved here. Using such words of Promospam, canvassing, suspicious are derogatory for the volunteer Wikipedian. If some users have voted for Keep on one or more AFDs then is it a spam? How its a spam? And what are proofs blamming for Spam, promospam? What are proofs for canvassing?. If a users thinks any AFD meets atleast one reliable source and place a vote of keep, then its right of a user to be given fair chance for participating.Jogi Asad Rajpar, Talk to me 20:24, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal

I propose

1) that And Adoil Descended (talk · contribs), JogiAsad (talk · contribs), Arif80s (talk · contribs), Spasage (talk · contribs) and مھتاب احمد (talk · contribs) be topic banned from all deletion discussions (known on en.wiki as "XfD") because of ignorance of the English Wikipedia's notability policies, compounded by an unwillingness to learn and bludgeoning of AfD discussions. See the AfD's that Black Kite links to as examples at the top of this thread. The bans can be appealed on WP:AN or WP:ANI when the users can show greater understanding of our notability policies, to the community's satisfaction, in, say, not less than three months.

2) and that the new page reviewer right be removed from Spasage (talk · contribs), per Winged Blades of Godric's concern above, until such time as they can show greater understanding of our notability policies to the satisfaction of an uninvolved admin, to whom they may appeal in not less than three months. Pinging User:Callanecc, who granted the right, in case they would like to comment.

Please discuss below. It's probably best, for clarity, to address my two proposals separately. Of course, if you wish, also address all five users separately. Bishonen | talk 16:08, 3 April 2018 (UTC).

(I messed up the signing, so I'm re-pinging Callanecc. Bishonen | talk 16:12, 3 April 2018 (UTC).)

• Support both. To clarify my position, I also endorse NPP removal from And Adoil Descended (talk · contribs). --Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:15, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support XfD topic bans based on ignorance/bludgeoning combo. Not sure about the NPP removal - from my random sampling, Spasage actually generally does an okay job there, which is surprising considering their ideas about notability (this might be what Winged Blades of Godric meant above?). --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:25, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support both proposals. Although since the new page reviewer right is being removed per community consensus, Spasage will have to gain community consensus for restoring this user right. Capitals00 (talk) 16:29, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support both proposals. —usernamekiran(talk) 17:00, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

  Update: Support both, but for a period of 1 year. —usernamekiran(talk) 03:22, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support all per my previous remarks, just writ large, as it were. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 17:20, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support both proposals. —MBL ^talk 17:19, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
• Comment before making decision, consider my record of comments on deletion and record of page I have reviewed. Page review has long history. --Spasage (talk) 17:24, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support - per the salient comments above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:47, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

• Sorry, both proposals. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:07, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support. A timed ban would also be OK (1 year expiry). They mean well, I think, but this is disruptive. Guy (Help!) 20:41, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support both proposals. --bonadea contributions talk 20:56, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

To develop my reasoning a bit: Yes, it is disruptive from lack of understanding rather than malice, but the end result is negative for the encyclopedia. See for instance this AfD !vote by JogiAsad posted after their post below, which shows that they still don't understand "trivial coverage" versus significant coverage despite the discussion here. Spasage seems to believe that it is a good idea to save poorly referenced articles as stubs, per this and this. Again, I'm sure this is good-faith, but it's still disruptive. I provided a diff for And Adoil Descended's editing in my post above, and there are other relevant diffs in that discussion. The other two users seem to be a little less disruptive, but AfD !votes such as this (from Arif80s) and this make me think that a tban that can be appealed after some set period of time (I'm not that concerned with the length), where the users show in their appeals that they have grasped the fundamentals of verifiability and notability, would be a good idea. --bonadea contributions talk 12:35, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Disappointed with such a nomination (Topic ban) without sound proofs of Canvassing, Spams, Promospams allegations; I request worthy Admins (Sysop) and conflict resolvers to have neutral judgement of this nomination. I have not canvassed, forced any user to vote on my articles AFDs, and there is no proof mentioned of the allegations mentioned above by the nominators; I was just trying to contest my articles AFDs,and rest participant users who voted on AFDs have tried to conveyed their vote, because they have found the reliable sources on the articles. And is it not suspicious that probably having the biased intention the one user often and randomly proposing my articles for deletion? However those article have atleast one or more than one reliable sources. I am really much disappointed with such nominations and ban. If a article has poor references/reliable sources then anyone can edit, expand, improve the content and references of articles.! If the articles are being nominated in such targetted speedily deletion without going through the refernces and improving it, I think Wikipedia will lost dedicated, enthusiast volunteer contributors. Rest is upon the Admins and mediators to ask them for proofs of the allegations raised here. bytheway I'm really much disappointed with such happenings here on Wikipedia (the sum of all human knowledge) which I think is under control of some lobbying, biased nominators.Jogi Asad Rajpar, Talk to me 21:18, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
• Strong support--To prevent messes like this AFD, where 2 of the subjects participated, with their usual nonsense, thus generating a sheer volume of bovine excrement, which negated the prospect of the proper policy-based close.~ Winged Blades^Godric 05:25, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support topic ban, with no opinion on the other editor. Natureium (talk) 14:36, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Detailed (7,000 bytes / 7000 characters) exposition of Spasarge's position. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap shit room 14:21, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Comment This is very interesting what User:Winged Blades of Godric is talking about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UrduPoint. See the stats Keep votes: 8 (Tahir mq, امین اکبر, Arif80s, Ma'az, Hindustanilanguage, Mar4d, Samee, Störm) Delete votes: 2 (Saqib, Winged Blades of Godric) and the list of people who you want to ban are: Adoil Descended, JogiAsad, Arif80s, Spasagea nd مھتاب احمد In the list, I found only Arif80s, I did not find anyone else. I was not part of it. If you go in detail of this AFD, Arif80s only voted once. There were only two votes against it and they were Saqib, Winged Blades of Godric. Here are more details on AFDs. Request put by Saqib - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Memon Abdul Ghafoor Keep votes: 1 (JogiAsad) Delete votes: 2 (Saqib, Winged Blades of Godric) Request put by Saqib - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Business incubators in Pakistan Delete votes: 2 (Ajf773, Saqib) Request put by Winged Blades of Godric - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdul Majeed (bodybuilder) Keep votes: 2 (JogiAsad, Spasage) Delete votes: 2 (Saqib, Winged Blades of Godric) Request put by Winged Blades of Godric - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allah Dino Khawaja (2nd nomination) Keep votes: 3 (86.17.222.157, JogiAsad, Spasage) Delete votes: 1 (Winged Blades of Godric) Request put by Saqib - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ismail Shah Keep votes: 1 (Spasage) Delete votes: 3 (Winged Blades of Godric, Saqib, Narky Blert) Request put by Saqib - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nadia Umber Lodhi Delete votes: 1 (Saqib) Speedy Delete votes: 1 (Winged Blades of Godric) Request put by Saqib - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mehrooz Waseem Keep votes: 1 (Spasage) Delete votes: 3 (Saqib, Bonadea, Winged Blades of Godric) Request put by Saqib - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JW Forland Pakistan Keep votes: 1 (Spasage) Delete votes: 4 (Winged Blades of Godric, D4iNa4, Saqib, Ma'az) Request put by Saqib - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amb Jogi Keep votes: 6 (Saqib, 31.173.188.190, Spasage, Atlantic306, مھتاب احمد, Arif80s) Delete votes: 1 (Winged Blades of Godric) Request put by Saqib - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iqbal Jogi Keep votes: 5 (Saqib, 31.173.188.190, Arif80s, Spasage, مھتاب احمد) Request put by Saqib - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Haroon Janjua Keep votes: 3 (Ma'az, Spasage, Legacypac) Delete votes: 3 (Saqib, Winged Blades of Godric, Störm) In above 12 AFDs, Spasage 8 keep votes, Saqib voted for delete 11, Winged Blades of Godric voted for delete 10. and 9 times both Saqib and Winged Blades of Godric voted on delete. Arif80s only 3 times Keep. Adoil Descended did not even voted. JogiAsad voted keep 3 times. مھتاب احمد 2 keep. Arif80s & Spasage 2 keeps, مھتاب احمد and Spasage 2 keeps, JogiAsad and Spasage 2 keep votes. This is what stats says. Here is my voting record for full disclosure: Keep Dana Meadows, Kaghan ‎ - result keep, Saqib also voted keep Kakakhel (tribe) - result keep, Saqib also voted keep Amb Jogi ‎ Iqbal Jogi ‎ Haroon Janjua ‎ Ismail Shah ‎ Mehrooz Waseem Daily The Patriot JW Forland Pakistan ‎ Allah Dino Khawaja Abdul Majeed (bodybuilder) ‎ Delete Samoon Ahmad,MD Lal Salam (party) ARY Digital Tower intially I was accused of coordination, I dont see any coordination with anyone in delete or keep vote. For some of the articles above, if result is delete, I am ok with it. In cases where I voted yes, I provided reference. --Spasage (talk) 15:06, 4 April 2018 (UTC) @Spasage: I am not exactly sure what your point is with this comment. —usernamekiran(talk) 03:40, 5 April 2018 (UTC) Point is most of what I and few other people are accused off is untrue and exaggerated to make it so look bad. Here is very interesting timeline: My first AFD comment was on Amb Jogi ‎ on 28 March. Between 28 and 31st March, I voted on 5 AFDs, 2 were AFD resulted in keep (Dana Meadows, Kaghan ‎, Kakakhel (tribe)), Saqib voted Keep in both and 3 are still in discussion. When case against me was building, some editors mention my vote on Dana Meadows, Kaghan ‎, Kakakhel (tribe) as disruptive. On 31st march, Saqib ask for help from [User_talk:Winged_Blades_of_Godric#AfDs] on three articles Amb Jogi, Iqbal Jogi and Google Tech Mela. Google Meal is deleted, I did not even vote on it. IP user 31.173.188.190 pointed out Canvassing between User:Winged Blades of Godric and Saqib at [33] and [34] I did vote on Amb Jogi and Iqbal Jogi. On 2nd April I was accussed of coordinating with someother users. If you see above, my pattern of voting does not match with anyone else and no coordination was done on Amb Jogi ‎ and Iqbal Jogi. In case of Iqbal Jogi, User:Winged Blades of Godric says he is on the edge between delete and keep. And very interesting comments were made by User:Aziz Kingrani.User:Winged Blades of Godric on the edge but I am disruptive. In case of Amb Jogi, User:Atlantic306 raised some very good points and he is not nominated ones who are coordinating, he made first comment on 30 March. After this 2nd April, few examples were taken out and presented as example of disruptive behaviour. All those AFD discussions are still open and editors are commenting on it. So, even if you remove me and other people who are recommended for ban and coordination, there are other people who are against delete and in few cases, are very vocal. Saying same thing which is considered as disruptive in my case. In all the places where I voted, my vote is not alone, there are more vocal editors supporting it. I am lone voice in Ismail Shah, Mehrooz Waseem and Daily The Patriot. In all cases, I gave my reasong with reference and ok with results. Anyone can be on wrong side of majority vote. It must have happened to editors here. People can have different opinion, which may contradicts other. This is whole reason for discussion. But painting it like this is something else. This look more like punishment and ganging up, then anything else. Kind of comments people have written above are so distrubing and upsetting. It is written above that I am harrassing, user User:Winged Blades of Godric writting aggressive comments like " .. some sort of bot, which generates a strong keep or keep or delete ..", in [35] , [36] [37]. Saqib and User:Winged Blades of Godric are also corrdinating in this [38], which is considered "ok", but for the people who never even worked before have to give explainations. They are given pass what every they say/do. According to voting pattern, Saqib and User:Winged Blades of Godric are corrdinating in their votes, not anyone else. In Pakistan AFD, there are many articles which are up for deletion. Why, only places where user User:Winged Blades of Godric and Saqib are involved, there is tension and aggression. See discussion which are happening at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Beacon_askari_school_system, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/M.E_Foundation_Secondary_School and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/TES_Public_School_(2nd_nomination) for example. Why there is open discussion happening there and not AFDs where they are invovled.--Spasage (talk) 20:11, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

• TL/DR, sorry. It may be slightly unfair, but if you are not able to produce a one-paragraph executive summary of the above, I fear there's hardly anyone who will go to the trouble to dig for the point in there. To clarify the basic issue, it is contended that your lack of understanding of notability guidelines, combined with a readiness to ride that very lack hard in AfD discussions, makes you a net negative in deletion-related venues. Competence problems, fundamentally. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:51, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
• This thread has been inactive for a while. Will somebody closs it before it gets archivedvplease? —usernamekiran(talk) 02:14, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

@Black Kite:.

AfD note

I have relisted the following

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amb Jogi
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iqbal Jogi
  • although I suspect the AfDs will both be deleted and re-listed when this is closed. Black Kite (talk) 23:12, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/171.248.246.158

Please check https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/171.248.246.158 Clear usage of Wikipedia for marketing purposes. Detektyw z Wilna (talk) 10:24, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I have blocked the IP address for 48 hours. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:51, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Sure they need help: diff. Do I see socks editing the article now? Maybe we have to up the protection level? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:53, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Further investigation shows that this has been going on for months, using different IP addresses. Alex Shih has blocked the IP range 171.248.240.0/21 for six months. Since this long-term disruptive editing also suggests a likelihood of a return to disruption on the article when the protection ends, I have set protection to three months. (Previously MelanieN had protected it for a week, and when that failed to stop the problem Dirk Beetstra had re-protected it for a month.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:05, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, JamesBWatson. SPI was filed here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Haiyenslna. If similar disruption returns then a edit filter (perhaps Beetstra could help) should probably be requested as this has been going on for a long while now. Alex Shih (talk) 11:13, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

@Alex Shih and Beetstra: Each time I look at this I find there is more to it than I had previously seen. Alex's link to the SPI was very helpful, because that page, and even more so its archive, show that this is a major problem, with numerous accounts and IP addresses used, so that an IP range block is clearly nowhere near enough. Kim Mai 13 is a sockpuppet which evaded semiprotection of the article by the standard trick of ten trivial edits to the account's own talk page before moving on to the article. If more of that happens then we may have to use extended confirmed protection, but as far as I know that is so far the only sockpuppet to have evaded semiprotection, and that one was blocked after three edits to the article, so unless there is more that I haven't seen then moving the protection up to extended confirmed is not yet justified. One to keep an eye on, with the option of further action if and when it becomes apparent that it is necessary, I think. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:56, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Problem is that they also have a history of pissing of multiple editors with the same spammy message to talkpages, asking for help to edit said article. And to AbuseFilter-scan every edit to user-talkpages for addition of that question (throttled as to avoid false positives) ... --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:18, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

@Beetstra: Yes. When I wrote my comments above I was thinking mainly of the editing to the article, not the talk page spamming, and although I had seen Alex's suggestion of an edit filter I hadn't given it any thought, but now I have. Edit filters should always be very much a last resort, of course, but in this case it seems to me that it shouldn't be too difficult to cut down the overhead from checking irrelevant edits to a very small amount. The first step the filter should take, it seems to me, is to immediately drop any edits that don't link to Maureen Wroblewitz, which at one stroke would rule out something like 99.9999% of edits. Then it could be cut down further by checking for other features of the editing, such as being on user talk pages, asking for help, and so on. In fact my bet is that it would cause less of an overhead than a good many of the existing edit filters, since linking to Maureen Wroblewitz is such an extremely narrow limitation on edits. Perhaps you know far more about edit filters than I do, in which case I would be interested in reading anything you can say in answer to my comments, and perhaps putting me right if I am totally wrong. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:33, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

• Special:AbuseFilter/910, set to detect only for now. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:28, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Beetstra, Special:Contributions/27.75.249.89 is the latest disruption. Looks like they are trying to get around the filter, any thoughts? Alex Shih (talk) 10:11, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

IP possibly being used by topic banned user to get round ban

Following on from here, it is believed that IP 192.160.216.52 is being used by Unscintillating who was topic banned two months ago from XfD-related discussions. The SPI report has been opened by Eggishorn with suitable evidence. Could I ask for assistance from an uninvolved admin/SPI clerk please, the sooner the better please, owing to the volatility of the IP. Thanks all. IP, RoySmith (who commented on the SPI) and Eggishorn have been informed Nightfury 14:21, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Get for real, User:Nightfury. You ought to be blocked for making personal attacks according to the SPI edit notice. You have no evidence because there is no evidence. You ought to be ashamed of yourself. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 17:32, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

If you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to fear. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:49, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

You know what, Mr. Bugs, I don't know what you're talking about. I am not afraid, instead I'm angry that these two users think it's reasonable to make serious accusations of sockpuppetry without any evidence at all when they know that no one will run a checkuser and all I did was disagree with them on some AfDs. Hey, listen, though. What if I create an account, verify that it's mine by making pre-agreed edits, and then you all run a checkuser on that account? Is that ever done? 192.160.216.52 (talk) 17:56, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

• You keep saying "do a checkuser", as if that's the magic bullet. If you know the Unscintillating account never made edits from that IP, demanding it proves nothing. This is why having an account is better. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:27, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

• Having an account is better because then one doesn't get treated like dirt by accountholders. There's no other benefit that I can see. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 18:50, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

• Sorry you're not able to see the other benefits. Maybe you can go read about them. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:27, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks for giving yet another example of what I'm talking about. Do you think you could get away with your nonsense editing from an IP? Why don't you check your privilege? 192.160.216.52 (talk) 13:19, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

• I'm sorry. I didn't realize you were incapable of finding the essay about the benefits on your own. Here is the link: WP:TBRACW. Now you can go read it. My restating something that is already stated well is simply unnecessary. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:09, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

• Are you actually an Angelino, or are you using an open proxy? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:18, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

• False dichotomy, Mr. Bugs. Angelenos are people from Los Angeles. Obviously I'm from Whittier. It's a whole different place. And I'm not editing from a proxy. I'm actually logged on to the network here. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 13:19, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

• I'm not convinced these two are the same person. There's similarities, but if we assumed every belligerent inclusionist wikilawyer was a sock of the same person we'd be at SPI continually. If the IP and Unscintillating are the same person they've adopted a more directly aggressive style of arguing. I think it's likely that Unscintillating was someone's sock and I have a sneaky suspicion of who that sockmaster is but my feeling is these two are not related. Reyk _YO! 18:35, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks, I guess. I'm not an inclusionist, though, and I'm not belligerent. Sure, I only support "keep" positions, but I'm highly selective about which AfDs I comment on. I don't comment on the vast majority of them because there's no viable arguments in favor of keeping. It's really not inclusionism. And I only seem belligerent to some small group of editors who can't bear to be challenged by an IP editor and who, for instance, think it's somehow a strike against me that I understand WP policies. It's not. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 18:50, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

ResilientWiki is NOTHERE

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

User is spamming external links (e.g., [39]) and making personal attacks (e.g., [40]). Seems to be related to the electronic harassment issue. EvergreenFir (talk) 14:50, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

• Strongly inclined to banninate as a spammer, but there are no edits since the last warning, I think, so let's wait and see if the penny drops. Guy (Help!) 14:57, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

  I saw your comment, but when I went to try to hold fire I managed to set Twinkle into motion instead of closing it. Yeah, waiting a bit isn't a big deal. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:06, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CoryWeagant. I think this is the same person. ~ GB fan 15:11, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I would suggest that wixsite.com cold be safely added to the global blacklist: MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#Proposed additions. It would avoid any potential socking to add that sub-domain. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:45, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

this person is claiming false reports against me making false accusations also, Removing my legitimate edits that I was told I could make by another wiki Admin that went over it. This person must be having a personal effect to the relation in the page I edited. Just added some necessary exgte3rnal links properly the way Wiki asks to be done. The links were relevant and crucial to the specific page to have listed, It would just make no sense for it not to have these specific external links. This person that's editing is being dishonest and making completely false reports and accusations based off of absolutely nothing other then I said he is a liar about my edits which is 100% true. and then right after that now he adds me to this blacklist reports me in the forum on here and then tries to blacklist Wix.com which is a well established and well known platform for website creation. I need support from other admins to investiagte that are not corrupt & dishonest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ResilientWiki (talk • contribs)

ResilientWiki, you have repeatedly tried to insert an external link to an unreliable website into an article, Electronic harassment. This is wrong for two reasons. We do not add external links into the body of an article, and we do not allow unreliable sources. Please read Wikipedia:External links and Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. As for Wix.com, it is a platform for hosting personally written websites, which lack professional editorial control and are therefore not reliable sources. Please stop this behavior. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:09, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Legacypac accusations of bad faith, COI while editing DS firearms articles

Legacypac has made a number of uncivil accusations towards me relating to edits primarily on the talk pages of firearms articles. While I'm sure we don't hold the same views on the subject I do not appreciate accusations that my edits, ore more often my talk page comments are "whitewashing". Repeated accusations of WP:POVPUSH, accusations of whitewashing, and not very sutle accusations of COI are not condusive to WP:CIVIL editing (examples below).

I have tried to reach out to Legacypac to address these issues on the editor's talk page. Initially here [[41]] and after additional instances incivility here [[42]]

Several associated with the article 2018 NRA boycott that related to a request to remove material that I felt was WP:SYN. Consensus on the article page and a NORN thread supported removal. Accusations were made on both locations and at myself and a second editor.

• March 13, "I'm tiring of your pro-NRA advocacy User:Springee. This is an area under discretionary sanctions." [[43]]
• March 13, Similar comment directed at another editor "A review of [User]'s recnet contributions show NRA whitewashing. I remind this user that this topic is under discretionary sanctions. " [[44]] Note edit summary
• March 14, "Anyone reviewing edit histories can see which editors are whitewashing and even the big name media is picking up on the effort of these editors. " [[45]]
• March 17, from the NORN discussion related to this material, "These two editors are the ones arguing to remove it. In fact Springee has a history of trying to downplay anything negative about the NRA. The RS are noticing. [links to external media]" [[46]]

Non-firearms article:

• March 18, "Stop trying to whitewash this page", [[47]]

Noticeboard comments:

• March 26, "And why is it when you can't sufficently push your pro NRA pro gun POV on the article you come running to this board? You have noticed that the world is noticing this whitewashing effort? [Link to blog post by blocked editor Lightbreather]" [[48]], Archived discussion [[49]]

Smith and Wesson article:

• April 2, "You will not whitewash the page completely", [[50]], upon a talk page[[51]] request this one was removed. [[52]]
• April 2, "Wow you are narrowly focused on reasons to exclude a good source where the headline names S&W. Here is another [removed ref] but I'm sure there is something wrong with this source too" [[53]]

AfD discussion page:

• April 2, "Pretty POV of Springee - when will you stop advocating against any transparency around the NRA's activities?" [[54]] Per a talk page comment I requested this comment be removed. [[55]]

Talk page implication of COI:

• April 2, "Are you in anyway employed by a gun manufacturer or the NRA? Just wondering?" [[56]] A quick search of my edit history shows no firearms edits at all prior to Aug 2016 and until late last year only limited involvement.

Several times Legacypac has linked to a few external media articles that started with an article in The Verge about Ar-15 edits on Wikipedia. I discussed the very questionable articles here [[57]]. I think it is uncivil to use questionable articles as a way to impugn the actions of other editors.

I'm not requesting sanctions, only that the accusations etc stop. Springee (talk) 04:18, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

It would be interesting to see some specific edits that the two of you are arguing about. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:04, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

• Springee states that he or she is asking "only that the accusations etc stop", so let's consider accusations that have been made. (1) Springee has a history of wanting the removal of negative information relating to gun supporters in the United States. Legacypac regards that as editing to support a point of view, and uses the word "whitewashing" to describe it. Legacypac has a perfect right to hold that view, and it is not reasonable to attempt to suppress his or her right to express the opinion. (2) Legacypac has asked whether Springee has a conflict of interest, and received an unequivocal answer "no". Having received that answer, Legacypac must now drop the matter, and not suggest that Springee has a conflict of interest again unless and until there is clear evidence that Springee in fact does have one. Persisting in repeatedly making such an accusation without substantiation is both a failure to assume good faith and a violation of Wikipedia's policy on harassment. (3) Springee needs to be careful about making accusations against Legacypac. For example, Springee has linked to this talk page section, referring to it as "additional instances incivility", but while Legacypac firmly expressed critical views of Springee's editing, he or she did do perfectly civilly. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:53, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

• Is is really a legit question? Springee has a 10 year edit history, editing more than firearms articles. It should be obviousl that there was not a "paid editor" issue. The COI "question" was not called for. And the term "whitewashing" is being used in a manner that suggests collusion or nefarious motives. The technical use of the word may not be wrong, but the implication is clear. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:06, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

• I had closed this section, but on representation from Springee I am reopening it, to allow Legacypac a chance to respond. There is also a question of whether "whitewashing" is, as I took it, simply a term describing repeated removal of content supporting a particular position by someone who clearly disagrees with that position, or something more reprehensible. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:35, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank-you JamesBWatson. Your close was fine I asked the other editor once if they had a COI and they said no, which I take them at their word for. When I used the term whitewashing (just like other editors do [58]) I refer to removing any negative information about a subject from the page directly, and indirectly by attacking the critical Reliable Sources used, weight, relevance and so on on the talkpages/RS notice board etc of any material that the NRA would not want on the page. At issue are facts like:

1. some guns are commonly and in legislation called assault rifles [59] [60]
2. there is significant backlash against the NRA because of their response to recent mass shootings including the 2018 NRA boycott [61], and somewhere he deleted a link I placed to this article from I recall the NRA page.
3. that the NRA has been suggesting boycotts of opponents for years [62], which he sees as irrelevant to the current boycotts and NRA response and that
4. Smith & Wesson changed their name to American Outdoor Brands Corporation [63] [64] to blunt criticism.

Examples and supplied links are just some I was able to quickly gather from memory. None of them illustrate the talkpage POV pushing.

(By the way the American Outdoor Brands Corporation and Smith & Wesson pages cover the exact same company under two names. The page incorrectly identifies S&W as a subsidiary of itself. Further Smith & Wesson is basically G11 material - a glowing advertisement and product catalog with subpages for each gun they make.)

There are multiple editors whitewashing gun topics and mainstream media has noticed:

Anyway as I said, this editor has been editing like you would expect someone on the NRA payroll to edit (which is why I asked about COI). I reviewed some recent contributions after they filed this report and there appears to be some recent moderation in their POV pushing. I'll not claim all the credit for pushing them in the direction of NPOV but I hope that trend continues. Hope that clears things up. Legacypac (talk) 11:31, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Legacypac, there is a difference between saying the edit is a problem and saying I'm POV pushing. I think the same argument could be made about your edits but I haven't because I would like to keep things civil, hence reaching out to you twice. You accuse me of POV push but lets review the example where you lodged most of the accusations. "That edit is whitewashing" is about the edit. "And why is it when you can't sufficently push your pro NRA pro gun POV on the article you come running to this board? You have noticed that the world is noticing this whitewashing effort?" is about the motives of the editor and not civil.

In reply to your numbered points.

1. You didn't note that there were a number of edits related to what to call the rifles and that a talk page discussion said that they shouldn't be called "assault rifles" (start of back and forth[[65]]). Additionally the source for the claim didn't use the term "assault rifle" so the change is completely appropriate per contentious wp:label [[66]]. I believe sticking to what the source says and avoiding contentious labels is good practice.

2. This was early on in the existence of the article and I wasn't the only one who was concerned that the article was more like a cry for action against companies rather than a neutral description of events (which were still unfolding). The edit was BOLD and reverted and I moved it to the talk page. You may not agree but that doesn't justify personal attacks.

3. This edit suggests you were tone deaf to policy. You felt the information was relevant but could find no RSs linking material from 2014 to the 2018 Boycott. Rather than discuss policy the first thing you did was attack @Miguel Escopeta: and myself. You continued the attacks on the NORN discussion. In the end you were the sole editor who felt the material was supported by policy. If you are the only one supporting inclusion maybe the issue isn't POV push but policy. I'm not saying you were wrong for opposing removal but that opposition didn't need to include attacking other editors.

4. OK, bring that up as a RfC or such. That doesn't justify attacking me for pointing out that the edits being added were using sources that didn't support the claims being made. The originating editor was previously blocked for sock editing and edit warring (and is currently topic blocked for these edits) so it's understandable that myself and others weren't quick to embrace the material. If you had opened up a talk page discussion asking how we can get the material in I think you would find I was supportive in general but not of the exact text and I wasn't interested in helping an editor who had accused me of being a S&W employee etc.

Your reposed a series of poor quality opinion articles based on one published by the Verge. The author of the Verge article contacted me 24 hr prior to publication, asked a vague question that made the tone of the article clear. I didn't reply. Earlier in this ANI I posted a link my take on the article and the gross errors the author made in his telling of events. Those articles don't justify uncivil comments towards other editors.

Your block log and previous ANI cases shows you have a history of bullying[[67]] and I think that is what is going on here. I'm not asking you to change your mind or agree with my edit suggestions. I also don't think this rises to any sanctions. I'm only asking that you assume good faith and discuss the edits, not the editor. This shouldn't be too much to ask. Springee (talk) 12:59, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

You consider Newsweek and Haaretz to be "poor quality" publications? Your deliberate lack of response to the writer from The Verge was a strategic error - if you wanted your point of view to be presented, you have to actually tell the writer what it is. Now, you have no-one to blame but yourself if the article didn't mention where you're coming from, so you're in no position to bitch about it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:38, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken - Could you possibly mischaracterize this issue any more than you just did? I have to wonder if you actually read this ANI report before posting that comment. This isn't about Springee's POV not being represented correctly, or at all, by The Verge. This is about Springee asking LegacyPac to knock off the persistent accusations of COI and POV-pushing, which have crossed the line into blatant personal attacks. So not only do you have this 100% wrong, but your characterization of Springee's request as "bitching" is appallingly rude and a violation of NPA. You need to strike your comment and post an apology to Springee immediately. You owe him that. People should be able to seek re-dress for issues here without being unjustifiably attacked. - ^theWOLFchild 11:39, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

• I was also contacted, but the way the writer was framing his questions, it was obvious he had a POV that he was going to advance. He didn't want to hear my side, he wanted to refute my side in the article, where I'd have no control over how he presented what I said. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:03, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

• You do know that it's extremely rare for writers to give the people they interview control over what they write, don't you? And, as I said to Springee, if you are correct that the writer had a preset bias, the only way you had available to you to hope that your point of view was presented in the article was to engage him or her with as convincing an argument as you could make. If you didn't do that, you can hardly complain if the article wasn't balanced. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:32, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

The articles in question were simply reporting what The Verge article said and for failing to investigate further the articles were poor (I don't recall claiming the publications as a whole were poor). The author of the Verge article presumably sent the same email to quite a number of editors. The question was vague and didn't suggest any interest in a real discussion. I was told the article was going out in 24 hours. Mind you at that point I had almost no idea what the article was going to say. I honestly didn't have much of a POV on the subject other than to say the author got a lot of things very wrong because they didn't do their homework. If you are interested in it, please see this talk page thread [[68]].

In somewhat condensed form, the author claimed people were trying to remove mass shooting information from the AR-15 article. But the author didn't bother to do their homework and didn't understand that there had been some churning of article names and thus confusion as to what went where. This happened just after the FL shooting so many new authors descended on what they thought was the right article and started adding material... but there was a problem. What started as the generic AR-15 article was changed to the Colt AR-15 (last spring if I recall) article because "AR-15" is a trademarked name. The conclusion at the time, as I recall as a largely uninvolved party, was change "AR-15" to "Colt AR-15" and then make a generic AR-15 page (and there was a debate about the correct page name... this is Wikipedia of course). Because "Colt AR-15" is a brand specific page, general AR-15 mass shooting information wasn't on topic, that would go in the generic AR-15 page. But this is Wikipedia. No one bothered to update the redirect links so "AR-15" searches (and thus web searches) found the Colt page rather than the generic AR-15 page. Editors on the Colt page would rightly remove general AR-15 material from the specific page but editors who were new were understandably confused. To make things worse, someone decided "Modern Sporting Rifles" was the correct name for the generic AR-15 page (a mistake that was being corrected before the Verge article came out). Wikipedia being what it is, it the editors who made the changes didn't finish the job and setup the links etc and we have odd names for articles. The Verge author sees only the surface and assumes this is some sort of mass conspiracy to censor articles and we have the story in question. A bit of digging would have shown this was simply the convergence of a major news story at the same time the articles were taking their time to evolve.

The article also mentions some NRA edits and notes certain material that was removed. However, it doesn't ask if the material's removal was valid. I think any long time Wikipedia editor will understand that sometimes material is removed because it isn't properly sourced (source doesn't support the claim, not reliable etc, added by a blocked sock editor). Since I wasn't directly involved with most of the material discussed in the article I think my non-reply to a vague question was the right choice. It was interesting to note that some comments in reply to the article basically supported what was happening at the Wikipedia articles. So what should we make of Legcaypac's reply below? Well there is a failure to understand the subject yet a willingness to assign motives without knowing the whole story. An attempt to mock and disparage which I suspect is not in line with WP:CIVIL behavior. I suspect that is part of the problem with the 2018 NRA Boycott incivility I noted above. Rather than look at the content as unsupportable by policy, Legacypac decided the only reason for removal would have to be bias/POVPUSH. At the end of the day that seems to have blinded Legacypac to problems that other editors had no issue finding. As Legacy said, I'm sure he he is a true believer in whatever he believes. All I was asking was that he follow the rules for civility when he disagrees. Springee (talk) 02:45, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

News org Verge found Springee's POV pushing so blatant they call Springee up for an interview and write an article about it. Newsweek and two other places pick up the story.

Springee files an ANi against me because I independently came to the same assessment about Springee's specific agenda editing as Verge and Newsweek!

First, That's awesome! No wonder Springee is so sensitive to any mention of the news coverage detailing how they personally brought Wikipedia into disrepute by whitewashing gun related pages. Second, congratulation are in order - we should put a DYK about Springee's editing making Newsweek. That's a rare honor indeed.

I think we can close this discussion again unless someone wants to use DS to topic ban Springee for editing so POV that four media outlets wrote it up. Legacypac (talk) 13:52, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

The above is a clearly uncivil comment and illustrates exactly the sort of behavior that I've been concerned about. The edit justification assocaited with that addition is also a civility problem. [[69]] Based on the above comment I would like to request a formal warning for incivility. Springee (talk) 14:01, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

• Suggesting the DYK is exactly the sort of behavior that makes it difficult to work with you. Some writer with an agenda writes a one-sided opinion piece and you act like it was carried down from the mountain by Moses. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:06, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

The box I posted was created by some other editor(s), I just borrowed it from the AR-15 talkpage.

• @Legacypac: I have told you that you must stop the accusations of conflict of interest. I know that "editing like you would expect someone on the NRA payroll to edit (which is why I asked about COI)" stops short of actually saying that Springee has a conflict of interest, but in the context it clearly makes a not very deeply veiled implication to that effect. If I see you do anything like that again I shall block you from editing. I may also say that other aspects of your editing on this page is much more in line with a battleground approach to other editors than like an attempt to resolve disagreements. Your comments here have certainly led me to move somewhat away from the position that I expressed when I originally closed this discussion, and I hope I don't find it necessary to move further in the same direction. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:35, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

User:JamesBWatson I've never once said he had a COI (as you correctly note) and I only once asked nicely if there was one so we could get that out of the way as he keep coming to my talk to complain. There is no accusations of "bad faith" - I'm sure he is a true believer in whatever he believes. That dispenses with the false headline. I was not even going to comment here until I was pretty much forced to by the discussion on your talkpage - hardly battleground behavior on my part. Legacypac (talk) 15:33, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

• " I've never once said he had a COI (as you correctly note)". Are you familiar with the term paralipsis? Niteshift36 (talk) 18:28, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

• I read Legacypac's bringing up the subject not as a rhetorical way to circumvent JBW's instructions, but simply as part of their explanation for their actions. Now that they have done so, bringing it up again would be a different matter. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:14, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

• @Springee: you write: the [Verge] author claimed people were trying to remove mass shooting information from the AR-15 article [70], but the thing is that editors are still removing mass shooting information, even though it is *specifically* about the model in question: "remove Part Arthur Massacre per overwhelming consensus on talk page", 3 April 2018. The "overwhelming consensus" is the past discussions where editors were attempting to enforce WP:Local consensus of the now-deprecated "criminal use" essay; see for example: Talk:Colt_AR-15#Proposal_2.

It would help greatly if you step in every now and then to help enforce Wikipedia's policies, even if it means going against WP:GUNS local consensus sometimes. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:20, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the Port Arthur material is currently the subject of a talk page discussion. You say "enforce Wikipedia's policies" but which ones? These all can be distilled down to WP:weight (other than the cases where RS's don't support article claims). The issue I've raised is reciprocity of weight. You and I discussed it here [[71]]. It's improper to assume that those who are against including many of these facts aren't doing it against policy. Rather we don't agree on what constitutes weight in the context of the article. When are mentions in context of the crime (the car used, the gun used) due weight in context of the car or gun. I noted the contrast between how we treat the car and the gun used in the same crime. A well subscribed RfC said the Chevy Caprice article shouldn't mention the blue Caprice used as a shooting platform in the D.C. sniper attacks. The crime is mentioned on the page of the type of gun used in the crime. We disagree on the relative weight here but that disagreement is only over how to interpret weight in context. This isn't like the boycott case above where no policy was cited for inclusion. BTW, I'm for inclusion of the Port Arther material in large part because I think the weight is sufficient and because of the firearms project suggestions for when to include a crime on a gun page [[72]]. When the RfC comes I will support some type of inclusion. I was also for adding the mass shooting information to the AR-15 page. [[73]] This is rather off topic. You and I have disagreed but your disagreements are civil and stick to the subject, not the editor. I started this ANI to get Legacypac to do the same. Springee (talk) 04:10, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

• @JamesBWatson, I'm disapointed that rather than see the problem with a post and edit summary such as this one [[74]]. Legacypac's reply to your warning suggest they feel there was nothing wrong with the comment. I think the editor either needs to acknowledge civility policy [[75]], in particular "Avoid appearing to ridicule another editor's comment," and "Be careful with edit summaries". Springee (talk) 12:13, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Were you, in fact, contacted by mainstream media such as Newsweek? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:19, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Newsweek? No. The Verge, yes, along with other editors, presumably on all sides of the edit debate. Contrary to Legacypac's bad faith accusations above, the email says I was contacted simply because I was one of the editor's involved on the talk pages. Email text below.

(Redacted)

Springee (talk) 13:21, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm not interested in emailing anyone here. So, were others on the talk page contacted also? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:37, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

The email I received was not personalized and the reporter said they were contacted multiple editors. Springee (talk) 13:43, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Proposal

Both Legacypac and Springee display strong emotional involvement with this subject, and it is not bringing out the best in either of them. This can't be viewed outside the the current political context, especially #NeverAgain and the objectively horrible response of the NRA and some of its surrogates. Springee's focus is mainly political and he edits a lot of firearms articles, mainly from a sympathetic perspective, but his edits also encompass many other topic areas. Legacypac has a much broader editing focus. Neither is the kind of SPA POV warrior for whom sanctions were originally enacted. I suggest that rather than formal sanctions on long-standing editors, we invite them both instead to take a 3 month break from this topic area. Otherwise it's going to end up with topic bans, and actually I don't think that will help Wikipedia in this case as both of them leave articles better than they started, even when they are butting heads. Guy (Help!) 09:40, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

I edit from a pro-verifiable facts perspective. I'll admit a bias against killing people. Legacypac (talk) 15:45, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

And Springee would doubtless say the same. Guy (Help!) 16:14, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

In general I have nothing against Legacypac's edits. I feel some aren't improvements or don't follow policy but in all cases I think they are legitimate, good faith efforts on which we disagree. Editorial disagreements aren't why I started this ANI. I simply want Legacypac to adhere to the WP:FOC policy. Comments about my supposed motivations are not focusing on the content in question. The insulting comment above is anything but FOC. If Legacypac agrees that going forward they will FOC when discussing editorial disagreements I'm fine. I will try to do the same and my talk page is open to Legacypac if they think I'm doing otherwise. Springee (talk) 17:10, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

I've only recently started paying attention to firearms-related articles, but it's immediately obvious that people are often incredibly unpleasant towards each other on this subject. Springee isn't. Getting into a disagreement with him is a far more positive experience than agreeing with many other editors in this area. From what I can tell, this report isn't about some kind of content disagreement, but about unpleasant behavior. Also, no one is even asking for a topic ban (although I guess Legacypac brought it up for some reason I don't understand). Asking Springee to stop editing because of someone else's unpleasant behavior would be a disservice to the encyclopedia. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 04:14, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Suspected POINT

• A. Katechis Mpourtoulis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

For the past few weeks, a particular user, using IPs as well, has been engaging in some disruptive behaviour with fellow editors. This user, named A. Katechis Mpourtoulis, in general, has being engaging particularly on some serious POINT, all of them regarding the greece-macedonia controversy. Without any consensus, or previous discussions, he has been doing some incorrect and unadvised edittings, as you can see in his editing history, like, for instance, putting the term "greek" in every article that involves "Macedonia". He has been instructed by me and other users to stop this behaviour but he didn't and even deleted all warnings in his talk page. That might be just some case of disruptive editing, until he resorted to name calling, by calling me a 'slav' (didn't even know that was an insult), and at another occasion, questioned the integrity of a user based on where he was supposedly from.

Clearely is noticeable that he has an agenda and is using wikipeida to promote it and defend it (evident case of WP:ADVOCACY). He is ignoring warning from multiple users, engaging in disruptive editing, and POINT, using other IPs for vandalism, name calling and disrespecting users in general who either disagrees with him or wants to discuss the content of the articles first. He has been warned multiple times and even has been accused of sock puppetry, but chose to ignore everything and everyone. I was instructed to bring this case here, so here it is. Coltsfan (talk) 13:27, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I've notified him of the existence of discretionary sanctions on Balkan topics. --15:20, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

SarekOfVulcan, what about the insults and the disruptive editing? is that bound to continue? plus, he has cleared his talk page and even removed the message i left him notifying him about this discussion. I think this can be interpreted as a sign of bad faith. Coltsfan (talk) 15:37, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Coltsfan clearing a message on a usertalk page is considered an acknowledgement that it has been read. It doesn't need to stay visible. They've been notified that discretionary sanctions can be applied for disruptive editing - the ball's in their court now. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:43, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Rajrajh

Rajrajh had many warnings now,[76] still he is edit warring on Ho people, by gaming WP:3RR,[[77][78][79][80][81][82] and never participating on talk page.[83] Capitals00 (talk) 14:20, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

If Rajrajh does not respond here then a topic ban may be needed. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:55, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

IP

124.106.140.81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) – vandalism but clearly states they are using their name in the edit, please remove the edit from history of page for user's protection, see: 1 Waddie96 (talk) 15:23, 5 April 2018 (UTC) Moved from AVI as probably more appropriate here.

 Not done Garden variety disruption, does not need revdel. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:43, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

AkshayKadamSwag

AkshayKadamSwag (talk · contribs) has been repeatedly uploading copyrighted logos and tagging them as 'self-made' with CC/GFDL licensing. Many of these have been duplicates of images already on WP. I have asked them to stop, but there appears to be a CIR/IDHT issue. Could some action be taken please? Thanks, Nzd (talk) 17:30, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

• Concur. He was given two warnings by you (For others; see warnings, one on March 26, and the second on March 30. Both of these went unheeded, and he continues to upload non-free images claiming them as his own work. @AkshayKadamSwag: please join this discussion. Continuing to edit elsewhere without responding here will not helpful. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:45, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

• They're blocked until they explain themselves using their talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:50, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Boxinglive

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

Below are some of his edits. It involves inserting an illegal website. I want him blocked. Boxinglive is a new account that has no talk page.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2018_Masters_Tournament&type=revision&diff=834438965&oldid=834438640

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2018_Masters_Tournament&type=revision&diff=834436859&oldid=834436607

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Boxinglive

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mobile mundo (talk • contribs) 15:08, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Boom, and gone. Canterbury Tail talk 19:10, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Canterbury Tail. We are busy today trying to edit a busy 2018 Masters page, and we don't need the spammers to deal with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnsmith2116 (talk • contribs) 15:17, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Can you folks please sign your comments with 4 tildes (~~~~)? Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:09, 5 April 2018 (UTC)'

They're already creating new accounts and re-adding. I think we need to blacklist livesportsforyou.com urgently. Canterbury Tail talk 19:17, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I think the blacklist discussion could be taken to MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 22:22, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

@Johnsmith2116: @Jéské Couriano: Blacklisting is a last resort if other methods have failed. Blocking works unless it becomes a whack-a-mole game. I have just semi-protected the 2018 Masters Tournament article for 1 month. Hopefully that will take care of the problem. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:15, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Also, I forgot to sign my post, sorry about that. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 23:17, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I have blacklisted the stuff. A couple of minutes after a first block a new editor appears, and they seem to target more articles. The MO reminds me of an older spammer of similar material. There is only one solution with that level of persistence. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 04:38, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

It turns out that they had even put that stuff on the main Masters page also, seen here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Masters_Tournament&type=revision&diff=834440811&oldid=834440401 Johnsmith2116 (talk) 09:41, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Sonicfanboy074

This user, despite being warned multiple times, is repeatedly adding content without citing their sources (see their talk page for the warnings). Me and an admin have asked why they are doing this behavior, and they continue to add unsourced things while being reverted for it. -- 1989 (talk) 21:19, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Sonicfanboy apparently has a habit of ignoring warnings via the users talk page and continues to be disruptive despite receiving warnings from multiple editors. The user has only been editing since June 2017. After seeing his contributions, I don’t see any real benefit the user can provide for Wiki. Just another case of WP:NOTHERE. An indef. block will solve everything. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 05:38, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

I've applied a 36 hour block to this user for the repeated addition of unreferenced content to articles. I don't want to indefinitely block this user yet, as I'm hoping that this block is what's needed to set them straight. If it doesn't and the behavior continues after the block expires, I'll definitely be more open to an indefinite block - but we should at least try to set the user straight first if we can. Any admin is welcome to extend the block to an indefinite duration without my approval if they feel that this is more appropriate - just ping or message me and let me know that you did so, and that'll be fine. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:23, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Nov3rd17 uses talk pages as a live feed

User:Nov3rd17 uses talk pages like this as a live feed where he starts posting news articles that came out just now without connecting them to an improvement for the article. Sometimes, he already writes a post before he has finished reading everything, then he updates his posting gradually. See versions history. That's WP:RECENTISM on steroids! He sees talk pages as his personal live blog where he can post every news article that came out just now. I don't think that article talk pages are meant to be used in this way and consider this as an abuse of talk pages. I asked this user nicely to build a connection to an improvement for the article or to move his post to Wikipedia:Reference_desk but he refuses to do either, instead he continues to post more and more news articles. Help! We need an experienced editor or administrator to stop this. Note that this user has been suspicious in the past for similar reasons, see here. --TheRandomIP (talk) 22:08, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

To me it seems it just puts sources that can be used by editors for discussion. It seems a very good use of talk pages, if you ask me, and I see no evidence of abuse of this logic. Of course if it was a constant flood it'd be different, but I only see few, germane examples. What they did on de.wiki is irrelevant- every wiki has their own rules and quirks. --cyclopia^speak! 22:23, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

He changes the content of his posting constantly once a new article is released (and sometimes replaces the old content), that's why it looks sparse, but it's a flood of edits. His initial post (before I intervened) was a factual question unrelated to anything in the article. Therefore you can assume that the purpose of his postings are indeed to initiate a discussion about the article's subject but not the article itself. --TheRandomIP (talk) 22:48, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

TheRandomIP - When you say, "once a new article is released" - I assume that you mean when a new "reference" or "source" is added? I also don't understand exactly where in Wikipedia's talk page guidelines you're referring to when you say here and here to Nov3rd17 that their use of the article's talk page is not in compliance and that removing it is justified. Can you explain and show me where you're talking about so I can make sure I didn't miss anything? These questions seem perfectly legitimate and "on topic" to me, and I'm quite certain that these questions are what talk pages are for... Please let me know :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:16, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

I see, we have fundamentally different viewpoints of what talk pages should be used for and the english Wikipedia seems to be a lot more liberal in that concern. I don't think that every new news article that came out should immediately be posted to the talk page. Imagine if we did that in all articles like in the article about Kim Kardashian and someone would keep a live feed about news articles where she somehow was mentioned. That's not really "collecting sources" as everyone who reads the news once in a while will stumble across those articles. It would be a valuable contribution if those news articles were forgotten or hard to find, but that was not the case here.
I don't think one should be allowed to just start a discussion about the article's subject when there is not a single sentence like "I would like to change..." or "... should be added" or similar in the discussion. But ok, if you think otherwise and one can just start a discussion about everything that's somehow related to the article's subject, if one is allowed to use the talk page as a live feed, then the user I reported is just right here. He loves to discuss the article's subject and to tell everyone the latest news and his feelings about the article's subject. You are like chalk and cheese then. I will go back to the german Wikipedia then where we actually want to keep Wikipedia focused on relevant discussions that are unambiguously directed solely toward the improvement of the encyclopedia. (fun fact: that's in part the first sentences of WP:DISCUSSION, so you should have that goal, too). --TheRandomIP (talk) 17:02, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm with Oshwah here. English Wikipedia and German Wikipedia are quite different. In any case, posting links to new potential sources and summarizing them is fine. The "I would like to change..." or "... should be added" or similar that you feel is needed is implied - it's basically "here are some sources, perhaps someone can use them to add to the article". I don't see how that's not, as you say, relevant discussions that are unambiguously directed solely toward the improvement of the encyclopedia. ansh666 18:41, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

TheRandomIP - By the way, I want you to know that you've done nothing wrong and I don't want you to feel that you're "in trouble" for being incorrect or making mistakes here. You legitimately thought talk pages worked the same way here as a sister Wikipedia project - mistakes happen, they're no big deal, we don't hold legitimate accidents or mistakes against anyone (so long as they understand and don't carelessly repeat them of course lol), and they're a normal part of learning - especially with the sheer amount of guidelines and policies we have here (and that differ from project-to-project or even different languages of the same project... haha). If you don't mind, could you please respond and follow-up with your messages to Nov3rd17 on that talk page and just apologize, let the editor know that you checked and found out that what they were doing is in-fact fine, and offer to help them out if they need it? I just don't want that user to think that they're doing something wrong or that they're in trouble for something when in fact they're not... Do that for me, and we can consider this discussion closed and no harm done :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:21, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words. The user in question expanded his live feed even further, so either he has read this discussion and your reaction already or he doesn't care what's allowed anyway. In either way, there is nothing what I can do anymore. (In the first case, my message to Nov3rd17 would be redundant. In the latter, Nov3rd17 would not have taken my comment seriously in the first place, so why apologize then?) This discussion can be closed, yes. --TheRandomIP (talk) 08:09, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Bot mass reversion needed on ~100 articles

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

---

This set of edits appears to have systematically broken image thumbnails for about a hundred election articles – could someone mass-revert and investigate? Thanks. Mélencron (talk) 22:18, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

+1 - The bot is removing deprecated syntax however it is indeed breaking images as can be seen here - Why were the infoboxes not updated or atleast checked first ? ...... Not all infoboxes use that layout the bot's changed too, I would suggest blocking the bot until the owner can fix it all. –Davey2010^Talk 22:42, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I've updated the bots talkpage which should stop the bot from continuing to run the task. If that doesn't stop it for now the bot has the standard please block if required message on its pages so a block could quite happily be used if required. Amortias (T)(C) 22:49, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Davey2010, I'll backcheck {{Infobox election}} templates edited (there weren't many iirc).   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  23:51, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Ah okay thanks, Not having the first idea about bots I probably shouldn't of complained, Anyway thanks. –Davey2010^Talk 00:27, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

|map_size= is used by the template, but is being handled in an unexpected way; will investigate.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  00:01, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

 Fixed |map= & |map_image= are not strict aliases and are used in slightly different ways. The fix is to simply use |map_image= where |map= was used. Will back-check the 66 pages and fix going forward.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  00:31, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Mélencron, I don't recall you messaging me nor the bot about this issue. ANI is the last resort, not the first. Second, can you provide example edit(s) which were a problem?   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  23:46, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

While you might be technically correct, I think bringing this here or 2 AN is pretty understandable. A malfunctioning bot has the potential to do a lot of damage and so it's understandable to try to get the attention of administrators straight away. Who knows how long it might be before you see a message on your talk page? In this case, I don't think the choice of venue implies any wrongdoing on your part. GoldenRing (talk) 08:26, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Correct. This board is for incidents that require administrator attention; a malfunctioning bot is exactly the sort of thing that needs to be brought here, rather than most of the other nonsense, and it doesn't mean the bot owner is 'in trouble'. It's now fixed, so problem solved. Fish+Karate 09:13, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree with GoldenRing and Fish and karate in that coming straight to ANI to report concerns regarding bots and possible issues with their edits is absolutely fine to do so that quick action can be taken if something is indeed going very wrong. That being said, I also understand Tom.Reding's frustration in that, as the bot owner, an ANI notification regarding this discussion would have been appreciated. Nobody did anything wrong here and I of course agree that the creation of an ANI discussion itself shouldn't implicate wrongdoing - it's the the discussion, evidence presented, and the resulting facts found that may determine such (I'm speaking in general, not specifically about this particular discussion). I'll just add that when creating a discussion about concerns with a bot, it's courteous and a good idea in general to notify the bot's "owner" or the editor listed as the bot's manager so they can participate. After all, they are the people who can truly resolve any issues that are found (disabling or blocking the bot aside) :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:49, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

A malfunctioning bot has the potential to do a lot of damage - so having the bot edit for a extra half hour between this original post and the notification on bot talk, which automatically stops the bot, is a good idea? I'm not sure what you're defending, poor policy and/or decisions?

It's now fixed, so problem solved. - the same result would have occurred on bot talk.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  13:33, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Tom.Reding - Whilst I understand your frustration no one really thinks "Oh I'll message the bot owner first" .... Bot issues are usually always bought here so that emergency blocks or stops can be done to stop any further damage, If the bot breaked one image then all for one knows it could've broke thousands or atleast hundreds, But anyway thanks for fixing the issues, –Davey2010^Talk 14:21, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

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

User:HenSti

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

I have contacted this editor four times over a number of weeks; they continue to edit but won't reply. Full messages at User talk:HenSti#Sources. HenSti knows how to reply to messages, has been editing for years and knows how to add references, but will not communicate on this issue and hasn't added the references. I have directed them to links showing it is policy to engage in discussion, but to no avail. I am hoping they will engage now. Boleyn (talk) 08:40, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Boleyn - Does the source provided at HMS Enterprise (1705) have what you're looking for? I'm sure you've already looked at it, but I just thought I'd ask just in case :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:34, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

That is presumably their source; I guess my main concern is the refusal to communicate and the creation of several unreferenced articles - do they understand the need to work with other editors and to verify information? I've no idea if they won't talk. Boleyn (talk) 11:37, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree that this is potentially problematic and that collaboration and communication is a key part of contributing to the project and working as a team with others. I'm going to allow others to comment on this discussion so we can figure out the best course of action moving forward that will help this user and benefit the project overall... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:01, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

To be fair, most of the articles in Category:Lists of ship launches don't seem to be well referenced, with lots of them completely unreferenced, (as with many other list-type articles on Wikipedia), so its not as if the community is setting a terrifically good example with regard to sourcing of this type of article. This does not excuse the failure to respond to concerns of course.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:00, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

List articles are often poor, which is why I linked to WP:SourceList on their talk page, because many editors aren't aware lists should be referenced, and I don't blame them. I was hoping the editor would respond and we could work together, but when it's been pointed out to them and they've ignored it, then it is disruptive. I'll look through the category and see if I can find any sources for the unref ones - so hopefully there will be some better examples out there, although a drop in the ocean. Boleyn (talk) 21:18, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

HenSti, you've continued to edit, you need to join in the discussion here. This discussion is just trying to find a solution to this problem, but you are risking a block by refusing to comment. Boleyn (talk) 18:42, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Normally I name my souces. DNV GL od ABS, ... In the furure i try to be more consequent with this. HenSti (talk) 06:20, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

@HenSti: What does that stand for?--Dlohcierekim (talk) 06:25, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for replying HenSti. If you can agree to respond to messages in future and add sources to your articles, then I see no need to continue the conversation. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 09:38, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

User:JCGDIMAIWAT

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

JCGDIMAIWAT has been editing since 2010 and in October received a 31-hour block for persistent addition of unverified material. Unfortunately, that's the same topic I've been sending this editor messages on, creating unref articles. They continue to edit but won't reply to the several messages I have sent over a period of weeks (see User talk:JCGDIMAIWAT). I have pointed out that it is policy to communicate etc. but have not got anywhere. They appear to have never edited their talk page in more than 8 years of editing. Boleyn (talk) 08:57, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Looking at JCGDIMAIWAT's contributions made over the last seven days, I see that (s)he has added content mostly to film-related articles and BLPs. I also see edits without references to BLP articles where they should be provided (1, 2, 3, 4). I'm going to wait on action and let other editors weigh in on this discussion first, as well as give JCGDIMAIWAT a fair opportunity to respond here (I know this user has never communicated on talk pages or with other editors before, but it's the right thing to do regardless). ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:29, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

JCGDIMAIWAT, you've continued to edit, you need to join in the discussion here. This discussion is just trying to find a solution to this problem, but you are risking a block by refusing to comment. Boleyn (talk) 18:42, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Bstanard98 - Disruptive editing/vandalism continues

• Bstanard98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Article impacted: Kings Dominion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Example diffs:

• Most recent vandalism after final warning: diff1
• diff2
• diff3
• diff4
• diff5
• diff6
• diff7
• diff8

Talk page discussion attempt: Talk:Kings Dominion#Ownership, name etc

A recent ANI discussion: WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive978#User:Bstanard98.

Despite warnings on their talk page and attempts to discuss at the article talk page, the vandalism has persisted. It's important to point out that this is not a content dispute. This is one editor opposing several by injecting obviously incorrect information into the article over and over again. Furthermore, edit summaries like this one show that they are clearly aware of the disruption they're causing. I originally posted this to AIV until I realized this only occurs once a week or so. --GoneIn60 (talk) 12:24, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Part of the problem is labeling the user's edits as vandalism. My guess is it's a kid, but, regardless, the user is incompetent. They created their account in July 2017 but didn't start using it until late February of this year. They have 29 edits, all to the same article. I believe their only edit summary is the one pointed out by GoneIn60. They don't talk. Their disruptive edits are wasting the community's time. I've blocked them as NOTHERE.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:58, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

From the user talk messages, it looks like it was labeled as disruptive behavior in the beginning. Thanks for assessing and taking action. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:43, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Ahmedadan1951

Edit warring, unsourced information and images, unintelligible additions to articles. The latter may be due to a lack of understanding of the English language. Alexis Jazz (talk) 12:31, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

See also c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:State seal of Lower Shebelle.jpg--Auric talk 13:08, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

This is getting annoying. He also killed of some sources. Alexis Jazz (talk) 19:22, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

May be a sockpuppet of Loliban. Alexis Jazz (talk) 19:33, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

User 198.254.254.12 and the Alliance Party of Ontario

• User 198.254.254.12 has repeatedly changed the information on the Alliance Party of Ontario page to reflect their agenda, requesting that party members be interviewed, posting on the Alliance talk page that the entry is "fake news", and indicated on my talk page that I am "simply a propagandist who must defend their lies in their editing as you have made" (see User talk:HamOntPoliFiend for reference). Not sure what to do about this. Any help would be appreciated, thanks. HamOntPoliFiend (talk) 14:19, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

• @HamOntPoliFiend: The IP was blocked for three months by Bbb23. I have blocked the registered editor for 24 hours for edit warring and warned them about COI and copyvios. I have also revdeleted the copyvios. Please report back if there is any further disruption. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:01, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Mansukhsurin

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

Mansukhsurin has been repeatedly warned about adding unverified material to Wikipedia, including creating wholly unreferenced articles, but won't respond. At User talk:Mansukhsurin you can see my numerous messages to them, plus other messages and warnings on the same topic. Mansukhsurin has been editing for a couple of years but has never responded to a talk page message or even (from what I can see) left an edit summary. Boleyn (talk) 15:38, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

@Boleyn: You forgot to notify them; I've just done so. Not that I expect them to come running here to explain themselves.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:01, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, thanks, Boleyn (talk) 17:09, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Mansukhsurin, you've continued to edit, can you please respond? Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 15:05, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Help needed on Academi article

• Academi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This isn't asking for action from this noticeboard, it's more a question of finding out where to go next, hopefully some admins here know the answer.

An editor has posted on Talk:Academi a request to divorce the page from the company's antecedents as Blackwater. The editor is doing the right thing with respect to WP:COI (although I'll suggest on their talk page that they follow WP:DISCLOSE, but that's essentially a paperwork issue). It looks like it's coming down as an official request from the company, although I have not followed through by contacting anyone in their corporate management. I know when I'm way out of my depth. Can someone here point me to what should be done about this request?

I don't know if there are admins experience in this type of request, or this has to go to Wikimedia lawyers, our what has to happen. I do believe that simply blindly removing all reference to Blackwater in that article would be incorrect, but I'm certainly willing to be educated by someone who understands WikiPolicies better than I do. Tarl N. (discuss) 16:05, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but I think this gets handled like any other edit request. Editors need to investigate the company's concerns and respond appropriately on the talk page. I'm planning on working on it myself. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:19, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

If you're willing to take this on, more power to you - and thanks. I'm just unwilling to get tangled up in a power struggle with Academi's lawyers. I guess that closes this issue as far as ANI is concerned. Tarl N. (discuss) 21:02, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom

Serial IP vandal (see here) edits to Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom article (see [84], [85]) reverted. Another pair of eyes would be appreciated to ensure I did not overreach or overreact to genuine edits. The edits seemed suspicious and didn't pass my smell test but .... Thanks. Quis separabit? 16:14, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Unless I'm really looking at it incorrectly, the IP edits appear to be correct. See here I think the wording should be improved. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:57, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

@Mr Ernie Oh, yes -- I had already added that (see here). I just meant the IP (with a very checkered talk page)'s edits in general. Thanks, Quis separabit? 18:27, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

• I don't see anything terrible about the IP's edits on that article. Your "warning" on the IP's Talk page, though, isn't very helpful.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:24, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

User:83.136.45.154

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

---

This IP has made a [[REDACTED - Oshwah] racist personal attack] against User:Oshwah -- Pi (Talk to me!)

It's an IP hopper that's been trolling at me all day - it's been blocked :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:19, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

I just spotted another page that I believe is a linked IP, possibly included in a range block,(I don't fully understand IP ranges):User_talk:83.136.45.40. (See the edited warning from Oshwah) I see that the other comment was suppressed, and perhaps this should be too. -- Pi (Talk to me!) 02:00, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Zapped. Thanks. Courcelles (talk) 02:03, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

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

User:Qifahs17

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

---

Qifahs has only been editing for only three months. During this time, they have created many unreferenced articles, but it is understandable that a new user might not know the importance of WP:V. I have sent eleven messages over weeks, pointing out that WP:Communication is required and that the articles need sources. Qifahs does know how to respond to messages, but has ignored all of mine, not replying or addressing the issue. I've brought this here in the hope that this new user will communicate here as part of a wider conversation, and to emphasise to them the importance of adding sources and communicating. Boleyn (talk) 09:03, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

I recognise this username, I am pretty sure when this was created after User:Shafiqabu got banned and I am sure it's the same person. I did message one admin about it believing this was a ban evasion, can't remember which admin know. Govvy (talk) 09:17, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

@MER-C: For the record I had a look and I mentioned my concern to Mer-c about this being the same person. Govvy (talk) 09:36, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

For reference: User talk:MER-C/archives/40#User:Shafiqabu.

> 15:26, 24 December 2017 MER-C (talk | contribs | block) blocked Shafiqabu (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation blocked) (Copyright violations) (unblock | change block)

> 11:51, 25 December 2017 User account Qifahs17 (talk | contribs | block) was created

I was wrong for letting this slide. I didn't find any more copyright violations, though. Indeffed as a sock. MER-C 12:13, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 12:41, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

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

Rwbest

Rwbest (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) edits only in one narrow topic area. Following a recent dispute on Mark Z. Jacobson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), where he edit-warred against four other editors to include a statement-as-fact which is in reality only an opinion of Jacobson sourced solely to Jacobson, I issued a 3RR warning. His response was: I'm only trying to improve the lead of Mark Z. Jacobson which is ridiculous unbalanced, a caricature of Jacobson. But my attempts are severely hindered by reverts by others. Consensus with these others is not likely as long as they prefer the existing lead. I find your message on my talk page intimidating and I won't stop my attempts. I don't think I need to explain the problem there.

I reviewed his edit history. I conclude that he has a serious problem with WP:OWN. Examples:

(change visibility) 18:03, February 22, 2018 (diff | hist) . . (-93)‎ . . Worldwide energy supply ‎ (Undid revision 827033530 by The Banner (talk)) (Tag: Undo)
(change visibility) 10:47, February 22, 2018 (diff | hist) . . (-93)‎ . . Worldwide energy supply ‎ (Undid revision 826902385 by The Banner (talk)) (Tag: Undo)
(change visibility) 13:06, February 21, 2018 (diff | hist) . . (-93)‎ . . Worldwide energy supply ‎ (OR has been adequately addressed in 2016.) (Tag: Undo)
(change visibility) 11:13, February 20, 2018 (diff | hist) . . (-93)‎ . . Worldwide energy supply ‎ (Undid revision 826665973 by The Banner (talk)) (Tag: Undo)
(change visibility) 08:52, February 20, 2018 (diff | hist) . . (-93)‎ . . Worldwide energy supply ‎ (Stop this nonsense.) (Tag: Undo)

Five reverts of an {{or}} tag because Rwbest disputes the possibility that Rwbest's edits might be a novel synthesis. It seems to me very likely that Rwbest is active in this field, considers himself to be an expert, may indeeed actually be an expert, but has failed to understand the critical differences between Wikipedia and academic publishing.

In November 2017 he reverted the same tag seven times in a week (some intervening edits removed):

(change visibility) 09:44, November 15, 2017 (diff | hist) . . (-58)‎ . . Worldwide energy supply ‎ (Undid revision 810148432 by The Banner (talk))
(change visibility) 13:37, November 13, 2017 (diff | hist) . . (-58)‎ . . Worldwide energy supply ‎ (→‎Trend: adequate sources, see talk page.)
(change visibility) 11:01, November 10, 2017 (diff | hist) . . (-59)‎ . . Worldwide energy supply ‎ (Undid revision 809618977 by The Banner (talk))
(change visibility) 08:49, November 10, 2017 (diff | hist) . . (-59)‎ . . Worldwide energy supply ‎ (Undid revision 809475511 by The Banner (talk))
(change visibility) 09:42, November 9, 2017 (diff | hist) . . (-59)‎ . . Worldwide energy supply ‎ (Undid revision 809309032 by The Banner (talk))
(change visibility) 08:58, November 8, 2017 (diff | hist) . . (-59)‎ . . Worldwide energy supply ‎ (Undid revision 809232931 by The Banner (talk))
(change visibility) 10:44, November 7, 2017 (diff | hist) . . (-59)‎ . . Worldwide energy supply ‎ (Undid revision 809002411 by The Banner (talk))

I think a 1RR restriction is in order: his edit history contains many lengthy series of edit wars. Guy (Help!) 09:21, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

BrillLyle

Brill Lyle has just been blocked for three days on Wikidata after I and others complained about her behaviour - "Stalking and Harassment" - there. One of the other's complaints was "BrillLyle has a history of using the deletion process as a tool of harassment".

It's therefore hard to see how Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 April 7#Andy Mabbett is not an act of retaliation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:34, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Honestly, I am just completely bewildered and shocked that a redirect like this exists. I inadvertently stumbled upon it when I was looking at the very long block log you have here and on Wikidata. Beyond the current situation with me and others that you have, I think anyone looking at this redirect would have to say that it has no place on Wikipedia. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 16:37, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

So far, the only editor other than you and Andy who has !voted, said the redirect should be kept.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:17, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

There's a circumstantial case that it's retaliatory, but I accept BrillLyle's statement of making the RfD nomination in good faith. From a quick glance, Mabbett may be more notable as a Wikipedia editor than as part of that publication. I do recommend BrillLyle refrain from further comment on the proposal. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:24, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

• I will say the same here as I said at the MfD:

  So long as we have an article on the publication the redirect is good. I do, however, question the notability of the publication. I see several sources but, on first inspection, none look like they could be called independent, third party reliable sources. I am also am concerned that, while there are four publishers all of the positions in the infobox read Andy Mabbett et. al.. Seeing a Wikipedia editor's name five times in ~160 word article, of which the same editor is a major contributor raises some red flags to me. When that same editor is listed as an author on 8 of the articles 14 sources those flags turn to flashing lights and blaring klaxons. I'd AfD it but I do not have the resources for a good WP:BEFORE or the patience to perform one right now.

  I am actually surprised BrillLyle did not nominate the target article along with the redirect. Jbh ^Talk 18:24, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

• I'm pretty unimpressed by Brill Lyle's conduct in this context. It's not something I'd block for, especially not an experienced editor with a clean block log, but I do think it's is an obvious and egregious importation of external conflicts into Wikipedia and a misuse of RFD. It's unacceptable as such, and I have warned Brill Lyle. No prejudice to any other admin action. Bishonen | talk 19:21, 7 April 2018 (UTC).

• As a data point, this is not the first example of poor conduct on BrillLyle's part. She recently nominated for deletion an article I created (the article was kept) in what appeared to me to be retaliation for her article being deleted. She and I have clashed at a few articles because I've found problems with citations she's added to articles (in particular, citations which do not support the text; the text may or may not be true but the citation she added doesn't support it which is an insidious V problem). Examples at Shore Fire Media [86] [87][88] and Ann Powers ([89][90]. (To be clear, I found the problems at Shore fire media and went to Ann Powers to see if there were problems there; I declared that I'd done this to be transparent. This may have been a mistake... but if I'd said nothing, I don't know if the situation would have gone any better). I have made every effort to be respectful and polite and collaborative and BrillLyle responded very aggressively, telling me that [I am] a menace and should be stopped[91], and that [I am] over-editing and over-working this page[92] and that [I] continue to be a menace. {I] delete, that's all [I] do. And [I] don't understand basic things. [I] again show [I] don't know what [I am] doing when it comes to citations.[93] and was just generally nasty. I suspect that this type of OR/V problem exists on other articles BrillLyle has expanded (I found some in her article that had been recently deleted, which may have been part of the reason for the AfD retaliation) but have hesitated to look into them because of the aforementioned conduct. Ca2james (talk) 20:34, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

SPI filed: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BrillLyle. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:29, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

BrillLyle's harassment continues: [94]. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:13, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

continuing. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:46, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

• In good faith I have cleaned up and significantly improved The Amazing Pudding article, an article that is a redirect to Andy Mabbett, and honestly an article that he should not have started and should not be editing, due to the fact that it is clearly (at least in my opinion) a conflict of interest. Whether or not the publication was still being published or not. But despite these facts, I took the time and energy to fix some of the concerns of puffery and fancrufting I think were apparent in the The Amazing Pudding article. Instead of having a modicum of decency and appreciating this work, Andy is choosing here to see this as an attack on him. This is a clear display of an inability to be collaborative and collegial. It is a display of pownership too. This reaction and behavior on Andy's part in starting this ANI as well as his continued linking to other attacks on me, and then presenting himself as the beleaguered one seems to be oddly atonal. Like Dolly says, get off the cross, we need the wood. I am a huge music fan so improving and adding citations to support notability to this article was a continuation of my interests and ongoing effort to improve and to add content to Wikipedia. That is the through-line to my editing experience on Wikipedia. Andy misunderstands this and more importantly misrepresents this. It is inaccurate and lacking fact. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 18:33, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
  • At this point @BrillLyle: should withdraw from further edits to articles related to Andy until the open AfD is closed and this thread is archived. If she does not, I will have to make a proposal that would force her to do so. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:39, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I would agree. And continuing to edit The Amazing Pudding then asking if Andy should be editing there [95] is provocative and seems disingenuous. The best way forward is to stop editing articles Andy is editing until this is cleared up which will protect everyone's reputation.(Littleolive oil (talk) 18:56, 8 April 2018 (UTC))

Further to User:Ca2james's point about WP:V above, BillLyle has recently added to The Amazing Pudding "Mabbett used much of his work in The Amazing Pudding as the starting point and basis for three books on Pink Floyd" This is pure supposition; false; and is not said in any of the works to which BL has cited it. Valid references were removed in [96], leaving facts either uncited or cited to works which do not support the statements. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:53, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

"Journalist Stuart Maconie wrote a six page feature on The Amazing Pudding in the April 1993 issue of Q." is also false; and not said in the work to which it is cited. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:19, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

• Andy, it was actually in one of the reviews of your work. I was only trying to be helpful. I know I improved the entry and made sure notability was established. If you continue to see this as a personal attack, it's your problem. It is clear you have a vested interest in this article. Your citations were bellybutton facing and concerning, which is why the article is better with them removed. I will stop adding content and improving the entry, as I can't win here. I don't have a dirty agenda. It's too bad you see that in everyone. It is not what is happening here. I give up. There's no way to make you happy here, obviously. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 19:01, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

• I was going off what you and others discussed about the Q article. Again, just trying to be helpful. If it's wrong, then fix it. Honestly, if you have all of the materials in your possession, you should scan them and ask a neutral third-party editor to add them to support the article. I firmly believe that since this was a publication where money was exchanged and you were directly involved, it is not appropriate for you to edit the entry yourself. At minimum, put the edit request with full citations on the Talk page and an editor can do it for you. But I think it's clear you should not be editing the article. It's a COI, full stop.
• And thanks for being so uncollegial and uncollaborative here. I was trying to be nice and support this article you created. I find your responses here and elsewhere to be proof positive that you are only interested in fighting and having conflict. I was trying in good faith to collegially and collaboratively improve Wikipedia. You are assuming bad faith here where it didn't exist. I'm done now. Good luck with everything. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 19:30, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Pigsonthewing those were some of the types of errors I saw: ones where BrillLyle had added text that wasn't supported by the cites already there and ones where new cites were added that didn't support the text she'd also added. She's said something about curating citations (I can find the diff if need be) and how she could help me with that so I don't think she sees citations as part of WP:V. She's also said that personal conversations with BLP subjects are suitable sources (again I can find the diff) so I'm not sure she understands WP:RS. I'd tried to work with BrillLyle on these issues but that went nowhere and was deeply unpleasant. She does a lot of work on BLPs so an approach that doesn't jibe with community norms (what she calls Wiki:Rulez) could affect a LOT of articles. Ca2james (talk) 21:11, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

• Hey, BrillLyle, since you're so collegial and collaborative, and so knowledgeable about mental illness [97], can you recommend how I should respond to something like this [98]? EEng 3:47 pm, Today (UTC−4)

Need help checking some pages for copyvio, botched class assignment?

I stumbled across a nexus of copyvio in userspace... a Checkuser by zzuuzz turned up 200 more suspect pages. The full list is at Special:Permanentlink/835269863#Copyvios_in_userspace:_class_assignment?. Not all of these pages are copyvio, but the ones that are are very blatant. Your help and flamethrowers are very much appreciated.

I don't think these accounts are socks, but more likely a botched class assignment (geez, this brings back bad memories). Hopefully the deletions will get the message across, but I'm not particularly optimistic. MER-C 17:20, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

• why don't we just nuke the whole thing - just looking through: duplicate of existing article; again, just ugh useless junk, almost entirely copyvio; copyvio; junk that is somehow copyvio; copyvio - That sample of 5 pages is 80% copyvio and 100% junk. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:49, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I'd back nuking it all. Doug Weller talk 18:27, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
    • Me three.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:40, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
    • No objections from me. I have a couple of additional observations - these edits are all definitely related, made on the same day by multiple people from the same place. What I didn't mention earlier is that there were 381 accounts, many of which haven't yet edited. I'll have to review them again in a few days. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:43, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
    • I've deleted about 20 of these, none of them had any redeeming value. Nuking is fine with me. MER-C 19:07, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
    • I've checked out five at random, and got 2 copyvios, 2 duplicates of existing articles, and 1 that consisted of a single line. My opinion: "Nuke them from orbit, it's the only way to be sure." Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:04, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
• I have been through the lot and deleted most as copyright infringement. If someone wants to go and notify the creating users about the deletions please do so. (As I will not bother) I don't expect that we will get any articles at all from this, even though a very few are trying to write original text. Perhaps several of these students will learn some wikimarkup skills. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:24, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Misuse of administrative tools by Fram

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

---

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

---

Administrators are expected to be impartial and to lead by example. They have certain powers that other editors lack and one of these is the ability to delete pages. Fram has been using this power in a targeted way while being WP:INVOLVED with the creator of the pages being deleted.

(Personal attack removed) Recently Elisa.rolle has been such an editor. Some of the 700 articles created by Elisa.rolle contain copyright violations, and in her defence Elisa has stated that she thought the sources she had copied were in the public domain. On 31 January 2018, Fram blocked Elisa indefinitely. Fram is therefore INVOLVED with regard to Elisa.rolle. On 12 March 2018, Elisa was unblocked by TonyBallioni, with the agreement of Fram.

During February and March, Fram started to go through articles created by Elisa systematically, speedily deleting more than thirty of them, all for G12 infringements. Fram did not at any time delete part of the text of an article and perform a rev-del, despite G12 being defined as being restricted to unambiguous copyright infringements “where there is no non-infringing content on the page worth saving”.

When, as a new page patroller, I find an article that I think should be speedily deleted under G12, I nominate it for deletion, notify the creator and await the final decision of an admin. But that is not how Fram does it. Fram acts unilaterally, the article is simply deleted with no notification to the creator. On 9 March 2018, Fram deleted six of Elisa’s articles under G12 in the space of 28 minutes. These six articles would be permanently gone from Wikipedia had not Megalibrarygirl restored two of them on 18 March with the edit summary (Not seeing the unambiguous copyright infringement). Another was restored by Victuallers on 12 March with the removal of some text followed by a rev-del. So that’s a failure rate of 50% by Fram on 9 March, without even considering whether the other three articles really warranted deletion. (Misuse of tools and abuse of power)

Several of Fram’s deletions under G12 were in relation to articles translated from other language Wikipedias which lacked attribution. The policy here states “nor is a mere lack of attribution of such works a reason for speedy deletion.” Fram apparently thinks differently, and the articles Torcuato Benjumeda, Max Landsberg and Christian Ludwig von Kaphengst were speedily deleted, a use of G12 that TonyBallioni stated made him “cringe” [99]. Afterwards, I provided Fram with a list of sixteen articles in the English Wikipedia which had been translated from other language Wikipedias without attribution, expecting Fram to be non-partisan and delete them, but [100] Fram declined to take any action. (Misuse of tools and abuse of power)

The systematic deletion of an editor’s creative work is very demoralizing, and Elisa-rolle retired from Wikipedia. A similar course of action occurred in 2016 when Fram forced the retiral of another “targeted” editor. Nvvchar was criticised and humiliated at DYK by Fram for inaccuracies in his articles, and stated that he would no longer submit the articles to DYK. At this point, Fram started demoting Nvvchar’s GAs, unilaterally removing the GA status from them without an appropriate review process or any reference to the good article criteria. When three GAs had been demoted in quick succession, Nvvchar announced his retirement. At this point Fram ceased demoting Nvvchar’s GAs, with sixty or so remaining. The only other time when Fram seems to have demoted GAs was in connection with another “targeted” editor. (Abuse of power)

Fram seldom does revision deletions, but when he does, they are pretty incompetent. Three of the last four he has done are Ramoche Temple (changed visibility of 44 versions but not all the necessary ones, and left the copvio in place), Iris Pavey Gilmore (visibility of 2 revisions changed when it should have been 6) and New Zealand Sea Cadet Corps (the present version, restored by Fram, is a flagrant copyright violation). So, a 75% failure rate here. As well as this, Fram is not concerned with the consequences of his actions. DYK hooks are pulled from the main page [101] and GAs demoted with a complete disregard for how the actions make more work for other editors.[102] {Incompetence and failure to lead by example)

So, I am accusing Fram of incompetence, the misuse of administrative tools and abuse of power. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:47, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

• I have deleted the most egregious of your personal attacks on Fram (as it was completely withut evidence), and unless you can provide actual evidence that Fram "targets" other editors, I'd suggest you remove some of those parts as well. Black Kite (talk) 18:53, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
• @Cwmhiraeth: your statement "On 31 January 2018, Fram blocked Elisa indefinitely. Fram is therefore INVOLVED with regard to Elisa.rolle. " is wrong. Taking administrative action against a user does not make that administrator INVOLVED. ("an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role … is not involved") All the misconduct you claim which stems from your misunderstanding of this basic premise of INVOLVED is therefore not prohibited. Jbh ^Talk 18:59, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Add: "Fram declined to take any action. (Misuse of tools and abuse of power)" — No user with advanced permissions can be required to use them in a given instance. This is basic stuff. Also, in all of the "targeting" claims, did the GA meet the criteria for de-listing? If so, finding a patch of things to be done or following up on an editor who is making errors is basic to the maintenance of Wikipedia. Looks like what you are claiming is an "abuse of power" is you thinking Fram is being a jerk. Whether that is so or not is immaterial. Acting like a jerk is not "abuse of power" unless the person is, you know… using their power to be a jerk. From this and the other responses here you may want to seriously consider either reformulating your case to include actual instances of abuse of tools or withdraw it. The selective misquoting mentioned by Black Kite tells me this could rapidly go down hill for you if you continue without solid evidence to back up your claims. Jbh ^Talk 19:48, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
• My unblock had nothing to do with the validity of the initial block but was explicitly a last chance. The article that was G12’d (where I “cringed” over an attribution-failure G12, but also endorsed using it at the DRV) contained content from print sources that was a close paraphrase. I don’t want to get too involved with this, but wanted to comment on the two things involving me. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:10, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

• Yes, I was about to mention this. Cwmhiraeth has selectively quoted you - the full sentence was "I typically cringe when we G12 something for lack of edit summary attribution, but it is within the norm". Also, the diff about pulling DYK hooks is over 18 months old and links to a conversation where other editors agreed with Fram's actions. The following link (about demoting GAs) leads to a completely polite conversation about it. The section about Nvvchar doesn't have a single diff. Cwmhiraeth, if you're going to post screeds like this, you actually need really good diffs confirming each point. Black Kite (talk) 19:14, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

• @Black Kite: It is very difficult to provide evidence of motive because only the person doing an action knows why they are doing it. With regards to Nvvchar,

• Kadmat Island was promoted GA at 10:54, 31 August 2016 and delisted by Fram at 12:36, 31 August 2016
• Kaunakes was promoted at 10:32, 30 August 2016‎ and delisted by Fram at 13:37, 31 August 2016
• Sacred Jackfruit Tree was promoted at 06:22, 1 August 2016 and delisted by Fram at 08:21, 1 September 2016.
• Nvvchar archived his talk page at 10:02, 1 September 2016‎ and announced his retirement at 11:54, 1 September 2016‎. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:03, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

• Yes, but you can't ascribe motive without evidence. As for those GAs, Fram explained why he de-listed all three on the talkpage and having read them I'd have to agree with him - all three articles contained factual errors. Black Kite (talk) 20:16, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

• Cwmhiraeth, I would suggest you of all people do not want to open up a discussion about competence. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:25, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

• While there are long-standing complaints about Fram which may or may not be justified, I don't see anything new here that justifies any possible action at ANI. Deleting articles WP:G12 from an author they blocked for copyright infringement is not WP:INVOLVED; both are purely administrative actions, and removing the offending copyright violations is a necessity. I see no reason to care about diffs from 2016 here. I'd advise Cwmhiraeth specifically not to pursue another ARBCOM case against Fram. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:19, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

• I would also suggest that Cwmhiraeth move on from this matter. 331dot (talk) 20:21, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

• As you all know, there was a declined Arbcom case involving Fram recently, where he said he would dial back the aggressiveness a bit, and so far I think he's stuck to his end of the bargain. The G12s are within administrator discretion; I have restored a few (while copyediting all the copyright violations out) and worked with Elisa on them - for example, the recent appearance of Laura Barney Harding at DYK. This is what we should be aiming to do. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:30, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
• I think this entire complaint stems from an incorrect assumption: that because Fram blocked Elisa.rolle, Fram is therefore INVOLVED with her. But my understanding of WP:INVOLVED is:

  [A]n administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role ... is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor...

  therefore Fram was not forbidden to act in an administrative capacity in regard to Elissa.rolle or her edits.
  Further, to look at it from the other direction, Elissa.rolle has been posting copyvios both here and on Commons ever since she showed up, and her excuse is always that she didn't realize they weren't in the public domain. In my opinion, it is the cumulative behavior of Elissa.rolle that needs to be examined, with an eye towards an indefinite ban for continued deliberate posting of copyright violations, not the behavior of Fram, who may be rough around the edges, but in this case is in the right. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:48, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
• This is (again) not the correct venue for this report, and nothing is going to come of it other than commiserating and bickering at best. ANI is not an alternative venue for reports of administrative misconduct. GMG^talk 00:51, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

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

• In view of the fact that this thread has been closed prematurely, with many of the concerns I have raised remaining unaddressed, I would like to suggest that Fram submits themselves to an RfA, a reappraisal which will demonstrate whether they still have the confidence of the community. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:57, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Closing down debate will not end it. The fact that individually each of these actions can be justified does not remove the case that has been laid out here of victimisation. You can never "know" someones motives, but they can be surmised. The arguments that are presented here are not trivial and putting a lid on them will only work for a time. Lots of long standing admins do not inspire witness editors to feeling that we are witnessing bullying and injustice. I do hope that we won't see this argument represented as a diff in a later discussion. Victuallers (talk) 08:48, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
• With such a nebulous list of claims going back years, not a single diff showing an actual misuse of admin tools, and a number of refutations from respected editors (including ones who are not known as turners of blind eyes when it comes to admin actions), there was no chance of any sanctions coming from this. There are better things to be doing with our time this fine Sunday, and I will reclose this. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:42, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

  Just to expand on my close reason a little... If anyone believes an admin should be stripped of their tools, it is long established that ArbCom is the only body able to do it. I disagree with that myself, and I support the existence of a community desysop procedure - but we don't have that, and this noticeboard can only work within current policy and consensus. I see Cwmhiraeth has tried that before and it was rejected, so the only thing I can suggest is that a far tighter request with actual diffs of actual abuse would be needed, not the vague rehashing of old allegations from years ago. If Cwmhiraeth wishes to ask Fram to undertake a voluntary new RfA, Fram's talk page would seem to be the appropriate place to request that. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:53, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

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

User WeWuzPhoenicians

WeWuzPhoenicians is actively edit warring : [103], [104] and it seems that this user is the blocked IP 151.236.179.140. Please note that this IP was blocked 4 days ago and that the account WeWuzPhoenicians is 4 days old and edits in the same way than the IP. Could please an admin check this ?---Wikaviani (talk) 22:14, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

This needs to be reported at WP:SPI for suspected socks, not here. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 23:51, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Not necessarily. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:05, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your answers. What would be better ?---Wikaviani (talk) 00:42, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

I have blocked WeWuzPhoenicians for disruptive editing. If an SPI investigation comes back positive, the block can be extended. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:48, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Is a SPI investigation opened about him or should i proceed ?---Wikaviani (talk) 00:53, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Wikaviani, please file a report there. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:58, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks.---Wikaviani (talk) 01:02, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Anonymous user carrying out disruptive edits over a period of months on different IPs

I'd like some help with an IP user who has been carrying out disruptive edits over a period of at least 5 months on at least 3 IPs. Two blocks and numerous warnings have all been ignored. The user does not appear to have deliberately switched IPs or attempted to conceal their identity (hence my not opening an SPI) and the number of innocuous edits suggests that the user is incapable of being a constructive contributor rather than choosing not to be one (hence me not going to AIV). But he/she/it is very persistent.

The IPs are: 185.176.244.75 (active since March), 185.176.244.69 (February-March), 185.176.244.73 (November-January - blocked twice). All of the edits have been to professional wrestling articles and many use a nonsensical stream of words in the edit summary ([105]), [106], [107] - one example from each IP).

The recent disruptive edits have taken the form of adding completely made-up information ([108], [109], [110]), editing external links so they no longer go to a valid URL ([111], [112], [113]) and deleting cited information for no apparent reason ([114], [115], [116], [117]) - all examples taken from the active IP's activities in the last seven days. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 00:38, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

The user in question appears to have just started anew under a completely different IP - 2600:100D:B129:C126:7012:AB30:21A9:7002 - first three edits (all with usual edit summary) have been to incorrectly alter links so they don't link to anything ([118] [119]) and add made-up crap [120]. Changing IPs within an hour of me filing an ANI report seems awfully convenient. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 01:30, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

• IPs 185.176.244 are coming from Norway, most likely a public computer such as a library or some school computer. The final IP is a personal device, a phone or a touchscreen pad. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 03:12, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Edit warring project talk page posts at Wikiproject Medicine

I posted a neutrally worded notice of an RfC on Wikiproject Medicine, as recommended by the guideline WP:RFC. [121]. RexxS has been trying to remove it, exhibited WP:OWN behavior, and insulting edit summaries [122], [123]. Gun control is directly relevant to public health, and I can provide AMA statements to that effect if asked, they're already posted in the relevant discussion thread. Here's the obligatory "fuck off" [124]. Geogene (talk) 03:52, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

I wonder though, why does RexxS go to such lengths to prevent word about an RfC from getting out? What purpose does edit warring it off a page serve, other than make it harder to gauge community consensus in a content dispute? If it's "disruptive" to post it there, what point does all the arguing about it serve? Nobody is making RexxS participate in the RfC. Obviously RexxS has some underlying political issues and needs a topic ban from gun control, to prevent him from continuing to edit other peoples' posts. Geogene (talk) 04:05, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Response

Geogene posted a notice to WT:WikiProject Medicine: "An RfC has been opened on whether Colt AR-15 should mention the Port Arthur massacre." [125]

Ozzie10aaaa, a member of WPMED, removed it withe edit summary "wrong wikiproject" [126]

Geogene restored the notice with edit summary "Disagree. Shootings and gun control policy are a public health issue" [127]

He then posted further on the WPMED talk page, attempting to justify his edit-warring the notice back in.

I told him quite firmly that the issue is not in scope for WPMED but did not remove the notice at that point. not in scope here [128]

Since then he's harangued me on my talk page and on WT:WPMED #RfC notice insisting on his right to decide what notifications are posted at WT:WPMED, despite being told by Natureium that Geogene was "trying to shoehorn in an issue that has nothing to do with WP:MED". [129]

Eventually I removed the RfC notice and warned him that "The purpose of this talk page is discuss improvements to WP:WikiProject Medicine. The question of "whether Colt AR-15 should mention the Port Arthur massacre" is so far removed from that purpose that your persistence in trying to force your unwelcome notice down the members' throats is very clearly tendentious editing."

Geogene subsequently restored the notice for a third time.

Geogene is not a member of WPMED, and he has been told very clearly by three editors, all of whom are members of WPMED, that his issue is not in scope for WPMED, nor is it wanted on the talk page. Yet he has tendentiously insisted that members of a WikiProject have no right to manage their project's talkpage, and edit-warred against members of the WikiProject to force his view.

I'd like to seen action (1) to ban him from posting further at WT:WikiProject Medicine; (2) to confirm to him that the members of a WikiProject can to manage their talk page in line with WP:TPG; and (3) to confirm that WP:TALKCENT: "Notices may be placed on related pages as needed; for example, a relevant WikiProject page" does not give him the right to override the wishes of a WikiProject's membership in deciding what topics are relevant to their project. --RexxS (talk) 04:26, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Nothing is "being shoved down anyone's throat", and that's a weird way to respond to a neutral RfC that tells me RexxS probably has some issues here. RexxS is free not to participate in the RfC if he chooses, but he does not have the right to decide that for the Project as a whole. There is no consensus that the RfC is off-topic, at least not the point of justifying removal. Two other editors posted there appearing to disagree with RexxS. Even if it were, the aggression shown by RexxS is far beyond reasonable for the context. They have a serious off-wiki problem with gun control, and it is causing them to act out disruptively.

Further, RexxS does not own Project Medicine. He cannot dictate who can post there, or what is or is not on topic. There is no agreement as to whether the RfC is on topic or not. This ownership behavior is further evidence of disruption.

And finally, Projects are not private clubs. It is irrelevant whether I am a "member" there or not. The statements above where he says I don't have membership card are further evidence of how RexxS doesn't understand the scope and purpose of Projects. He is not competent to delete posts that he doesn't like. Geogene (talk) 04:44, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Project aren't private clubs, on the other hand participants of the projects are ultimately the ones who deal with stuff relating to the wikiproject and therefore the best ones to decide what is and isn't in the scope of the wikiproject. If all participants of a wikiproject are saying something isn't in scope and someone else who doesn't is saying it is; it's only logical that we will side with those who will actually deal (or not deal) with whatever it is as part of the wikiproject, rather than the person who isn't going to deal with it. Nil Einne (talk) 06:25, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

All it takes to "join" a Wikiproject is to post four tildes on the page. You don't have the right to exclude relevant notices because somebody hasn't. As to whether it's topical, I trust the AMA on that more than I trust you. Geogene (talk) 06:42, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

• The problem here is actually one of WP:CANVASSING, I think.
  Whenever I open an RfC, I am careful to post neutrally-worded pointers to the discussion on the talk page of every WikiProject listed on the article's talk page, whether or not, in my personal opinion, that WikiProject has any relevance to the subject in question -- but only to those WikiProjects. (I also note that I have done so in the RfC.) I do that to avoid any claim of impropriety or canvassing.
  However, in this case, the RfC was on Talk:Colt AR-15, and the only WikiProjects which have claimed that article as within their purview are MILHIST and Firearms. By posting on a WikiProject which does not claim the article as part of their project, Geogene was canvassing for votes from the members of a WikiProject they thought might be sympathetic to their side of the debate. If we allowed this to happen regularly, there would be nothing to stop every RfC from being publicized on every WikiProject the RfC initiator feels would be helpful to their cause: in this case, perhaps WikiProject Liberalism, WikiProject Terrorism, or WikiProject Civil Rights Movement.
  No, the best and fairest course is to post only on the WikiProjects listed, or else to forbid pointers altogether if they're going to be abused in this way. (And just as an aside: I'm an extremely strong advocate for very strict gun control and strongly favor outlawing the AR-15 and other assault-type rifles. This has nothing to do with that.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:54, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

I do expect that WikiProject Medicine would be more favorable to my view, just as I expect that WikiProject Firearms, where I posted an identical notice, would be more hostile to my view. That's not canvass, as I understand it, but I may not understand it correctly. The point of an RfC is to pull editors from outside the usual orbit of firearms enthusiasts. A cohort that represents the community at large. Geogene (talk) 06:59, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

You do not understand it correctly. Not only must the pointer be neutral, but who is notified must also not be biased. For instance, if an article is AfD'd for a second time, it's reasonable to notify the editors who participated in the previous AfD, but only if all the editors are notified, not simply the ones who !voted to "delete". Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:00, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

The removal of the post was improper (especially repeated removals); it should have been left alone. The RfC clearly related to a medical/public health topic; the Port Arthur shooting and the gun laws that followed have been recently discussed in articles in, for example, the Journal of the American Medical Association and a position statement from the Australian Medical Association. More eyes on the topic from those interested in medicine or public health can only be a good thing. Neutrality^talk 07:20, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

• Needless to say, Colt AR-15 does not have a WikiProject Medicine (which many rather surprizing articles do). This is normally the prima facie evidence for what is in the project's scope and what is not. It is relevant that there is currently another gun control issue on MEDRS talk, where Rexxx seems ready to accept this is in scope (rather more than me, for example). I can't see the removal was improper. Johnbod (talk) 11:12, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

agree w/ Johnbod and (obviously) RexxS--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:53, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

• I can only agree that considering Colt AR-15 as part of WP:WikiProject Medicine is stretching credibility/canvassing beyond the bounds of reason. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:17, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

No, actually, it's not, for the same reason that Wikiproject Medicine is listed on Talk:Traffic_collision: the medical profession considers guns and gun violence, like traffic accidents, to be public health matters. EEng 14:09, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject Medicine is not the medical profession. We are a group of editors trying to improve medical content on Wikipedia, and whether or not the Port Arthur shooting is mentioned on the Colt article is a matter of no bearing whatsoever to that aim.

To make it clear: I have no axe to grind on gun politics; I did not even object to the original RfC notice being posted; but I did object strongly to the re-posting of the notice after it had been removed by a very active and respected member of the WikiProject. For Geogene to replace it for a third time is worthy of sanction, if only to prevent future time-sinks like this. --RexxS (talk) 15:48, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

You don't get to define what is or is not medical, and this time sink is being created by you, who insists on arguing and edit warring over it. If you hadn't kept removing the notice, we wouldn't be having this debate. This is your fault. Geogene (talk) 15:57, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Hyperbole. My single removal can't be described as "kept removing the notice" by any reasonable person. Unlike your posting of the notice three times. You need to understand what edit warring is. --RexxS (talk) 17:56, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. If you think someone's using inappropriate judgment in advertising an RfC, go tell them that on their talkpage and maybe mention it in the RfC itself. But editwarring to un-notify is silly. You can't unring the bell and it's petty to try to do so. EEng 16:39, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

The inappropriate judgement was not in the original posting; that was a simple mistake. The real problem was the subsequent edit-warring after another editor had removed the notice. Edit-warring to notify is even sillier, and you shouldn't be encouraging it. It just rewards bad behaviour. --RexxS (talk) 17:53, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

If there was no inappropriate judgment in posting it, then it was certainly inappropriate to remove it. That aside, there are very few times that it's OK to remove another's talk posts (WP:TPO), even if misguided or ill-considered, and this sure ain't one. You should have let it lie and maybe taken it up with the poster, or if the problem is chronic, got some third-party help in guiding the poster for the future. Again, it's silly to try to unring the bell. EEng 19:23, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps, as a possible outcome of this discussion, Colt AR-15 should be added to the list of pages of interest to Project Medicine. As has been noted, there is already similar content there. Geogene (talk) 16:11, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

I have restored it. Since Jimbo Wales did not die and leave Geogene in charge, he doesn't own the page. If he doesn't like the notice, he could avert his eyes. --Calton | Talk 16:40, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

While this statement is technically true, I believe you have the party usernames backwards. Geogene (talk) 17:24, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

I was going to post the same thing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:56, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

And, RexxS has now edit warred it out again. This has to be very near a bright line violation. [130]. I'm telling you, there's something there they have a problem with, and it goes beyond any good faith interest in procedure. Geogene (talk) 18:05, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

When I've removed it as many times as you've added it (that's THREE times in your case), you'll be in a position to talk about the "bright line" that you were already at yesterday. What is it going to take to convince you that edit-warring isn't the way to solve disputes? The notice has been removed by three different members of WPMED. When will you get the message? we don't reward edit-warring. --RexxS (talk) 18:37, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

• Comment - I found the behaviour by RexxS on the Wikiproject Talk page to be downright insulting. Sample edit summaries include:

• Persistant little bugger isn't he
• hooray - you've worked out the bit about "on topic"
• Utter nonsense etc.

Comments directed at Georgene elsewhere were of similar caliber, such as here: "Now stop trolling here, and get back under your bridge." permalink. Granted, this was on RexxS's own Talk page, but still. I would not expect such a tone directed at an established, apparently good-faith contributor.

Apart from incivility, I noticed similar WP:OWN behaviour from RexxS at Talk:Gun violence in the United States#Contested projects a few weeks ago, when another user attempted to tag the page as falling under the scope of WP:Medicine project (permalink). The comments from RexxS included: "WikiProjects decide their own scope"; "It is not sufficient for a topic to be related to medicine for it to fall in the scope of WikiProject Medicine". The discussion ultimately resulted in the page being tagged.

I found it odd that RexxS would object to tagging a clearly-related page, so their opposision to the RfC notice, to the point of insults and edit warring seems to be part of a pattern. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:00, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

• @Geogene: and others. There is a fundamental error in your position here. If you understand that, you'll realize that everything else here is tilting at windmills. The Colt AR-15 and a massacre are not biomedical topics and should not be dealt with at the Wiki project medical page. The shoes I wear influence my health so does the car I drive. In fact pretty much anything a human being does impacts health. However, the MEDRS page and project are devoted to content that is, and I know I'm repeating myself, strictly biomedical in nature. Your RfC was closed as being at the wrong NB. Just take it somewhere else. Do you see that if editors do not delineate clearly what is biomedical and what isn't the MEDRS NB could be inundated with any and every topic because like I said, everything we as human beings do can be seen as and stretched to relate to our health/lives. Nor is ignoring that an RfC is posted on a wrong notice board how Wikipedia works. What works is for editors with interests and experience in certain areas to help regulate what happens in those areas. This is a volunteer project. If we didn't all get involved the place would fall apart right after it became clogged up and then bogged down with the inappropriate. Rexx is a long time, highly-respected, MEDRS editor who is known for fairness and neutrality. I don't always have to agree with him to know that any other agenda here than to help make this part of WP run as efficiently as possible is a grave error in judgement, and tells me you don't know the history of the editor you are dealing with. Please rethink your position and take your concerns to the right NB. Wiki project medicine isn't it.(Littleolive oil (talk) 19:34, 8 April 2018 (UTC))

I understand that your experiences may have been different, but nothing on that page or on this noticeboard shows Rexx as worthy of being "highly respected" or even capable of fairness or neutrality. What I see here is a partisan POV warrior who has a serious problem with gun control. Geogene (talk) 19:47, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

You are making assumptions based on the fact that someone disagrees with you. I've read through most if not all of the posts on this issue. You are refusing to see how the Wikipedia community deals with MEDRS. While you may have a personal and perhaps legitimate position, that position is not shared by the people who have worked in this area, and probably with the community as a whole. And you are ignoring what I wrote above. This reminds me of people who insist on picking wild flowers in protected areas. "I can pick them; its just a few," while ignoring that fact that if everyone picked a few there would be nothing left. If everyone brought what they personally "thought" is medical related the medical project notice board, the MEDRS notice board could not function. This is a collaborative project not one owned by everyone with an opinion. I've had arguments with Rexx; what I know is that he's honest and tries to be fair and kind whether I agree or not. If he's not in this case you might look to yourself. It can be hard to back down from a position but there is dignity in that too.(Littleolive oil (talk) 20:49, 8 April 2018 (UTC))

You're here to defend your friend, not give an opinion based on the evidence. Geogene (talk) 20:52, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

You are confusing evidence with opinion and you are not understanding how collaboration works. As long as that is the case there's not much more, I at least, can say. You are pushing on a very big rock when you try to redefine what the MEDRS NB is and what it handles. Its frustrating for those who work here all the time. You are refusing to take your case some where else where it could legitimately be dealt with. Best wishes.(Littleolive oil (talk) 21:07, 8 April 2018 (UTC))

@Littleolive oil: To continue the analogy of "picking wild flowers", if you are caught doing this, a Park Service ranger <redacted> may fine or even arrest you, but they will now shower you with insults. We should expect better from a "long time, highly-respected" editor, rather than bullying and insults for daring to post to their project while, gasp, not being a member. Please explain how you consider edit summaries such as "Persistant little bugger isn't he" to be acceptable on the MEDRS page. --K.e.coffman (talk) 21:44, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

I strongly suggest that you strike comments <redacted> - such inflammatory comments do nothing to resolve the situation and only make coming to a mutually agreeable consensus less likely. Behaviour like this can only drive editors away, possibly permanently, to the disadvantage of the encyclopedia.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:58, 8 April 2018 (UTC) Redacted upon request. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:22, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

I think I made it clear that my posts had to do with trying to explain the "bottom line" in this issue. I am also suggesting that my long time experience with an editor points to an underlying history of behaviour. If you want to start discussing who said what in this specific case, well then we have to place everyone in context and deal with all editors. I don't care about doing that; people get frustrated that's all I have say about both here. As for wildflowers; where I came from you can be fined and maybe even arrested for picking endangered plants. My analogy though stops at one is too many when there are lots of people saying its ok for me. Shooting someone in the head leans towards hyperbole, non? The RfC was closed; most of us would toddle off and find another notice board where we could get feedback. We can't force an RfC; this is a collaborative community whether we like it or not.(Littleolive oil (talk) 22:13, 8 April 2018 (UTC))

• I think this is a pretty obvious example of canvassing. Especially since Geogene said he expected WP:MED to be sympathetic to his point of view. Even if gun violence in the contect of medicine is relevant to WP:MED, an individual weapon obviously is not. Natureium (talk) 20:08, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
• "I think this is a pretty obvious example of canvassing" What are you referring to? Add: I cannot speak for anyone else here but I have not discussed this with anyone nor has anyone asked for my input on this. I started watching this yesterday and did not intend to comment for fear of adding fuel to the proverbial fire, but as someone who has connections to the MEDRS page and comments here every now and then I finally decided to add a comment.(Littleolive oil (talk) 20:58, 8 April 2018 (UTC))

• fwiw I considered the removal of the RfC notice kind of.. i don't know....rude, and in my view it cast WPMED in a poor light. If people want to editors active at WP:MED to made aware of something, that is the place to do it. People are free to ignore it if they wish. There is an obvious public health connection with gun violence (our article about the agreement that is the subject of the RfC (National Firearms Agreement) cites for example PMID 17170183 from the Journal of Injury Prevention , as well as others, which analyze the effects of the agreement and subsequent laws on deaths from guns.) It isn't CANVASS because the notice itself was neutral, and Geogene also posted at FIREARMS and the article on the port arthur incident itself, per their contribs from that time.

This happened when I wasn't looking and I wish that Ozzie10aaaa, RexxS, and Natureium hadn't done this, and I ask you all to reverse yourselves so this can go away. Jytdog (talk) 21:41, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Jytdog, I think you're wrong about it not being canvassing. When an editor admits that he posted somewhere specifically because he thought that the editors there would be more likely to agree with their position, that is canvassing, by definition. The purpose of neutral pointers is to get more participants involved in a discussion, not to get more participants of a particular kind. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:52, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't think that there's anything left to "reverse". The RFC note is still at WT:MED, neatly boxed up by the ever-practical soupvector to stop people talking about whether it belonged there.

For those that don't follow WT:MED every day,[1] we just had a big discussion about this a couple of weeks ago. The group doesn't care about individual brands or models of firearms. The group does care about big-picture public health subjects, such as Gun violence (now re-re-tagged for WPMED over the objections of a non-participant who thought that we shouldn't care). The RFC in question is about whether to place a link about an event in the article about a particular brand and model of firearm. In other words, the RFC is about exactly what we said a few weeks ago that we didn't care about. Short of every editor reading All The Pages every day, there's no way that anyone would have known about this, but the end result is the same: It's out of scope for this group, even though it's connected, at one or two removes, to things that we would support. It therefore doesn't surprise or distress me that an editor who didn't know about that discussion might leave a note, or that an editor who did know about that decision removed it. This kind of thing happens, and it shouldn't have turned into this mess, but I think everyone's done now. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:03, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

[1] If you don't, then you're missing out.

User:Constantinehuk

Almost all contributions of this user in 2017 and 2018 are, well, trolling. How should we proceed from this point further?--Ymblanter (talk) 12:00, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Please give me some examples of that "trolling". If you do not like the idea that Kiev, naming of which in English was changed to Kyiv 25 years ago, the change adopted by major international organizations and modern online maps, thus fulfilling WP:COMMONNAME/WP:NAMECHANGES (and no another example of such an unfair treatment to a city in the whole world showed), you are entitled to your opinion. Anything else? Constantinehuk (talk) 13:52, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Your claim that Kyiv has been widely adopted in English language media and sources, and thus meets WP:COMMONNAME/WP:NAMECHANGES, is patently false, as has been proven countless times in the ongoing discussion on Talk:Kiev/naming, so you are now not only being highly disruptive in that discussion, by flatly refusing to accept that there's no support for moving the article, but are also repeating your false claims here, at WP:ANI... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 14:08, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

"Your claim that Kyiv has been widely adopted in English language media and sources"

Give me a citation of that my claim, will you? Constantinehuk (talk) 14:24, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Claiming that the change meets the demands set in WP:COMMONNAME/WP:NAMECHANGES is a false claim that a majority of English language media/sources have switched to using Kyiv instead of Kiev, since that is what is required to meet WP:COMMONNAME/WP:NAMECHANGES... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 14:31, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Why one criterion (use by media sources) is more important for you than two others (use by major international organizations and modern online maps - especially when we talk about geographical names)? Constantinehuk (talk) 14:37, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME/WP:NAMECHANGES is a Wikipedia policy, i.e. not just a personal opinion held by me or other editors but a firmly set rule... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 14:41, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

You have dismissed 2 of 3 criteria in that policy. Not good... Constantinehuk (talk) 18:32, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

This article from the NY Times says "KIEV".[131] But what do they know? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:15, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Media sources still predominantly use "Kiev" - but not major international organizations, nor modern online maps. Constantinehuk (talk) 14:24, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

And in Google, "Kiev" outnumbers "Kyiv" by about 4 to 1. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:17, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

And in Google, "Bombay" outnumbers "Mumbay (including results for Mumbai)" by about 150:1. Kyiv is in much better position, is not it? Constantinehuk (talk) 14:24, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

The NY Times calls it "Mumbai".[132] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:39, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

And when I Google "Mumbai" and "Bombay", "Mumbai" outnumbers "Bombay" at least 3 to 1. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:43, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Google ngrams. EEng 15:07, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

The comparison doesn't really show "the truth", since there are a still a few often Googled entities that use Bombay instead of Mumbai in their official names, such as Bombay Stock Exchange and Bombay High Court. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 15:17, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

I'd go with the NY Times over the opinion of some random editor. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:24, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Why not with Google Maps or World Trade Organisation? Constantinehuk (talk) 18:32, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Less relevant. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:32, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: I'm not sure if I agree with labelling Constantinehuk's editing as trolling, IMO it's more a case of not being here to build an encyclopaedia, only to push nationalistic Ukrainian views, as part of the latest wave of new Ukrainian editors doing that (with another one being Special:Contributions/Віталій Добрівський, an editor who has repeatedly added the blue/yellow trident state symbol of the modern day country of Ukraine as state symbol of Kievan Rus', with a false claim of it also having been used by them a thousand years ago...). - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 14:25, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Are major international organizations and modern online maps are too "pushing nationalistic Ukrainian views" (thus fulfilling WP:COMMONNAME/WP:NAMECHANGES)?

P.S. And I said nothing about "blue/yellow trident state symbol". Constantinehuk (talk) 14:32, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

And no one claimed you did either, so maybe much of the problem lies in you simply not understanding English well enough to be able to contribute constructively to this version of Wikipedia? - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 14:37, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

I suspect that User:Thomas.W is correct that Constantinhuk doesn't understand English well enough to follow the discussion. He and User:Roman Spinner are engaged in a massive WP:IDLI campaign without actually initiating a WP:RFM, which they both know that they would lose by WP:SNOW. --Taivo (talk) 17:36, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

When arguments are absent, blame the opponent and threaten with WP:SNOW? Very invigorating. Constantinehuk (talk) 18:32, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

You really, really need a new dictionary. EEng 18:50, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

ANI is not the place to debate or resolve content disputes. However, this discussion illuminates the behavioral problem. Constantinehuk, this is a formal warning: Wikipedia operates on the consensus model of decision-making. Editing against consensus is tendentious and disruptive. If you continue pushing this point against consensus, you will be blocked. My personal suggestion is to devote your energy on this matter to persuading major English language newspapers, press agencies and news magazines to change their usage. Wikipedia follows such sources and does not lead them. Please take this warning seriously. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:54, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Senor Cuete casting aspersions

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

Senor Cuete has been involved in a dispute at Johnny Winter over what to include in the discography. Since he performed two reverts while discussion was underway at Talk:Johnny Winter, I thought it prudent to issue him the standard edit warring notice in the event he needed to be reported to AN/3.

During the course of discussions, Senor Cuete has twice insinuated or accused Ojorojo and I of being sockpuppets, evidently since we agreed on certain points in the dispute, or since we both type spaces after colons (even though Ojorojo doesn't do this). Two days ago, I requested that Senor Cuete retract the accusation and directed him to WP:ASPERSIONS. He indicated his intention of filing an SPI yesterday, but he has edited since then and hasn't done so.

I should note that I have twice conjectured that we are dealing with a language barrier here, owing to Senor Cuete's consistent misreading of text and his poor command of English, which he takes as a personal attack.

I request that the sockpuppet accusation be retracted/removed from the article Talk page, and that Senor Cuete be appropriately directed about the seriousness of casting aspersions while trying to win arguments. Ojorojo in particular is trying to have these articles assessed for Featured status in the future and doesn't deserve to have his reputation besmirched with this nonsense. --Laser brain (talk) 14:54, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

I have removed the unsubstantiated accusations at Talk:Johnny_Winter#Unauthorized/gray_market_compilations. For a longtime user, the poor editing behaviour and the textbook example of refusal to get the point demonstrated in their participation of the discussions is by no means acceptable. I will issue a warning at the user talk page. Alex Shih (talk) 15:18, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Laser brain and Alex Shih for bringing this to a satisfactory conclusion. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:42, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

RHaworth and speedies

RHaworth (talk · contribs) is a long-standing admin who has done a lot of work to clear the persistent backlog at CAT:CSD. However, I have witnessed him making mistakes and talking to newbies in a far too intemperate a manner. I know admins don't have to be perfect, and I'm not always the most civil and polite admin on the block, granted, but I think he's going a bit too far. Some recent examples:

• UK railway station openings / reopenings by year (now at Draft:UK railway station openings / reopenings by year) - deleted A10 as a copy of History of rail transport in Great Britain 1995 to date though the list intended to cover the greater scope of all UK stations. See comment from Andy Dingley.

• Green tomato cars - deleted G11, after challenged by the creator, the response was "learn to provide a link when you talk about a page". After I restored the article, RHaworth sent it to AfD and moved it to Green Tomato Cars without a redirect (causing a problem where I inadvertently created the article again while I was copyediting it, requiring a history merge to fix). The AfD does not have an unanimous "delete" consensus, which is a good general arbiter of whether or not a speedy is appropriate.

• Draft:Divya Agarwal - deleted G4, though no previous deletion discussion had taken place. See comment from Chrissymad where she appears to be complaining about RHaworth calling Oshwah a "pedant".

• Draft:Comedian Nazareth - deleted per G13, hence can be restored on request. RHaworth's reply was "Kindly have the decency to wait until someone who a) knows how to create Wikipedia articles and b) has no CoI, thinks your client is notable and writes about him here.", also altering an earlier talk page comment of mine in the process (a minor violation of WP:TPO).

These are all in the last week or so, but if you go onto RHaworth's talk page archives, you can see other examples of him being unhelpful. I appreciate that speedy deletion is necessary for the project - heck, I speedy delete plenty of stuff myself, and admins sometimes differ over what is speedyable. However, I sincerely believe if you delete a page created in good faith, you should be in a position to work with that editor, and not make them increasingly frustrated. I don't seem to be the only one with this opinion; as you might imagine, SoWhy has previously said "With all due respect to RHaworth, I would never agree that a speedy deletion was justified just because he thought so." and this notorious boingboing piece which says "I do not have the capability to write an additional 2 million more articles in my lifetime to save the remaining 2 million stubs from deletionists like RHaworth, the hemovanadin killer whose itchy deletion finger was noted by a commenter in my previous article as directly responsible for that editor's abandoning the project." (the context here is an incorrect G12 deletion on Hemovanadin). Okay, strong opinions there that not everyone will agree with, but this isn't just a personal grudge, more an indication that there is a problem.

To be honest, I'd feel more comfortable if RHaworth had given me a thorough dressing down about how I was being overly aggressive and how his admin actions were correct (I wouldn't agree with it but I would understand why he would say it), but I've had next to no feedback. Things have deteriorated to the point where I don't trust any deletion activity he does as being correct and just revert anything that I feel is wrong. This is a bad situation to be in, as it's one stop short of wheel-warring, but as Andy Dingley put it here, "Go and do some training for WMF / WMUK somewhere. Hear the "I wrote something and then it was deleted immediately with no discussion" stories - it's so often the same admin names that come up, over and over again." So I think the community needs to do something.

Any ideas? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:06, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

• Awaiting a response by RHaworth; it's unlikely discussion will be productive before then. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:35, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks Ritchie for opening this, although I'm not optimistic about much happening as a result (an admin admit they're wrong?). This is a long-standing issue - although even RHaworth's "unorthodox" user_talk: page archiving strategy makes it impossible to search its history.

Just a month or two back though, we had this one on Category:Bandini vehicles: WikiProject Automobiles §Bandini deletions, Criteria for speedy deletion §G6 on "empty" categories? – another one where an invalid CSD nomination, on a clearly contentious issue, was then implemented as deletion without the slightest check or question. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:35, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Further on the "bad press" aspect, we get articles like this: "Watching Wikipedia's extinction event from a distance". Boing Boing. 14 February 2017. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:08, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

There's another recent complaint at User talk:Feminist#'Murica! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:13, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

• It has been obvious for very many years to anyone who bothers to look that RHaworth is incompetent to judge speedy deletion. He was one of the two or three admins primarily responsible for my giving up editing with a userid a few years ago. One example among many was his speedy deletion of Cheveley Park Stud and the title's salting in response to my questioning of the deletion. It's about time we did something about long-standing admins who get away with such disruption simply because of their length of tenure. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:47, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

• He does a LOT of CSD so there is bound to be some who find fault occasionally. Every page subjected to CSD has at least the creator believingbit should remain live. Legacypac (talk) 20:52, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

• Try actually looking at his record rather than making such general statements. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:03, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Well I'm not an Admin so I can only see so much - but the IP should actually look at my 11 page long record covering only since June 2017 before assuming I don't have a very good idea about every Admin's competence in processing Speedies. Legacypac (talk) 21:10, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

As stated above, I do lots of speedies myself; however I think the key issue is effective communication and managing people's expectations. It's why I created essays such as User:Ritchie333/Plain and simple guide to copyvios simply because trying to explain WP:G12 (which requires an instant deletion, if valid) to a newbie without them getting the hump is actually quite a difficult task. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:28, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) If we're going to let publications such as BoingBoing dictate our policies and (worse) ANI-cases against admins, we're definitely on the wrong track. The two articles cited are prime examples of hit-pieces instead of serious press. If BoingBoing doesn't like Wikipedia, I tend to view that as a compliment. As to the matter at hand, I side with Legacypac: you can't make an omelet w/o breaking some eggs, you can't be an admin without stepping on various toes. Kleuske (talk) 21:34, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

• Have you read the Boing Boing piece? Have you read the technical backstory to the hemovanadin CSD? This was a technical failure in sloppy adminship: a clear and unquestioned copyvio change to an article (previously not a copyvio) was reacted to by deletion, rather than reversion. There's just no excuse for that. The Bandini category was deleted for an invalid CSD reason which just isn't applicable to content categories (it's there for housekeeping of maintenance categories only).

AfD is always a battle between inclusionism vs. deletionism. But this isn't AfD, it's CSD - that should be simpler, there's no judgemental wiggle room for inclusion or not. CSD is there (and only there) for the technical reasons and the unambiguous invalid articles. If someone, even the article creator, can make a policy-valid case that an article might be suitable for inclusion, then the CSD fails and it goes to AfD as a minimum. CSD is just not there for arguing inclusionist / deletionist cases. But these deletions are so often technically broken - outside the policies of valid CSD rules. CSD is not about "speedy" deletion, it's about clear, unarguable and uncontestable deletion. If they're arguable, there are other mechanisms. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:55, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

• @Andy Dingley: I have read both pieces and both, but especially the first, lack any journalistic decency. Both depend more on insinuations than facts. I have gone through the history of hemovanadin and what I see is Wikipedia working as it should. Someone screwed up and it got corrected quickly. I despise all isms and actively dislike people who reduce issues to various isms, since that's a very divisive way dealing with things. If you expect admins to be flawless, you'l be disappointed. No-one (but no-one) on Wikipedia is. Kleuske (talk) 22:04, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

• See my comment in the recent SoWhy thread: RHaworth is on the opposite end of the speedy-deletion spectrum as SoWhy. He will delete a lot of things I wouldn't, but at the same time, most of the things he deletes really should be deleted, and having someone to push the envelope in that direction in terms of quality-control isn't necessarily a bad thing. I've brought an article to DYK after he deleted it (Tallinn Central Library (deletion log under a different title.), and I'll admit that his response to me was a bit gruff, but this was also how it stood when he deleted it. I can't rally blame him for that, even if my approach was different.
  I've noticed a few G12s in the past that I think he should be more careful on (I can't find them now, so this is more of just general feedback than an accusation or diff-able type thing), and I do think that he could be better in his responses to users on his talk page, but at the end of the day, I think he does a lot of good work that is needed. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:44, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

"I do think that he could be better in his responses to users on his talk page" And Donald Trump could be a bit more conciliatory and tactful over what he says in public. Anyway, that's not the real issue here, which is - if I happen to see a deletion from RHaworth that I disagree with (which seems to be about four a week at the moment), is the community okay with me just restoring it and telling him to go jump? I don't think that's a healthy situation to be in. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:48, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

• "most of the things he deletes really should be deleted"

Most isn't good enough. We have policies for a reason, and they're binding on RHaworth too. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:58, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

• I'm sure that the vast majority of RHaworth's CSDs are correct, but on the other hand if you're going to do a lot of CSD, you really do need to get the basics right, and you do need to communicate reasonably with often unhappy users. The first three examples quoted by Ritchie (the A10 of the railway stations, the G11 of the taxi company, and the G4) were all simply wrong. Whilst calling Oshwah a pedant was unnecessary, the G4 doesn't really matter that much because the article was deletable as G11 (although I note the person is probably notable if someone wrote a proper article), but the other two were not. Black Kite (talk) 21:51, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

• "you really do need to get the basics right, and you do need to communicate reasonably with often unhappy users. " Amen to that. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:59, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
• Yes, I can agree with your analysis. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:05, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

• Admins that do a lot of CSD will have the appearance of making more mistakes (believe me, I would know). Relative to other admins, RHaworth has been our most active non-bot admin by an enormous margin since the beginning of 2018. I'm skeptical that RHaworth's ratio of errors to deletes is higher than any other admin. Yes, his communication style could be better, but I'm not seeing any immediate need for sanctions. -FASTILY 22:13, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

I've got a good theory behind that. If you just accept every CSD tag is correct and just hit "delete" indiscriminately regardless of whether it's justified, you can get through a backlog far quicker than if you look at the article and sources, and confirm whether deletion is the correct action. To give you an example, I've just declined two A7s for Nancy Smith (designer) and Monica Rawlins; fixing up the article so it is properly formatted and clearly shows sources (principally to stop somebody else coming along and tagging it them A7 again) took about ten minutes. Hitting the "delete" button on the pair would have taken ten seconds. In that respect, it's no different than the problems I saw at AfC some years back where a few editors "helpfully" cleared the backlog of reviews by declining just about everything. I apologise if it wasn't obvious from the opening statement, but I wasn't particularly looking for sanctions (what form would said sanctions take, for a start?); rather I just wanted an explanation. I certainly haven't got one from his talk page. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:21, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

• Contrary to what many may think, I do have a life outside of Wikipedia. Hence the timing of this reply. Yes, Ritchie I think you are being overly aggressive. Apparently I am not allowed to make any mistakes at all. But to look at the examples you quote:

• Green tomato cars. I don't even call this a mistake, simply an example of bold / revert / discuss operating as it should. I found it with a speedy tag, agreed with that tag and made bold to delete it. Ritchie disagreed and reverted my deletion. I initiated an AfD discussion. What's the problem?

• UK railway station openings / reopenings by year. Similar to the above but in this case I have not even bothered to initiate a discussion.

• Draft:Divya Agarwal. A favourite line of mine from Murder in the Cathedral: "the last temptation is the greatest treason: to do the right deed for the wrong reason". Certainly giving an inaccurate deletion reason seems to be a treasonable offence on Wikipedia.

• Draft:Comedian Nazareth. The message on my talk page did not explicitly request a restore. Was I expected to restore the work of an obvious CoI merchant voluntrarily? or even advise him of his rights to make such a request?

In short: I defend all my deletions - am I required to be perfect? - if a small fraction of them were "wrong" others have restored them. But Ritchie, feel free to comment if you think I am communicating unreasonably with any unhappy user. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:33, 8 April 2018 (UTC)